HomeMy WebLinkAbout; ; Beach Replenishment Carlsbad Environmental; 1997-05-01ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
BEACH REPLENISHMENT AT
NORTH CARLSBAD, SOUTH CARLSBAD,
ENCINITAS, AND TORREY PINES
May 1997
Southwest Division
U.S. Department of the Navy
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACOE
APCD
BRAC
CA
CCD
CCSTWS
CDFG
CEQ
CFR
cm
CWA
cy
dBA
DGPS
dia
EA
EIS
EJ
EPA
ESA
FONSI
FRH
ft
in
km
LCP
LUP
m•>m~
m3
m3/m
mi
jam
MSL
NASNI
NEPA
NMFS
NOAA
ppm
ROD
RWQCB
SANDAG
SDG&E
SPCC
sq
SR
USFWS
yd2
Army Corps of Engineers
Air Pollution Control District
Base Realignment and Closure
Cooperative Agreement
Coastal Consistency Determination
Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study
California Department of Fish and Game
Council on Environmental Quality
Code of Federal Regulations
centimeter
Clean Water Act
cubic yards
A-weighted decibels
Differential Geographic Positioning System
diameter
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Endangered Species Act
Finding Of No Significant Impact
Frederic R. Harris, Inc.
feet
inches
kilometers
Local Coastal Program
Land Use Plan
meters
square meter
cubic meters
cubic meters per meter
miles
micrometers
Mean Sea Level
Naval Air Station North Island
National Environmental Policy Act
National Marine Fisheries Sesrvice
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
parts per million
Record of Decision
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Association of Governments
San Diego Gas & Electric
Spill Prevention Control and Counter-Measure Plan
square
State Route
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
square yard
a-l 211603000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FY97
BEACH REPLENISHMENT
AT NORTH CARLSBAD, SOUTH CARLSBAD,
ENCINITAS, AND TORREY PINES, CALIFORNIA
ABSTRACT
The Department of the Navy has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze
the placement of dredged material on beaches in North Carlsbad, South Carlsbad,
Encinitas, and Torrey Pines, or as an alternative at Buccaneer Beach in South Oceanside
for beach replenishment. This action is being undertaken to accommodate the disposal of
dredged material as a result of dredging operations in San Diego Bay for the homeporting
of a NIMITZ class aircraft carrier and to comply with the San Diego Association of
Government's Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region (SANDAG
1993). The proposed action is scheduled to be implemented starting July 1997. This
document is intended to be a "tiered" EA based on analyses provided in the
Environmental Impact Statement for the Development of Facilities in San
Diego/Coronado for the Homeporting of One NIMITZ Class Aircraft Carrier (Navy
1995a). Due to subsequent changes in the location of receiver beaches, as identified in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the EA evaluates the potential effects of
beach replenishment and associated operations (e.g., barge placement, sediment disposal,
and grading) at the proposed receiver sites and addresses the following site-specific
environmental issues: geology and soils, coastal wetlands, water resources, biology, land
use and recreation, safety and environmental health, aesthetics, utilities, and noise.
Prepared by:
U.S. Department of the Navy
Cooperating Agency:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Los Angeles District
Point of Contact:
Mr. Patrick McCoy
Southwest Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1220 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California 92132-5190
(619) 556-8706
May 1997
211603000 AB-1
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
AB-2 211603000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
LIST OF ACRONYMS a-1
ABSTRACT AB-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Need 1-4
1.3 Location of the Proposed Action 1 -6
1.4 Relevant Federal, State, and Local Statutes, Regulations,
and Guidelines 1-8
1.5 Interagency Coordination 1-21
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND
ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 Alternative Selection Criteria 2-1
2.2 Proposed Action - Beach Replenishment 2-3
2.3 Alternatives Considered 2-9
2.3.1 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 2-9
2.3.2 Torrey Pines Design Alternative 2-10
2.3.3 Agua Hedionda Alternative 2-10
2.3.4 South Encinitas Alternative 2-17
2.3.5 San Elijo State Beach Alternative 2-17
2.3.6 Del Mar Alternative 2-18
2.3.7 Torrey Pines Design Alternative 2-18
2.3.8 Black's Beach Alternative 2-18
2.3.9 Scripp's Alternative 2-20
2.4 No Action Alternative 2-20
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 Geology and Soils 3-1
3.1.1 Definition of Resource 3-1
3.1.2 North Carlsbad 3-1
3.1.2.1 Coastal Geology 3-1
3.1.2.2 Littoral Processes 3-2
211603000 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE PAGE
3.1.3 South Carlsbad 3-4
3.1.3.1 Coastal Geology 3-4
3.1.3.2 Littoral Processes 3-4
3.1.4 Encinitas 3-4
3.1.4.1 Coastal Geology 3-4
3.1.4.2 Littoral Processes 3-5
3.1.5 Torrey Pines 3-5
3.1.5.1 Coastal Geology 3-5
3.1.5.2 Littoral Processes 3-5
3.1.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 3-6
3.1.6.1 Coastal Geology 3-6
3.1.6.2 Littoral Processes 3-6
3.2 Coastal Wetlands 3-6
3.2.1 Definition of Resource 3-6
3.2.2 San Luis Rey River 3-7
3.2.3 Loma Alta Creek 3-7
3.2.4 Buena Vista Lagoon 3-7
3.2.5 Agua Hedionda Lagoon 3-8
3.2.6 Encinas Creek 3-9
3.2.7 Batiquitos Lagoon 3-9
3.2.8 San Elijo Lagoon 3-10
3.2.9 San Dieguito Lagoon 3-10
3.2.10 Los Penasquitos Lagoon 3-11
3.3 Water Resources 3-12
3.3.1 Definition of Resource 3-12
3.3.2 Physical Processes 3-12
3.3.3 Chemical Properties 3-13
3.3.4 Turbidity 3-13
3.4 Biology 3-14
3.4.1 Definition of Resource 3-14
3.4.2 North Carlsbad 3-15
3.4.3 South Carlsbad 3-21
3.4.4 Encinitas 3-22
ii 211603000
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE PAGE
3.4.5 Torrey Pines 3-27
3.4.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 3-28
3.5 Land Use and Recreation 3-31
3.5.1 Definition of Resource 3-31
3.5.2 North Carlsbad 3-32
3.5.3 South Carlsbad 3-34
3.5.4 Encinitas 3-35
3.5.5 Torrey Pines 3-36
3.5.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 3-37
3.6 Safety and Environmental Health 3-38
3.6.1 Definition of Resource 3-38
3.6.2 North Carlsbad 3-39
3.6.3 South Carlsbad 3-39
3.6.4 Encinitas 3-39
3.6.5 Torrey Pines 3-39
3.6.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 3-40
3.7 Aesthetics 3-40
3.7.1 Definition of Resource 3-40
3.7.2 North Carlsbad 3-40
3.7.3 South Carlsbad 3-41
3.7.4 Encinitas 3-41
3.7.5 Torrey Pines 3-41
3.7.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 3-45
3.8 Structures and Utilities 3-49
3.8.1 Definition of Resource 3-49
3.8.2 North Carlsbad 3-49
3.8.2.1 Access Stairs 3-49
3.8.2.2 Storm Drains 3-49
3.8.2.3 Sea Walls 3-51
3.8.3 South Carlsbad 3-51
3.8.3.1 Access Stairs 3-51
3.8.4 Encinitas 3-51
3.8.4.1 Access Stairs 3-51
211603000 iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE PAGE
3.8.4.2 Storm Drains 3-54
3.8.4.3 Sea Walls 3-54
3.8.5 Torrey Pines 3-54
3.8.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 3-54
3.8.6.1 Access Stairs 3-54
3.9 Noise 3-56
3.9.1 Definition of Resource 3-56
3.9.2 North Carlsbad 3-56
3.9.2.1 Noise Measurements 3-56
3.9.2.2 Noise Ordinances 3-58
3.9.3 South Carlsbad 3-58
3.9.3.1 Noise Measurements 3-58
3.9.3.2 Noise Ordinances 3-59
3.9.4 Encinitas 3-60
3.9.4.1 Noise Measurements 3-60
3.9.4.2 Noise Ordinances 3-61
3.9.5 Torrey Pines 3-62
3.9.5.1 Noise Measurements 3-62
3.9.5.2 Noise Ordinances 3-63
3.9.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 3-64
3.9.6.1 Noise Measurements 3-64
3.9.6.2 Noise Ordinances 3-65
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 Geology and Soils 4-1
4.1.1 Approach to Analysis 4-1
4.1.2 North Carlsbad 4-2
4.1.2.1 Coastal Geology 4-2
4.1.2.2 Littoral Processes 4-4
4.1.3 South Carlsbad 4-5
4.1.3.1 Coastal Geology 4-5
4.1.3.2 Littoral Processes 4-5
4.1.4 Encinitas 4-7
iv 211603000
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE PAGE
4.1.4.1 Coastal Geology 4-7
4.1.4.2 Littoral Processes 4-9
4.1.5 Torrey Pines 4-9
4.1.5.1 Coastal Geology 4-9
4.1.5.2 Littoral Processes 4-11
4.1.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 4-11
4.1.6.1 Coastal Geology 4-11
4.1.6.2 Littoral Processes 4-12
4.2 Coastal Wetlands 4-15
4.2.1 Approach to Analysis 4-15
4.2.2 North Carlsbad 4-15
4.2.2.1 Loma Alta Creek 4-15
4.2.2.2 Buena Vista Lagoon 4-16
4.2.3 South Carlsbad 4-16
4.2.3.1 Encinas Creek 4-17
4.2.4 Encinitas 4-17
4.2.4.1 Encinas Creek 4-17
4.2.4.2 Batiquitos Lagoon 4-18
4.2.5 Torrey Pines 4-19
4.2.5.1 Los Penasquitos Lagoon 4-19
4.2.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 4-20
4.2.6.1 San Luis Key River 4-21
4.2.6.2 Loma Alta Creek 4-21
4.2.6.3 Buena Vista Lagoon 4-22
4.3 Water Resources 4-22
4.3.1 Approach to Analysis 4-22
4.3.2 Chemical Properties 4-23
4.3.3 Turbidity 4-23
4.4 Biology 4-25
4.4.1 Approach to Analysis 4-25
4.4.2 North Carlsbad 4-25
4.4.2.1 Sand Deposition 4-25
4.4.2.2 Barge Placement and Anchoring 4-28
211603000 v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE PAGE
4.4.2.3 Coastal Wetlands 4-29
4.4.3 South Carlsbad 4-29
4.4.3.1 Sand Deposition 4-29
4.4.3.2 Barge Placement and Anchoring 4-31
4.4.3.3 Coastal Wetlands 4-31
4.4.4 Encinitas 4-32
4.4.4.1 Sand Deposition 4-32
4.4.4.2 Barge Placement and Anchoring 4-33
4.4.4.3 Coastal Wetlands 4-34
4.4.5 Torrey Pines 4-34
4.4.5.1 Sand Deposition 4-34
4.4.5.2 Barge Placement and Anchoring 4-36
4.4.5.3 Coastal Wetlands 4-36
4.4.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 4-36
4.4.6.1 Sand Deposition 4-36
4.4.6.2 Barge Placement and Anchoring 4-38
4.4.6.3 Coastal Wetlands 4-38
4.5 Land Use and Recreation 4-39
4.5.1 Approach to Analysis 4-39
4.5.2 North Carlsbad 4-39
4.5.3 South Carlsbad 4-40
4.5.4 Encinitas 4-41
4.5.5 Torrey Pines 4-41
4.5.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 4-42
4.6 Safety and Environmental Health 4-43
4.6.1 Approach to Analysis 4-43
4.6.2 Proposed Beach Receiver Sites 4-43
4.7 Aesthetics 4-44
4.7.1 Approach to Analysis 4-44
4.7.2 Proposed Beach Receiver Sites 4-44
4.8 Structures and Utilities 4-45
4.8.1 Approach to Analysis 4-45
4.8.2 North Carlsbad 4-45
vi 211603000
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE PAGE
4.8.2.1 Access Stairs 4-45
4.8.2.2 Storm Drains 4-46
4.8.2.3 Sea Walls 4-46
4.8.3 South Carlsbad 4-46
4.8.3.1 Access Stairs 4-46
4.8.4 Encinitas 4-47
4.8.4.1 Access Stairs 4-47
4.8.4.2 Storm Drains 4-47
4.8.4.3 Sea Walls 4-48
4.8.5 Torrey Pines 4-48
4.8.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative 4-48
4.8.6.1 Access Stairs 4-48
4.9 Noise 4-48
4.9.1 Approach to Analysis 4-48
4.9.2 North Carlsbad 4-49
4.9.3 South Carlsbad 4-51
4.9.4 Encinitas 4-51
4.9.5 Torrey Pines 4-52
4.9.6 Buccaneer Beach (City of Oceanside)/South Carlsbad
Alternative 4-52
5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5-1
5.1 Cumulative Projects 5-1
5.2 Cumulative Environmental Effects 5-6
5.2.1 Geology and Soils 5-6
5.2.2 Coastal Wetlands 5-8
5.2.3 Water Resources 5-10
5.2.4 Biology 5-10
5.2.5 Land Use and Recreation 5-10
5.2.6 Safety and Environmental Health 5-11
5.2.7 Aesthetics 5-11
5.2.8 Structure and Utilities 5-11
5.2.9 Noise 5-11
211603000 vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE PAGE
6 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES 6-1
8
9
10
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM
USE OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
LIST OF PREPARERS
LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
REFERENCES
7-1
8-1
9-1
10-1
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE
1-1 Regional Location Map
1 -2 North Carlsbad Beach Fill Site
1 -3 South Carlsbad Beach Fill Site
1 -4 Encinitas Beach Fill Site
1-5 Torrey Pines Beach Fill Site
2-1 Typical Berm Cross-Sections, North and South Carlsbad
2-2 Typical Berm Cross-Sections, Encinitas and Torrey Pines
2-3 Buccaneer Beach Alternative Beach Fill Site
2-4 South Carlsbad Alternative Beach Fill Site
2-5 Typical Berm Cross-Sections, Buccaneer Beach
and South Carlsbad Alternatives
2-6 Alternative Beach Replenishment Sites
2-7 Beach Replenishment Sites
3-1 North Carlsbad/Buccaneer Beach Biological Resources
3-2 South Carlsbad Biological Resources
3-3 Encinitas Biological Resources
PAGE
1-7
1-9
1-11
1-13
1-15
2-4
2-6
2-11
2-13
2-15
2-16
2-19
3-17
3-23
3-25
VIU 211603000
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
3-5 Recreational Surfing Sites 3-33
3-6 North Carlsbad Receiver Site Existing Views 3-42
3-7 South Carlsbad Receiver Site Existing Views 3-43
3-8 Encinitas Receiver Site Existing Views 3-44
3-9 Northern Torrey Pines Receiver Site Existing Views 3-46
3-10 Southern Torrey Pines Receiver Site Existing Views 3-47
3-11 Buccaneer Beach Alternative Receiver Site Existing Views 3-48
3-12 Existing Structures and Utilities, North Carlsbad Site 3-50
3-13 Existing Structures and Utilities, South Carlsbad Site 3-52
3-14 Existing Structures and Utilities, Encinitas Site 3-53
3-15 Existing Structures and Utilities, Buccaneer Beach Alternative Site 3-55
4-1 Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, North Carlsbad Site 4-3
4-2 Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, South Carlsbad Site 4-6
4-3 Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, Encinitas Site 4-8
4-4 Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, Torrey Pines Site 4-10
4-5 Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, Buccaneer Beach
Alternative Site 4-13
4-6 Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, South Carlsbad
Alternative Site 4-14
5-1 Cumulative Projects 5-2
5-2 Cumulative Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response from South
Oceanside to North Carlsbad 5-5
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
ES-1 Beach Fill Quantities ES-2
2-1 Phase II Beach Replenishment Characteristics 2-5
2-2 Alternative Beach Replenishment Characteristics 2-9
3-1 Longshore Sediment Transport Rate Estimates for the Oceanside
Littoral Cell 3-3
211603000 IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
3-2 Ambient Acoustical Conditions at North Carlsbad 3-57
3-3 Ambient Acoustical Conditions at South Carlsbad 3-59
3-4 Ambient Acoustical Conditions at Encinitas 3-60
3-5 Ambient Acoustical Conditions at Torrey Pines 3-63
3-6 Ambient Acoustical Conditions at Buccaneer Beach 3-65
4-1 Expected Noise Impacts Due to Replenishment Activities 4-50
5-1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts to Individual Beach Fills 5-7
5-2 Inlet Maintenance Responsibility 5-9
211603000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed action involves the onshore placement of dredged material for beach
replenishment at receiver sites located in North Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, Encinitas, and
Torrey Pines. Alternative beach replenishment sites include Buccaneer Beach in South
Oceanside and an extension to the South Carlsbad site. A Phase I Environmental
Assessment (EA) was previously prepared for beach replenishment at South Oceanside
and Cardiff/Solana Beach, and a Finding of No Significant Impact was issued for that
action. This Phase II EA addresses beach replenishment operations including transport of
sediment via hopper dredge from dredging locations in San Diego Bay, placement of the
dredge at various offshore locations, pumping of sediment onto the receiver beaches, and
placement of sediment using grading equipment.
The purpose and need of the proposed action is to replenish beaches with critical erosion
problems, in accordance with a request submitted to the Navy by the San Diego
Association of Governments' (SANDAG) Shoreline Erosion Committee.
Implementation of the proposed action is intended to provide a wider recreational beach,
reduce erosion, and protect the shoreline. Beach replenishment would provide an
immediate benefit by maximizing onshore beach fill in the Oceanside Littoral Cell, rather
than placing sediment in the nearshore zone.
The proposed action includes beach replenishment at four receiver sites; however, an
alternative plan was included after sensitive marine resources were identified in the
nearshore zone at the Encinitas receiver site. Due to potential long-term impacts to
sensitive marine resources, the majority of the Encinitas beach fill would be placed at
Buccaneer Beach in South Oceanside, and additional fill would be placed at South
Carlsbad. Proposed and alternative beach fill quantities are included in Table ES-1.
Sand placement operations for the proposed action would occur at North Carlsbad from
October to mid-November 1997; at South Carlsbad from mid-November 1997 to January
1998; at Encinitas from January to mid-April 1998; and at Torrey Pines from mid-April
to June 1998. Should the alternative plan be implemented, sand placement would occur
at Buccaneer Beach from mid-July to October 1997; at North Carlsbad from November
1997 to January 1998; at South Carlsbad from January to April 1998; and at Torrey Pines
from April to June 1998.
211603000 ES-1
Table ES-1
BEACH FILL QUANTITIES
Proposed Action
Beach Fill Sites Fill Quantities (m3)
North Carlsbad 420,510
South Carlsbad 420,510
Encinitas 871,620
North Torrey Pines 279,545
South Torrey Pines 2 1 7,425
TOTAL 2,209,610
Alternative Plan
Beach Fill Sites Fill Quantities (m3)
Buccaneer Beach 580,245
North Carlsbad 420,510
South Carlsbad 711,885
North Torrey Pines 279,545
South Torrey Pines 2 1 7,425
TOTAL 2,209,610
Beach replenishment operations (i.e., sand pumping and grading) would occur 24 hours
per day, 7 days a week. Operations would occur at all of the identified receiver beaches
at various times throughout the day and night.
A summary of impacts for each environmental issue analyzed in this EA is presented
below.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed action would result in short-term changes to the existing beach profile.
Beach fill would be spread by littoral processes and would affect beach areas north and
south of the receiver sites, causing widening of beach areas other than the receiver sites.
However, this effect would be short term, as sand transport modeling predicts that beach
fill would be transported off beaches into the nearshore zone over a period of 2 years.
Accumulation of sediment in the nearshore environment would potentially affect
breaking waves less than 1 meter (m) (3.3 feet [ft]) hi height. However, this effect would
be negligible and would not be considered significant.
Beach fill would be transported through natural seasonal and littoral processes. Onshore
beach fill is predicted to erode over a 1- to 2-year period, moving into the nearshore area.
The maximum sediment movement is predicted to extend approximately 350 m (1,150 ft)
offshore and 4,000 m (13,000 ft) upcoast and downcoast of the North Carlsbad site; 400
m (1,300 ft) offshore and 6,000 m (19,700ft) upcoast and downcoast of the South
ES-2 211603000
Carlsbad site; 450 m (1,500 ft) offshore and 9,000 m (29,500 ft) upcoast and downcoast
of the Encinitas site; 500 m (1,600 ft) offshore and 6,000 m (19,700ft) upcoast and
downcoast of the Torrey Pines sites; and 350 m (1,150 ft) offshore and 5,000 m
(16,400ft) upcoast and downcoast of the Buccaneer Beach alternative site. A minor
increase in average sand thickness on the order of 0.1 to 0.3 m (4 inches [in] to 1 ft)
would be anticipated to occur at all receiver sites. No significant impacts to coastal
geology or littoral processes would occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
COASTAL WETLANDS
The proposed action would cause accumulation of sediments at lagoon inlets and
river/creek outfalls in the vicinity of the receiver sites. Sediment transport modeling
performed by Frederic R. Harris, Inc. (FRH), indicates no impacts would occur to lagoon
inlets and river/creek ocean outfalls at San Luis Rey River, Loma Alta Creek, Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, or San Dieguito Lagoon. Sand transport modeling
results indicate that approximately 19m (62 ft) of sediment accretion would occur at
Buena Vista Lagoon as a result of beach replenishment at North Carlsbad; however, no
adverse impacts would occur assuming the City of Carlsbad maintains the ocean outflow
path. Similarly, approximately 43 m (140 ft) of sediment accretion would occur at
Encinas Creek as a result of sand placement at South Carlsbad; however, no impacts are
anticipated due to the surrounding high land at the discharge point (FRH 1997).
Approximately 35m(115ft)of sand accretion is predicted at Batiquitos Lagoon from the
Encinitas fill site, which would potentially lead to shoaling and/or closure of the lagoon.
The California Department of Fish and Game currently dredges the lagoon mouth at
Batiquitos to ensure tidal flow; assuming maintenance continues, no significant impacts
would occur. Approximately 19 m (62 ft) of sediment accretion would occur at
Los Penasquitos Lagoon within 12 months of beach replenishment, which would cause
potential closure of the lagoon. The Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation currently
performs maintenance dredging of the lagoon inlet; assuming maintenance dredging
continues, no significant impacts would occur as a result of sediment accretion at the
lagoon mouth. Therefore, no impacts to lagoon inlets and river/creek outfalls would
occur from implementation of the proposed action assuming routine maintenance
dredging continues at the identified locations.
To ensure that significant impacts to lagoon inlets would not occur, a monitoring plan
would be established. The monitoring plan would require approval from the Army Corps
211603000 ES-3
of Engineers (ACOE) (in consultation with appropriate resource agencies) to verify the
results of the sediment transport analysis. Baseline profiles would be measured prior to
sediment discharge and monitored through June 1, 2001. Areas that would be monitored
include lagoon mouths, entrance channels, lagoon interiors, and adjacent areas. The
Navy would provide mitigation for any increased rate of sand accumulation or lagoon
mouth closures resulting from the proposed action above that which normally occurs, as
determined by ACOE in consultation with the resource agencies. Mitigation measures
would consist of opening closed lagoon inlets and/or removal of sediment accumulation
at the lagoon mouths as a result of proposed fill activities.
The Navy has obtained written assurance from SANDAG, as well as affected
municipalities, that implementation of the identified monitoring, documentation, and
mitigation would occur, including any other requirements related to potential effects on
ocean inlets. These assurances have been formalized in a cooperative agreement (CA)
between SANDAG and the Navy covering areas potentially affected by proposed beach
replenishment operations. Potential effects are assessed in the Beach Sand Transport and
Sedimentation Report prepared by FRH (1997). Coastal wetland areas subject to the CA
include Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Batiquitos Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, San Dieguito
Lagoon, and Los Penasquitos Lagoon. Although potential effects to each of these
lagoons would differ, the Navy has included each area as a precautionary measure.
WATER RESOURCES
The proposed action would cause a temporary increase in turbidity, which could
potentially affect water quality conditions in the nearshore environment. Increased
turbidity caused by suspended particles in the water column would occur as a result of
return water from pumping operations. Turbidity would potentially affect marine
organisms and kelp/surfgrass beds in the nearshore area. However, the proposed action
includes the use of longitudinal dikes to reduce turbidity during sand placement
operations. Additionally, approximately 97 percent of the beach fill consists of larger
grain size material (>63 um), which settles rapidly and would not significantly increase
turbidity. Furthermore, intervals between pumping operations would allow suspended
particles sufficient time to settle. Therefore, turbidity would be minimized in the
nearshore environment and would not cause significant water quality impacts.
ES-4 211603000
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) conditions require that supernatant
(water samples) from a loaded barge be collected three times per week and analyzed for
polar and nonpolar oil and grease. Weekly monitoring of bacteria contamination 30 m
(100 ft) down current of the discharge point is also required per the Waste Discharge
Requirements. The RWQCB conditions would allow verification that significant water
quality impacts would not occur.
BIOLOGY
The proposed action would bury intertidal organisms at all identified receiver beaches,
resulting hi mortality. Subtidal organisms would be affected by erosion of beach fill,
resulting in burial of nonmobile subtidal invertebrates. However, characteristic
organisms of the intertidal and subtidal zones would be expected to recolonize at a rapid
rate. As onshore sand placement would be short term; no significant impacts to intertidal
and subtidal organisms would occur.
Giant kelp beds offshore the receiver sites could be affected by barge operations
associated with the proposed action. A sinker line running from the barge to the beach
would be placed on the ocean floor to support the pump line. Kelp surveys at each of the
receiver sites have been completed and sinker line placement is planned to avoid kelp bed
habitat. Additionally, the kelp beds would be surveyed at least 30 days prior to proposed
operations to ensure no adverse impacts.
Sensitive marine resources in the nearshore area could be affected by transport of fill
subsequent to placement. Sensitive marine resources include rocky intertidal reefs,
subtidal vegetated reefs (including feather boa kelp, surfgrass, or sea fans), and nearshore
reefs with giant kelp. Beach fill placement has been designed to avoid sensitive marine
resources; however, direct burial of sensitive marine resources would be inevitable at the
proposed Encinitas receiver site. Approximately 243,010 square meters (m2) (290,666
square yards [yd2]) of rocky intertidal habitat and vegetated subtidal reefs would be
directly buried by onshore fill placement at the Encinitas site. This would result hi short-
term and potential long-term impacts to sensitive marine resources at Encinitas. Due to
direct burial and potential long-term impacts at Encinitas, this site was rejected for
onshore beach replenishment.
211603000 ES-5
Beach fill placement at the proposed North Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, and Torrey Pines
sites, and the alternative Buccaneer Beach and South Carlsbad sites, would avoid direct
placement of fill on sensitive marine resources. Additionally, sediment transport
modeling indicates that no significant impacts to these receiver sites would occur
subsequent to sand placement. Although no significant impacts to sensitive marine
resources are anticipated at these sites, the Navy would prepare and implement a
monitoring plan to verify the results of the modeling. The program would include pre-
discharge baseline studies and post-discharge monitoring. The monitoring program
would be effective from the date of issuance of an ACOE permit through June 1, 2001 to
confirm that sand discharge operations would not result in any significant long-term
adverse impacts to sensitive marine resources. Mitigation would be the restoration of like
habitat at a 1:1 ratio as a first priority. Consideration would be given to the construction
of artificial reefs (approximately 1 acre) as mitigation to offset potential impacts if like
habitat restoration efforts were not feasible as determined by ACOE, in consultation with
the resource agencies. Should ACOE and/or the resource agencies require mitigation,
total mitigation costs for Phase II would not exceed $400,000. Mitigation costs for
Phase I would not exceed $700,000; therefore, total mitigation costs for Phase I and II
beach replenishment would not exceed $1.1 million.
California grunion may spawn on the proposed receiver beaches during sand placement
operations. Beach replenishment activities could potentially bury then- eggs or change
the beach profile, resulting hi mortality. If grunion were observed spawning during sand
placement, disposal of sand would immediately cease in the area of spawning and a
buffer zone would be established surrounding the area of spawning. The buffer zone
would extend 20 m (65 ft) shoreward of the highest water mark at the spawning area, and
run 30 m (100 ft) upcoast and 30 m (100 ft) downcoast from the spawning area. A sand
dike, parallel to the shoreline above the 20 m (65 ft) buffer zone, would be constructed
along the entire 60 m (200 ft) lateral extent of the buffer zone to ensure that the discharge
water would not enter the spawning area. The spawning areas would be recorded and
mapped, and a written report would be provided to the ACOE and resource agencies
within 24 hours of the spawning event. The buffer zone would be in place for a minimum
of 14 days (the period of time for eggs to hatch). This would mitigate impacts to the
grunion and would allow sand replenishment activities to continue in areas not effected
by spawning.
ES-6 211603000
The proposed action is not anticipated to affect sensitive bird species in the vicinity of
sand deposition operations. Sensitive species occurring in the vicinity of receiver areas
include California least tern, western snowy plover, and California brown pelican. Each
of these species forages in the vicinity of the receiver sites. The tern and pelican utilize
offshore waters, while the plover typically uses intertidal habitat. Foraging areas would
be reduced by proposed operations; however, as these species are mobile, they can move
to adjacent unimpacted areas for foraging activities. No significant adverse impacts to
sensitive species would occur.
LAND USE AND RECREATION
The proposed action would be consistent with all local, state, and federal land use plans.
No impacts resulting from inconsistencies with applicable land use plans would occur. A
Coastal Consistency Determination has been prepared and submitted to the California
Coastal Commission to ensure the proposed action would be consistent with the
California Coastal Act of 1976.
Short-term impacts to recreation would occur at the receiver sites during sand
replenishment operations. Recreational users would be dispersed to other local beaches
until replenishment operations were complete. Implementation of the proposed action
would not impact surf breaks dependent on subtidal reefs hi the vicinity of the North
Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, Torrey Pines and Buccaneer Beach (alternative) receiver
beaches. Potential impacts to beach surf breaks influenced by subtidal reefs could occur
at the Encinitas receiver site. Beneficial impacts to beach surf breaks would occur from
the formation of offshore sandbars at all receiver sites with identified sand or cobble
beach surf breaks.
SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Short-term safety impacts would occur at the receiver sites during placement operations.
The use of grading and construction equipment would create a hazardous condition that
would cause potentially adverse impacts to public safety. However, the Navy would
restrict public access to the receiver areas during replenishment operations. A 30 m
(100ft) buffer zone would be maintained with fencing, barricades, and flagmen (as
necessary). In addition, a 150 m by 150 m (approximately 500 ft by 500 ft) offshore
211603000 ES-7
buffer area would be maintained around the barge to ensure impacts from barge
placement or pumping operations would not occur.
Scarps, defined as cuts in the beach berm due to wave action, could form in the vicinity
of the receiver beaches subsequent to sand placement. Scarps are a function of the
existing beach berm height and wave height, and occur naturally along the shoreline. As
beach berm heights would not be increased due to proposed fill operations, scarps larger
than those forming under natural conditions would not occur. Therefore, significant
safety hazards would not occur as a result of sand placement.
AESTHETICS
The proposed action would cause temporary adverse visual impacts during sand
placement operations. Coastal views in the vicinity of the receiver areas would be
impacted during operations due to the offshore barge and grading operations; however,
these impacts would be short-term. In addition, the proposed action would have long-
term beneficial effects to visual resources as a result of sand replenishment at receiver
beaches and eradication of existing eroded beach profiles. Therefore, significant impacts
to visual resources would not occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES
Existing structures and utilities in the vicinity of the proposed receiver sites were
surveyed for potential impacts due to sand placement. Public and private access stairs,
sea walls, storm drains, and sewer outfalls were documented, and potential effects were
assessed. The proposed action would not conflict with public service or access of these
utilities or structures. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur.
NOISE
The proposed action would exceed the nighttime noise levels as identified in several of
the local noise ordinances. The cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Del Mar
have noise ordinances that set allowable noise limits during daytime and nighttime hours.
Grading operations associated with the proposed action would exceed the nighttime noise
thresholds identified hi the local noise ordinances for the cities of Oceanside, Encinitas,
and Del Mar. The North and South Carlsbad receiver sites are under the State of
ES-8 211603000
California's jurisdiction. The proposed action was able to qualify for and has obtained
variances to the city ordinances in Oceanside and Del Mar, which brings it into
compliance with those local noise ordinances. Proposed operations were also found to be
exempt from the noise ordinance in the City of Encinitas, and would meet State
requirements at North and South Carlsbad. Therefore, the Navy is able to conclude that
noise impacts would not be significant.
211603000 ES-9
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ES-10 211603000
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
As a directive of the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, the
Department of the Navy (Navy) will be relocating one NIMITZ class aircraft carrier berth
(CVN homeport) from Naval Air Station Alameda, San Francisco Bay, California, to
San Diego Bay. To accommodate the carrier, it is necessary for the Navy to dredge the
carrier berthing area, turning basin, and the San Diego Bay navigation channel. Disposal
of suitable dredged material is proposed at various receiver beach sites in San Diego
County, California.
As required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4347), an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Navy that analyzed
the environmental effects of the homeporting project, entitled Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Development of Facilities in San Diego/Coronado to Support
the Homeporting of One NIMITZ Class Aircraft Carrier (Navy 1995a) This document is
herein referred to as the Homeporting EIS. A Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Homeporting EIS was issued by the Navy on December 15, 1995. Environmental
impacts analyzed in the document included dredging operations, disposal of dredged
material, construction of berthing and maintenance facilities, and mitigation for the loss
of shallow bay habitat.
In conjunction with the CVN homeporting project, the Navy is proposing beach
replenishment at several receiver beaches along the coast of San Diego County in two
phases. Phase I involves onshore sand placement in the intertidal and shallow subtidal
zones at South Oceanside and Solana Beach. Phase II involves beach replenishment at
North Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Torrey Pines. Alternative beach receiver
sites for Phase II include Buccaneer Beach in South Oceanside and an area north of
Enemas Creek in South Carlsbad. As part of the Homeporting EIS, various beach areas
were identified as suitable for disposal of dredged materials. These areas included sites
within close proximity to the proposed receiver sites. Based on the location of these
proposed receiver beaches and the proposed modifications to the Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) 404/10 permit previously issued to the Navy for the disposal of
dredged material, it was determined that a site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA)
211603000 1-1
be prepared through the use of tiering from the previously prepared EIS (as described in
the Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] Regulations, 40 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] Part 1508.28). An EA was prepared for Phase I (Navy 1997a) and a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued for the action. This EA is intended
to refine the analysis already presented to the public in the Homeporting EIS and provide
detailed site-specific analyses required to modify the ACOE 404/10 permit for Phase II
beach replenishment.
Preparation of the EA is in compliance with CEQ Regulations of July 1, 1986 (40 CFR
1500-1508), Department of the Navy Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (32 CFR 775), and the guidelines contained in the Chief of
Naval Operations Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual (OPNAVINST
5090. IB) of November 1,1994.
The following site-specific issues are addressed and analyzed in this EA: geology,
coastal wetlands, water resources, biological resources, land use and recreation, safety
and environmental health, aesthetics, utilities, and noise.
The following is a summary of resource areas previously analyzed in the Homeporting
EIS that do not require further analysis as part of the proposed action.
Economics
As discussed in the Homeporting EIS, beach replenishment using dredged sediments is
generally considered a beneficial use of dredged materials. Beach erosion is a major
problem along many beaches in southern California, Over half the shoreline along the
San Diego coast has critical erosion problems that will cost the region's economy
millions of dollars. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) expects annual
erosion-related costs to continually increase. Beach replenishment is one of the most
cost-effective shoreline management alternatives for the region and is considered a
beneficial impact for land use and development because it widens beaches, thus
protecting property values and enhancing recreation facilities. Further analysis for this
particular resource is not required for this EA.
1-2 211603000
Traffic
Implementation of the proposed action would require delivery of construction equipment
to the beach receiver sites. Construction vehicles would be driven to and kept on site for
the duration of beach replenishment activities. Beach replenishment activities associated
with the proposed action would not significantly affect transportation and circulation, as
the proposed action would generate very few trips. Any increases in traffic volumes
would be temporary; no long-term impacts to existing transportation and circulation
patterns would occur. The proposed action does not present any new significant issues
that were not already identified in the Homeporting EIS; therefore, further analysis is not
required for this EA.
Air Quality
The majority of dust generated from beach replenishment activities would originate from
grading of the disposed sand and would not exceed the significance threshold for
emissions based on the Homeporting EIS. Emissions and dust generated by the proposed
action would be temporary and short term and would comply with regulations set forth by
the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rules and Regulations.
Equipment would be properly maintained to reduce emissions, and vehicle speed on the
beach would be kept to a minimum to reduce the formation of dust clouds. Therefore,
further analysis of this resource is not required as part of this EA.
Cultural Resources
The San Diego Museum of Man conducted an internal record search (April 23, 1997) for
archaeological sites recorded within or in the vicinity of the proposed beach receiver
sites. Six archaeological sites (W-ll, W-83, W-lll, W-3627, W-3629, and W-3630)
were recorded in the vicinity of the proposed receiver sites; however, upon review of the
archaeological survey reports, it was determined that sand placement would not affect any
of the identified sites.
Additionally, the proposed receiver areas are subject to repeated wave action that
continually brings sediments onto the beach and causes heavy erosion; therefore, no
significant impacts to cultural resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed action
and further analysis of this resource is not required for this EA.
211603000 1-3
Environmental Justice
To comply with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice [EJ] in Minority and Low-income Populations), ethnicity and poverty status in
the vicinity of the proposed beach receiver areas have been compared to city, state, and
national data to determine if any minority or low-income communities could potentially
be disproportionately affected by the proposed action.
Based on the location of the proposed action along the coastline where property values
are typically high, the proposed beach receiver sites do not represent an area that would
be considered a minority or low-income community. In addition, community resources
would not be burdened and no adverse health conditions would be created. Therefore,
further analysis of this resource is not required as part of this EA.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
The Navy proposes to dispose of suitable dredged material from San Diego Bay to beach
receiver sites at North Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Torrey Pines. Alternative
receiver sites proposed for beach replenishment include Buccaneer Beach in South
Oceanside and an area north of Enemas Creek in South Carlsbad. Onshore disposal at
these locations is part of the Phase II EA for the beach replenishment plan associated with
dredging operations in San Diego Bay for the homeporting of a NIMITZ class aircraft
carrier, as previously described in the Homeporting EIS. Phase I, which included beach
replenishment at South Oceanside and Solana Beach, was analyzed in a previous
Environmental Assessment (Environmental Assessment for Beach Replenishment at
South Oceanside and Cardiff/Solana Beach, California [Navy 1997a]).
The purpose and need of proposed beach replenishment activities is to replenish beaches
with critical erosion problems, in accordance with the request submitted to the Navy by
SANDAG's Shoreline Erosion Committee on June 6, 1996. Beach replenishment would
provide immediate benefit by maximizing onshore beach fill hi the Oceanside littoral cell,
rather than placement of sand in the nearshore zone. Implementation of the proposed
project would provide a wider recreational beach, reduce erosion, and protect the
shoreline.
1-4 211603000
To successfully accomplish beach replenishment, the design needs to incorporate proper
width, berm height, and slope specifications. Furthermore, the beach fill needs to be
placed as far updrift (north) as possible within each jurisdiction to be sufficiently
successful.
Beaches in the Oceanside littoral cell have been steadily eroding. Because future
shoreline erosion has the potential to increase both beach loss and property damage hi
these areas, SANDAG has developed the Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the
San Diego Region (1993), which identifies regional coastal areas with critical shoreline
problems. SANDAG, the Navy, and local communities have provided input regarding
specific sites for placement of sand and have identified beaches in Carlsbad, Encinitas,
Torrey Pines, and alternative beach sites in Oceanside and Carlsbad for beach
replenishment. Implementation of the proposed action would contribute to the
replenishment of narrow beaches with sand to ensure that they are wide enough to
provide increased property protection and recreational capacity, thereby meeting the
objectives of the Shoreline Preservation Strategy.
SANDAG's Shoreline Erosion Committee requested that the following volumes of sand
be allocated nearshore and onshore to beach cities and state beaches:
Site Million Cubic Yards
Imperial Beach (nearshore) 1.70
Mission Beach (nearshore) .86
Torrey Pines (onshore) .65
Del Mar (nearshore) .45
Solana Beach (onshore) .57
Encinitas (onshore) 1.14
South Carlsbad (onshore) .55
North Carlsbad (onshore) .55
South Oceanside (onshore) .53
Under an existing ACOE Section 404/10 Permit, all nearshore sites have been permitted,
as well as onshore sites at South Oceanside and Solana Beach under Phase I. The permit
211603000 1-5
is being modified to allow for onshore replenishment at the remaining sites under
Phase II.
The purpose of the Phase II beach replenishment plan is to provide onshore beach
replenishment at North Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Torrey Pines. Phase I
(presented in separate environmental documentation) involved onshore sand placement at
South Oceanside and Cardiff/Solana Beach for the same purpose.
13 LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Implementation of the proposed action would occur on beaches in North Carlsbad, South
Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Torrey Pines hi San Diego County, California (Figure 1-1).
The North Carlsbad receiver beach is located south of Buena Vista Lagoon between the
lagoon inlet and Oak Avenue, which comprises the majority of public beach area under
the City of Carlsbad's jurisdiction (Figure 1-2). A segment of approximately
1.2 kilometers (km) (0.7 miles [mi]) along the beach is proposed for replenishment. This
beach segment consists of a predominantly flat sandy beach, extending from the surf line
to rip-rap slopes and sea walls that protect existing beach-front residences.
The South Carlsbad receiver beach is located south of Enemas Creek, between the creek
outlet and the Batiquitos Lagoon inlet (Figure 1-3). This beach segment comprises the
majority of South Carlsbad State Beach and covers approximately 2.2 km (1.4 mi). The
existing beach in this area consists of a flat, sandy beach with scattered cobbles. The
proposed receiver beach lies at the base of a steep slope varying in height from 18 to
24 meters (m) (60 to 80 feet [ft]). A parking area and the South Carlsbad State Beach
Campground are located on the bluff above the receiver beach.
The Encinitas receiver beach is located south of Batiquitos Lagoon between the lagoon
inlet and Moonlight State Beach (Figure 1-4). This segment extends approximately
4.4km (2.7 mi) from the bluff directly south of Batiquitos Lagoon to Encinitas
Boulevard, and comprises Leucadia State Beach, Encinitas Beach County Park, Seaside
Gardens Park, and a portion of Moonlight State Beach. Steep cliffs abut the proposed
receiver beach, which consists of a gently sloping sand beach with scattered rocks and
cobbles. Several existing residences are located on the bluff above the receiver beach.
1-6 211603000
BUCCANEER BEAC
ALTERNATIVE
NORTH CARLSBAD ESCONDIDO
s^78SOUTH CARLSBAD
ENCINtTAS
San Vicente
POWAY \ Reservoir
TORREY PINES
DIEGO
CHULA VISTA
* BEACH REPLENISHMENT SITES
FIGURE
Regional Location Map 1-1
RENVIR ASS'MT(ENV)\Emriron AssesstnentVReceiver Beach EA\SD County Map
The Encinitas site has been rejected due to direct burial of sensitive marine resources and
potential long-term impacts.
The alternative sites proposed for placement of the Encinitas beach fill material includes
Buccaneer Beach in South Oceanside and additional fill at South Carlsbad. The
Buccaneer Beach site extends from Loma Alta Creek to Buena Vista Lagoon. This beach
segment consists of a gently sloping sand beach abutting rip-rap sea walls. The sea walls
support existing beach-front residences, which span this alternative site. The South
Carlsbad alternative site extends from Palomar Airport Road to Encinas Creek. A
description of the South Carlsbad receiver beach and surrounding area is provided above.
Refer to Section 2 of this EA for alternative selection criteria and maps of the alternative
sites.
The Torrey Pines receiver beach consists of two areas, one northern site and one southern
site within Torrey Pines State Beach. The northern site is located along the northern
portion of Torrey Pines State Beach, extending from 4th Street south approximately
0.9 km (0.5 mi). The southern site extends from the State Beach parking area south
approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi) (Figure 1-5). The existing beach at the northern site
consists of a flat, sandy beach adjacent to steep cliffs. Railroad tracks and private
residences are located on the bluff, approximately 15 to 25 m (50 to 80 ft) above the
beach. The southern receiver site consists of a gently sloping sand and cobble beach
adjacent to cliffs ranging hi elevation from 15 to 60 m (approximately 50 to 200 ft). The
area on the bluff, above the southern receiver beach, is included within Torrey Pines State
Reserve.
1.4 RELEVANT FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND
GUIDELINES
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
NEPA requires that federal agencies consider potential environmental consequences of
proposed actions in their decision-making process. NEPA's intent is to protect, restore,
or enhance the environment through well-informed federal decisions. CEQ was
established under NEPA for the purpose of implementing and overseeing federal policies
as they relate to this process. In 1978, CEQ issued Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR §1500-1508
1-8 211603000
Legend
North Carlsbad
Beach Fill Site 1-2
OJ/IWJ
Hlrtorlcal MaximumMpBadCai197*101998
Kelp Bad Canopy3M8/1997
Lagoon*
OlfthoreRattrlcladZona
Onthora R**trict«d Zone
HnkwLlna
BathymtlfY (1« "<« IUwvaJ)
Railroad
F I G U R E
South Carlsbad
Beach Fill Site
05/15W7
I I I
HlMtrical Maximum
M
ID 19S8
Lagoon*
ORihor* RtttrlrtMl Zon*
Onihora R**trtct«d Zone
Sinter Line
Bathymtfrt (1/t aiettr latwval)
Railroad
m ',...'
F I G U R E
Enclnltas
Beach Fill Site
Hlttorlcal MaximumKilp Bad Cinoplat197% Io1998
Kelp Bad Canopy/18/13/18/1997
Lagooni
Olfihore Restricted Zone
Onihore Reatrlcted Zone
A/ sinkarLlna
/V Bathymelrvd/Znalerlalwval)
/V Railroad
Los Penasqui
Lagoon
Torrey FineaState Reserve
F I G U R E
Torrey Pines
Beach Fill Sites
05/15)97
[CEQ 1978]), which were revised in 1986. These regulations specify that an EA be
prepared to:
• briefly provide sufficient analysis and evidence for determining whether to
prepare an EIS or a FONSI;
• aid in an agency's compliance with NEPA when an EIS is deemed
unnecessary; and
• facilitate EIS preparation when one is necessary.
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 31U33 USC 1321]
Section 311 of the CWA prohibits and regulates liability for the discharge of oil or
hazardous substances into or upon waters of the U.S. or adjoining shorelines which may
present an imminent and substantial danger to natural resources or the public health or
welfare, including, but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches. In
compliance with Section 311 of the CWA, a Spill Prevention Control and Counter-
Measure Plan (SPCC) would be developed and implemented prior to initiation of the
proposed action. The preparation of an SPCC would ensure no significant impacts due to
spillage of any petroleum products or hazardous substances during proposed operations
both onshore and offshore the receiver beaches.
Clean Water Act Section 404fbVl') Guidelines
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill
material into waters of the U.S., including dredged material placed in the ocean for beach
replenishment or other beneficial uses. The proposed action complies with the guidelines
promulgated by the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the
authority of Section 404(b)(l) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344). The primary purpose of fill
activities is for beach replenishment. The 404(b)(l) evaluation was prepared for nearshore
disposal as part of the homeporting project and a 404/10 permit was acquired by the Navy.
The 404/10 permit sets conditions on a proposed action in order to reduce potential
environmental impacts realized as part of the 404(b)(l) evaluation. The Navy has applied
for a modification to the 404/10 permit in order to implement the proposed action. The
211603000 1-17
modified permit is required prior to the start of onshore sand placement operations because
the permit as originally issued only addressed nearshore disposal of dredged material.
Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act authorizes the ACOE to regulate all activities
that affect the course, capacity, or coordination of waters of the U.S.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and California Coastal Act of 1976
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires management programs for coastal
zones and is implemented through the California Coastal Act of 1976. Onshore disposal
of dredged material requires concurrence from the California Coastal Commission due to
possible effects to resources in the coastal zone. A Negative Determination (ND) has
been prepared by the Navy for Phase II beach replenishment (ND-62-97). The California
Coastal Commission concurs with the ND, which states that the proposed action is
consistent with all applicable policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Federal Consistency
Regulations
NOAA Federal Consistency Regulations (15 CFR 930) require that federal actions be
consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. As described above,
compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act has been satisfied through the
preparation of a ND for the California Coastal Commission.
Executive Order 11990
This order requires that governmental agencies, in carrying out then- responsibilities,
provide leadership and "take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of
wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands."
Implementation of the proposed beach replenishment plan would not be anticipated to
adversely affect wetland areas near the proposed receiver sites. A monitoring program
would be implemented as part of the project to ensure adverse impacts to wetlands do not
occur.
1-18 211603000
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)
The ESA protects threatened and endangered species by prohibiting federal actions that
would jeopardize the continued existence of such species, or minimizing actions that
would result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat of such
species. Current endangered species information was requested from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in
compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. USFWS responded with concerns regarding
threatened and endangered species that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed action.
Specific concerns addressed the potential effects of the proposed action on foraging and
breeding areas for the federally listed California least tem (Sterna antillarum browni),
California brown pelican (Pelacanus occidentalis), and western snowy plover
(Charadrinus alexandrinus).
USFWS has reviewed the Public Notice for modifications to the ACOE 404/10 permit
and the EA prepared for Phase I of the beach replenishment plan, and concurs with
Phase I. Identical mitigation measures as referenced in Phase I would be implemented
for Phase II, and there would be no direct burial of sensitive marine resources. Therefore,
USFWS concurs with the proposed action.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that any federal agency proposing to
control or modify any body of water must first consult with USFWS or the NMFS. The
proposed action has been coordinated with USFWS, NMFS, and the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).
USFWS concurs with the proposed action as described above. NMFS reviewed the EA
for Phase I, and concurs with Phase I. Identical mitigation measures as referenced in
Phase I would be implemented for Phase II, and there would be no direct burial of
sensitive marine resources. Therefore, NMFS concurs with the proposed action.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1972
This Act prohibits the taking or harming of any migratory bird, its eggs, nests, or young
without an appropriate permit.
211603000 1-19
Local Jurisdictional Noise Regulations
State of California Noise Regulations (State Beach Areas)
The South Carlsbad and the Torrey Pines sites are under the jurisdiction of the State of
California Department of Parks and Recreation. Although no formal noise standards
exist for activities within state beaches, the California Department of Health Services
(formerly known as the Office of Noise Control), has identified standards for noise levels
based upon land use compatibility. These standards, known formally as the State of
California Model Noise Ordinance, would serve as applicable guidelines for noise impact
determination at state-operated campgrounds (Dupree 1997).
City of Del Mar Construction Noise Regulations
Construction noise within the City of Del Mar is governed by City of Del Mar Municipal
Code, Chapter 9.20.040, and deals with specific prohibited noises.
City of Carlsbad Construction Noise Regulations
Construction noise within the City of Carlsbad is governed by Municipal Code
Section 8.48.010 and deals with specific prohibited noises.
City ofEncinitas Construction Noise Regulations
Construction noise within the City of Encinitas is governed by Performance Code Section
30.40.010. This section sets forth a list of performance standards dealing with any noise
emissions affecting adjacent property. The City ofEncinitas has determined that Phase II
beach replenishment activities are exempt from the noise abatement ordinance per
Municipal Code Section 9.32.417(c), "Federal or state preempted activities."
City ofOceanside Construction Noise Regulations
Construction noise within the City of Oceanside is governed by the Oceanside City Code
Section 38.17 and deals with specific prohibited noises. Subsection H of the City Code
deals with construction equipment of a pneumatic or diesel nature.
1-20 211603000
1.5 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
The lead agency for the proposed action is the U.S. Department of the Navy in
cooperation with SANDAG. An agency scoping meeting for the Phase I Environmental
Assessment for Beach Replenishment was held on February 21, 1997 with the following
agencies hi attendance:
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
California Coastal Commission
San Diego Association of Governments
U.S. Navy, Southwest Division
Coordination with each of these agencies has continued throughout preparation of the
Phase IIEA. Other agencies consulted as part of this EA process included:
Environmental Protection Agency
California Department of Fish and Game
California Department of Parks and Recreation
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego, Region 9)
City of Carlsbad
City of Del Mar
City ofEncinitas
City ofOceanside
City of San Diego
211603000 1-21
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1-22 211603000
SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION CRITERIA
An overall discussion of project alternatives was presented in the Homeporting EIS.
Specific sites proposed for beach replenishment were established based on the following
selection criteria.
SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Strategy
SANDAG has developed the Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region
(1993), which identifies regional coastal areas with critical shoreline problems. Based on
this study and input from local communities, beaches in critical need of replenishment
were identified. The SANDAG study was used to determine site-specific alternatives for
beach replenishment. Implementation of the proposed action reflects the critical need for
sand at North and South Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Torrey Pines.
Marine Resources
Beach sites along the San Diego coast were analyzed for onshore beach replenishment
suitability. Beach replenishment was not considered an alternative for onshore disposal
in areas with significant sensitive marine resources, such as rocky intertidal reefs, subtidal
vegetated reefs (that hold feather boa kelp, surfgrass, or sea palm), and/or nearshore reefs
with giant kelp. Reefs that support sea fans are also considered sensitive because sea fans
are indicative of persistent reefs that are not covered by sand.
Beach Replenishment Design
Four beach fill construction design alternatives were evaluated to achieve the most
environmentally superior design that maximizes beneficial use of dredge material for
recreational beach enhancement and minimizes potential adverse impacts (Frederic R.
Harris, Inc. [FRH] 1997).
211603000 2-1
The four alternative beach fills considered were:
• Low Berm (lower than minimum) (+1.0 m elevation, 35:1 slope)
In comparison to the other alternatives, the low berm alternative would provide
reduced beneficial impacts for recreation and shore protection as the berm is
expected to erode at a higher rate over the short term (3 to 6 months). In
addition, this alternative would be very difficult and very costly, if not
impractical to construct. Therefore, this alternative was not considered further.
• Minimum Berm (+1.7 m elevation, 20:1 slope)
The minimum berm alternative is expected to erode somewhat slower than the
low berm alternative over the short term and meets the purpose of the
proposed action. Under this design, scarps would form on beaches at a point
where waves break on the beach; however, this alternative is not expected to
lead to a scarp over 1 m (3.3 ft) high.
• Maximum Berm (+2.8 to 3.4 m elevation, 10:1 slope)
The maximum berm alternative is expected to erode somewhat slower than the
minimum berm alternative over the short term and meets the purpose of the
proposed action. Under this alternative, the berm elevation would match the
natural beach berm elevation that is particular to each site location and may be
different between sites. This alternative is not expected to lead to a scarp
significantly over 2 m (6.6 ft) high.
• Block Berm (higher than maximum) (+4.2 m elevation, 3:1 slope)
The block berm alternative is expected to erode somewhat slower than the
maximum berm alternative over the short term and would be similar to the
berm constructed for the Batiquitos Lagoon disposal at South Carlsbad. This
profile would be built with an extremely high berm elevation and steep beach
slope, which would likely result in a substantial scarp height in excess of
2.5 m (8.2 ft). Due to potential safety impacts associated with extreme scarps,
this alternative was not considered further.
The minimum amount of fill that can be placed on the beach hydraulically is controlled
by the pumping rate of the dredge. For beach replenishment operations to be cost
effective, enough quantity per unit length has to be placed onshore to allow the dredge
2-2 211603000
pump to operate efficiently. This fill quantity is estimated to be in the range of 125 to
150 cubic meters per meter (mVm). The proposed beach replenishment fills have unit
quantities at or above these levels.
2.2 PROPOSED ACTION - BEACH REPLENISHMENT
The proposed action involves the replenishment of sand on receiver beach sites in North
Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Torrey Pines as previously shown in Figures 1-2
through 1-5. Beach replenishment would be performed using suitable sediment dredged
from San Diego Bay for the homeporting of a NIMITZ class aircraft carrier at Naval Air
Station North Island (NASNI) in San Diego. Receiver beaches were chosen based on the
presence/absence of sensitive marine resources and compatibility with chemical and grain
size sediment analyses that were performed on the dredged sediment.
Dredging of the San Diego Bay channel is anticipated to yield approximately 5.4 million
cubic meters (m3) (7 million cubic yards [cy]) of material. The proposed action would
utilize approximately 2,209,610 m3 (2,850,400 cy) of dredged sediment for use as beach
replenishment at the four identified sites. The remaining beach fill would be disposed of
at permitted onshore sites hi South Carlsbad and Solana Beach (as part of Phase I beach
replenishment), or at permitted nearshore sites in Oceanside, Del Mar, Mission Beach,
and Imperial Beach. Proposed quantities for Phase II beach replenishment at the receiver
sites, including proposed berm widths, heights and slopes, are included in Table 2-1.
Beach replenishment at North Carlsbad would involve onshore placement of sand from a
point directly south of the Buena Vista Lagoon inlet to a point directly north of Oak
Avenue, as shown in Figure 1-2. Dredged sediment would be placed on the existing sand
beach and graded to form a berm. The top of the berm would be constructed to an
elevation of approximately +2.9 m (+9.5 ft) Mean Sea Level (MSL) and would be flat,
with a width of approximately 60 m (195 ft). From this point, the berm would slope at a
10:1 ratio (horizontal distance:vertical distance) approximately 60 to 80 m (195 to 260 ft)
into the intertidal zone to an average depth of -2 m (-6.6 ft) MSL. The berm would
extend upcoast and downcoast approximately 1.2km (0.7 mi). A representative cross
section of the proposed berm is shown in Figure 2-1. Berm construction may be adjusted
during fill placement, depending on actual field conditions. The beach elevation would
not be constructed higher than the natural berm elevation for each beach site.
211603000 2-3
ELEVATION MSL (M) ELEVATION MSL (M)10 O N> .f* N> O ro .bTOB
M^\\\
\\\\\\
BERMWlDTH
60M l
\
\\\\
X""s
+2.9 M
.^ MSL
\.
\/XX
SLOPE RA 10
10:1
s^>^
-40 0 40 80 12
DISTANCE (M) FROM TOP OF BERM (TOB)
NORTH CARLSBAD TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
TOB
.BERM WIDTH' VARIESL
i
i\
40MTOe
N•*..
OM
--_-
/ MSL
r- • •
^**^
^X
\^^v
' x ..^
/^^N
SLOPE RA 10
20:1
"" — — ^
4
2
0
-2
0
4
2
0
-2
-40 0 40 80 120
DISTANCE (M) FROM TOP OF BERM (TOB)
0 40
SOUTH CARLSBAD TYPICAL CROSS SECTION D-D.-
VERTICAL 1:100
^j^pffifoi
^%5§SS$^
Typical Berm Cross Sections, North and South Carlsbad
FIGURE
2-1
E\ENVIR A8S'MT(ENV)\ENVIRON ASSESSMENTVRecelver Beach EA\Cross-sectlons
Table 2-1
PHASE II BEACH REPLENISHMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Beach Fill Site
North Carlsbad
South Carlsbad
Encinitas
Torrey Pines North
Torrey Pines South
Quantity
Dredge Cut
(m3)
420,510
420,510
871,620
279,545
217,425
Width
(m)
60
40-50
40-50
70
70
Berm
Height
(m, MSL)
2.9
1.7
1.7
2.6
2.6
Slope
10:1
20:1
20:1
10:1
10:1
TOTAL 2,209,610
Beach replenishment at the South Carlsbad site would consist of the placement of
dredged sediment from a point directly south of Encinas Creek to a point south of
Poinsettia Lane, as shown in Figure 1-3. A berm would be constructed to an elevation of
approximately +1.7 m (+5.6 ft) MSL. The berm would be flat with a width of
approximately 40 to 50 m (130 to 160 ft), then slope at a 20:1 ratio for approximately
60 to 80 m (195 to 260 ft) to a depth of -2 m (-6.6 ft) MSL. The berm would extend up-
and downcoast approximately 2.2km (1.4 mi). A representative cross section of the
proposed berm is shown in Figure 2-1.
Beach replenishment at Encinitas would involve the placement of dredged sediment from
a point directly south of the Batiquitos Lagoon inlet to the northern end of Moonlight
State Beach, as shown in Figure 1-4. A berm would be constructed to an elevation of
approximately +1.7 m (+5.6 ft) MSL. The berm would be flat with a width of
approximately 40 to 50 m (130 to 160 ft), then slope at a 20:1 ratio for approximately
60 to 80 m (195 to 260 ft) to a depth of -2 m (-6.6 ft) MSL. The berm would extend up-
and downcoast approximately 4.4 km (2.7 mi) along the beach. A representative cross
section of the proposed berm is shown in Figure 2-2. The Encinitas site has been rejected
due to direct burial of sensitive marine resources and potential long-term impacts.
211603000 2-5
ELEVATION MSL (M) ELEVATION MSL (M)IV) O IO «. K> O S> £kTOB
\
.v \
\
\
\
&ERM WIDtH VARIES
' 40M TC
I
V\s \
s
»60M "
/~MS
*/
^^^^^
- ^ ^ ^
X.
^X /kx v
SLOPE RA id
20:1
\
^
•s>
•40 0 40 80 12
DISTANCE (M) FROM TOP OF BERM (TOB)
ENCINITAS TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
TOB
N L
-4-\
\
11
1
\
BERM Wl6lH
TOM
\s«._.
+ 2.6 M
X^TSIL
^X.
\V
\
'"^^x
/x^
^s
SLOPE RATIO
10:1
X
""•"--
4
2
0
-2
0
4
2
0
-2
-40 0 40 80 120
DISTANCE (M) FROM TOP OF BERM (TOB)0 40
TORREY PINES NORTH/SOUTH TYPICAL CROSS SECTION f^n^f^^^HORIZONTAL 1:1000VERTICAL 1:100
s$$S$>%\
ftwJff JTI I Typical Berm Cross Sections, Enclnltas and North/South Torrey Pin
FIGURE
2-2
EVENVIR ASS'MT(ENV)\ENVIRON ASSESSMENT\Receiver Beach EA\Cross-aactlons
Although the Encinitas site has been rejected, a full analysis of impacts associated with
beach fill at this site has been included in this EA.
Beach replenishment at the Torrey Pines site would consist of the placement of dredged
sediment at two locations, one northern and one southern. The northern receiver site
would extend approximately 0.9 km (0.5 mi) south of 4th Street, and the southern site
would extend approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi) south of the Torrey Pines State Beach
parking area, as shown in Figure 1-5. Berms would be constructed at these locations to
an elevation of approximately +2.6 m (+8.5 ft) MSL. The berm would be flat with a
width of approximately 70 m (230 ft), then slope at a 10:1 ratio for approximately 60 to
80 m (195 to 260 ft) to a depth of-2 m (-6.6 ft) MSL. A representative cross section of
these berms is shown in Figure 2-2.
Beach replenishment operations would include the use of a trailing suction hopper
dredge, which would load sediment from various dredging locations in San Diego Bay
and move north to the receiver beaches for sand placement. The hopper dredge would
anchor approximately 500 to 1,300 m (1,640 to 4,300 ft) offshore of the receiver beach
and would connect via a 1-m in diameter (dia) (36 inches [in] in dia) rubber floating
pump line attached to a floating platform called a "mono buoy," which is used to
interconnect the floating pump line with a steel sinker pipeline that would run the rest of
the distance to the beach. The steel sinker pipeline would be placed to avoid sensitive
marine resources. The mono buoy, which is less than 9 m (30 ft) in diameter and does
not hold any mechanical equipment, would be anchored a minimum of 500 m (1,640 ft)
offshore at a water depth of approximately -12m (-40 ft) MSL using four navigational
buoys. The mono buoy would remain anchored in the same area off each receiver beach
throughout pumping operations. The hopper dredge would hook up to the mono buoy
and proceed to hydraulically pump a mixture of sand and sea water through the rubber
pump line onto the beach. The sand would then be graded and placed using two
Caterpillar D8 bulldozers. A 966 Caterpillar forklift would be used to move the pump
line. Approximately five to seven construction personnel would be necessary to operate
the pump line and grading equipment on the beach.
The beach replenishment process would involve the construction of longitudinal dikes
along the waterline to trap the maximum amount of sand above the surf zone. Sand
would be placed using a single discharge point behind the dikes. Dikes placed along the
211603000 2-7
shoreline would retain return water from the pumping operation, thus decreasing turbidity
and allowing suspended particles to settle out.
The hopper dredge can carry a maximum capacity of 8,520 m3 (approximately 11,000 cy)
of sand per load. It is anticipated to take approximately 2 to 3 hours to hook up the pump
line, pump a full load onto the receiver beach, and disconnect the line. The dredge would
move south for reloading approximately two to three times per day. Travel time for
reloading would depend on the distance of the receiver beach from the loading location in
San Diego Bay. The dredge moves at approximately 12 km per hour (7.5 mi per hour) at
maximum speed. Beach replenishment operations are scheduled to run 24 hours a day,
7 days a week. Operations would occur at various times throughout the day and night.
Sand placement operations for the initial proposed action were scheduled to occur at
North Carlsbad from October to mid-November 1997; at south Carlsbad from mid-
November 1997 to January 1998; at Encinitas from January to mid-April 1998; and at
Torrey Pines from mid-April to June 1998. Alternative plan sand placement would occur
at Buccaneer Beach from mid-July to October 1997; at North Carlsbad from November
1997 to January 1998; at South Carlsbad from January to April 1998; and at Torrey Pines
from April to June 1998. During periods of high seas, the hopper dredge would be
moved into harbor and anchored until better weather permitted operations to resume.
Due to construction activities associated with beach replenishment operations (e.g.,
pumping sand onto the beach, grading, bulldozer equipment, etc.), the identified receiver
beach areas would be temporarily closed to public access. Closure would be maintained
on a 24-hour basis during the scheduled project operation time. A 30 m (100 ft) buffer
zone would be maintained between the operational area and open public beaches. The
Navy would provide and maintain safety measures in the vicinity of the receiver beaches
including fencing, barricades, flagmen, and warning signals as necessary. In addition to
onshore restricted access, an offshore area would be closed to the public to allow proper
anchoring of the dredge and pumping operations. An offshore area of approximately
150 m by 150 m (about 500 ft by 500 ft) would be restricted around the hopper dredge
while it is anchored off of the receiver beaches. Restricted access is recommended solely
for the purpose of public safety.
2-8 2J1603000
2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
2.3.1 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
After field investigations of the proposed receiver beaches, it was determined that, due to
potentially significant impacts to sensitive marine resources at the Encinitas receiver
beach, an alternative plan for onshore placement would be necessary. Due to direct burial
of sensitive marine resources and potential long-term impacts at the Encinitas site, the
beach fill intended for Encinitas would be redistributed to Buccaneer Beach in South
Oceanside and the South Carlsbad receiver beach.
The alternative plan would place sand at Buccaneer Beach from a point directly south of
the Loma Alta Creek outfall to a point directly north of the Buena Vista Lagoon inlet, as
shown in Figure 2-3. The alternative fill would extend 1.4 km (0.9 mi) along the beach.
Additionally, sand would be placed north of Encinas Creek at the South Carlsbad receiver
beach, elongating the proposed fill area at South Carlsbad by approximately 600 m (2,000
ft), as shown in Figure 2-4. Table 2-2 represents quantities for beach replenishment if the
alternative beach replenishment plan is implemented.
Table 2-2
ALTERNATIVE BEACH REPLENISHMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Beach Fill Site
Buccaneer Beach
North Carlsbad
South Carlsbad
Torrey Pines North
Torrey Pines South
Quantity
Dredge Cut
(m3)
580,245
420,510
711,885
279,545
217,425
Width
(m)
60
60
50
70
70
Berm
Height
(m, MSL)
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.6
Slope
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
TOTAL 2,209,610
211603000 2-9
The alternative plan would place sand at Buccaneer Beach to an elevation of
approximately +2.9 m (+9.5 ft) MSL. The berm would be flat with a width of
approximately 60 m (195 ft), then slope at a 10:1 ratio for approximately 80 m (260 ft)
into the intertidal zone to a depth of-2 m (-6.6 ft) MSL. A representative cross section of
the berm is shown in Figure 2-5.
With the addition of fill at the South Carlsbad receiver site, the beach fill (berm) design
would change from that of the proposed action. The berm would be constructed to an
elevation of approximately +2.9 m (+9.5 ft) MSL and would be flat with a width of
approximately 50 m (160 ft). From this point, the berm would slope at a 10:1 ratio for
approximately 80 m (260 ft) into the intertidal zone to a depth of -2 m (-6.6 ft). A
representative cross section of this berm design is shown in Figure 2-5.
2.3.2 North Oceanside (Oceanside Harbor to Oceanside Pier) Alternative
The North Oceanside Alternative consists of the beach area from Oceanside Harbor to
Oceanside Pier (Figure 2-6). This alternative includes Harbor Beach (in the vicinity of
Oceanside Harbor), the San Luis Rey River mouth, and a section of Oceanside City
Beach from the San Luis Rey River mouth to Oceanside Pier. Harbor Beach affords a
wide, relatively sheltered beach while the City Beach (north of the pier) is wide due to
sand bypassing from the Oceanside Harbor jetty (Sterrett and Flick 1994). The beach
narrows considerably south of the pier until it disappears at Wisconsin Avenue. The
beach area north of Oceanside Pier has been historically replenished as a result of
dredging associated with the maintenance of Oceanside Harbor (ACOE 1994). A
SANDAG study determined that, due to wave protection afforded by the Oceanside
Harbor jetty and previous beach replenishment along this segment, the beach north of the
pier is not currently in critical need of sand replenishment. Therefore, this beach segment
was rejected as an alternative for the proposed action.
23.3 Agua Hedionda Alternative
The Agua Hedionda Alternative includes the beach area in the vicinity of the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon inlet/outlet (Figure 2-6). Specifically, this alternative area extends
from Oak Street at the southern limits of the North Carlsbad receiver site to Palomar
Airport Road at the northern limits of the South Carlsbad receiver site and includes the
majority of Carlsbad State Beach. Currently, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) uses
2-10 211603000
HIKorical MaximumK«lpBedCanoplw197% Io1998
Lagooni
Onthora RMtricttd Zone
BUhymrtiY (1/2 m<t«r litwvii)
F I G U R E
Buccaneer Beach Alternative
Beach Fill Site
Legend
Hlttorioal MaximumKalp Bed Canoplw19ft lo 1996
Lagoont
Onihor«HMlrlctedZone
'"••/ Bathymetry (1/Z auter latwval)
/V Railroad
\ \ N-
"
//•'•• '~\\v\\\\U\\\u \ \
-. \ ;
South Carlsbad Alternative
Beach Fill Site
TOB
UJ .2
£BERM WIDTH
60M
SLOPE RATIO
10:1
-2
•40 0 40 80
DISTANCE (M) FROM TOP OF BERM (TOB)
SOUTH CARLSBAD (ALTERNATIVE) TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
120
TOB
UJ -2
BERM WIDTH
60M
+ 2.9M
SLOPE RATIO
10:1
-40 0 40 80 120
DISTANCE (M) FROM TOP OF BERM (TOB)
BUCCANEER BEACH (ALTERNATIVE) TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
VERTICAL 1:100
Typical Berm Cross Sections, Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
FIGURE
•*
^^P
North Carlsbad
Alternative
Agua Hedionda
Alternative
South Encinitas
Alternative
7000
FEET
San Elijo State
Beach Alternative
Del Mar
Alternative
Torrey Pines
Design Alternative
Black's Beach
Alternative
Scripps
Alternative
F I G U R E
Alternative Beach Replenishment Sites 2-6
Agua Hedionda Lagoon as a source of cooling water for the Encina Power Plant, located
adjacent to the lagoon. SDG&E is continually dredging portions of the lagoon to ensure
a constant source of cooling water and protect tidal flow. During the design phase of the
proposed action, SDG&E concluded that beach fill placed south of Oak Street and north
of Palomar Airport Road would result in potential blockage of the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon inlet and warm water discharge. Therefore, the area between Oak Street and
Palomar Airport Road was not considered as an alternative to the proposed action due to
potential sediment accretion at the lagoon inlet and discharge area.
23.4 South Encinitas Alternative
The South Encinitas Alternative includes the area from Moonlight State Beach to San
Elijo State Beach (Figure 2-6). As referenced hi the Homeporting EIS (Section 3.1.2.4),
qualitative (diver survey) observations were made in the vicinity of this alternative site.
Surveys indicate that this area is constrained by the presence of intertidal and shallow
subtidal vegetated reefs, which would be directly buried by onshore sand placement.
Additionally, numerous reef-supported surf breaks exist in the vicinity of this beach
segment, which could be adversely affected by beach replenishment. Therefore, due to
direct impacts to sensitive marine resources and potential impacts to reef surf breaks, this
alternative area was not considered further for beach replenishment.
23.5 San Elijo State Beach Alternative
This alternative area includes San Elijo State Beach and extends from Swami's Park to
the San Elijo Lagoon inlet (Figure 2-6). Similar to the South Encinitas Alternative site,
this area was surveyed as part of the Homeporting EIS and consists of intertidal and
shallow subtidal vegetated reefs. Therefore, fill placement at this site would cause direct
burial of sensitive marine resources. This area also includes several popular reef-
supported surf breaks that could potentially be adversely affected by fill placement.
Furthermore, beach fill placed at San Elijo State Beach would be transported south hi a
relatively short time, causing potential blockage of the San Elijo Lagoon inlet. Therefore,
this alternative area was not considered further.
211603000 2-17
23.6 Del Mar Alternative
The area referred to as the Del Mar Alternative includes the beach area from the San
Dieguito Lagoon inlet to Torrey Pines State Beach within the jurisdiction of the City of
Del Mar (Figure 2-6). As part of the Homeporting EIS, a near shore disposal site was
permitted off the coast of the City of Del Mar (Figure 2-7). Sand disposed of at the
Del Mar nearshore site would satisfy beach replenishment needs for the City of Del Mar.
Therefore, since beaches within the City would not require beach replenishment beyond
what would occur from nearshore disposal, this area was not considered further for
onshore beach replenishment.
23.7 Torrey Pines Design Alternative
Under the Torrey Pines Design Alternative, the Navy investigated a design that consisted
of one contiguous beach stretching from the Torrey Pines State Reserve parking area to
Flat Rock (Figure 2-6). This alternative would directly cover sensitive marine resources
including intertidal and shallow subtidal vegetated reefs. In addition, sand transport
modeling indicates that placement of a large volume of sand hi this area would cause
blockage of the Los Penasquitos Lagoon inlet, thereby cutting off tidal exchange in the
lagoon. This alternative was therefore rejected due to direct placement onto sensitive
marine resources and blockage of the lagoon inlet.
The Torrey Pines receiver site, as proposed, differs from the rejected Design Alternative
because it would eliminate direct placement onto sensitive marine resources by creating
two receiver areas for disposal, thereby avoiding sensitive resource areas that occur along
Torrey Pines State Beach. Additionally, by creating two smaller fill areas, the potential
for sand accretion at the lagoon mouth would be reduced.
23.8 Black's Beach Alternative
The Black's Beach Alternative area extends from Flat Rock (at Torrey Pines State
Beach/State Reserve) to Scripps Institute of Oceanography and includes the southern
portion of Torrey Pines State Beach and Black's Beach (Figure 2-6). This area is in close
proximity to the Scripps/La Jolla Submarine Canyon, which is located at the base of
Mount Soledad north of La Jolla Point (FRH 1997). Beach fill placed along this segment
would be transported offshore to the Scripps/La Jolla Submarine Canyon in a relatively
2-18 211603000
OeeansldeNearshore Site
Buccaneer BeachAlternative Fill Site
North CarlsbadFill Site
South CarlsbadAlternative Fill Site
South CarlsbadFill Site
EnclnltasFill Site
Del MarNearshore Site
Torrey PinesFill Site
FEET
Mission Beach
Nearshore Site
Imperial BeachNearshore Site
9000
F I G U R E
Beach Replenishment Sites 2-7
short time and lost from the littoral cell. Beach fill placed along Black's Beach would
have a higher potential to be lost from the littoral cell than fill placed north of this site.
Therefore, as the Black's Beach Alternative would not meet a key objective of the
proposed action (i.e., addition of sand to the littoral cell), this alternative was not
considered further.
23.9 Scripps Alternative
The Scripps Alternative consists of the beach area from Scripps Institute of
Oceanography to La Jolla Cove and includes the San Diego Marine Life Refuge, La Jolla
Shores, and the La Jolla Ecological Reserve (Figure 2-6). Similar to the Black's Beach
Alternative, this site is also in close proximity to the Scripps/La Jolla Submarine Canyon.
Beach fill placed at this location would also be transported offshore and potentially lost
from the littoral cell. This entire area is included within the La Jolla Underwater Park,
which is a recreational area primarily used for diving. Segments of this beach area are
also used for marine research by Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Due to potential loss
of sand from the littoral cell, impacts to marine research efforts associated with Scripps
Institute, and potential impacts to the La Jolla Underwater Park, the Scripps Alternative
was not considered further.
2.4 No ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Action Alternative, approximately 2,209,610 m3 (2,850,400 cy) of beach-
compatible dredged materials would not be disposed of along beaches in Carlsbad,
Encinitas, Torrey Pines, or Oceanside. Instead, the Navy would dispose of the material at
nearshore sites that were identified and analyzed in the Homeporting EIS (Figure 2-7).
Areas analyzed for nearshore disposal include Oceanside, Del Mar, Mission Beach, and
Imperial Beach. A full environmental analysis of potential impacts to each of these
nearshore sites has been evaluated in the Homeporting EIS.
A Section 404/10 permit from ACOE was obtained by the Navy on April 6,1996 (Permit
No. 94-20861-DZ) allowing the Navy to utilize the identified nearshore sites for dredged
material disposal. Should the No Action Alternative occur, the dredged material would
be disposed of at permitted nearshore sites as follows:
2-20 211603000
North Carlsbad receiver beach material would be placed at the South
Oceanside nearshore disposal site.
South Carlsbad receiver beach material would be placed at the South
Oceanside nearshore disposal site.
Encinitas receiver beach material would be placed at the South Oceanside
nearshore disposal site (approximately 25 percent) and the Del Mar nearshore
disposal site (approximately 75 percent).
Torrey Pines receiver beach material would be placed at the Imperial Beach
nearshore disposal site (approximately 25 percent) and the Mission Beach
nearshore disposal site (approximately 75 percent).
211603000 2-21
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
2-22 211603000
SECTIONS
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Existing geologic conditions are based on the Beach Sand Transport and Sedimentation
Report prepared by Frederic R. Harris, Inc. (FRH 1997). This report provides general
information and a regional perspective on coastal geology, beaches and shoreline
configuration, tides and sea level changes, wave processes, and littoral processes.
3.1.1 Definition of Resource
For purposes of this EA, geology and soils hi this study include coastal geology and
littoral processes. Coastal geology and beach configuration are determined primarily by
wave forces acting on the geologic framework. These factors account for the area's
rugged undersea and land topography, including the narrow continental shelf, the rocky
substrate under most beach areas, the thin layer of sediment, as well as coastal marine
terraces, sea cliffs, and lagoons.
The following subsections focus on the existing geologic conditions and littoral processes
that make up the individual receiver sites.
3.1.2 North Carlsbad
3.1.2.1 Coastal Geology
The North Carlsbad receiver beach was formed from sand and rocks that originated from
upland erosion. The beach consists of a relatively thin sand lense, which varies in width
and lies on a shallow, wave-cut bedrock platform. Unusually large waves can strip the
rocky terrace clean by moving the sand offshore or downcoast. South of Buena Vista
Lagoon, the existing beach is relatively narrow with an abundance of cobbles. The beach
is backed by marine terraces that reach a height of approximately 10 m (30 ft). Beach
widths from Oceanside Harbor to La Jolla are narrower than they were historically as a
combined consequence of a net decrease of river sand inputs and the trapping effect of the
Oceanside Harbor on the littoral transport of sand from the north.
211603000 3-1
3.1.2.2 Littoral Processes
Beaches along the central and southern California coast are typically dynamic in nature,
with constant and continual longshore and onshore/offshore sediment transport. These
processes vary seasonally in intensity depending upon oceanographic and weather
conditions, occurring both locally and throughout the Pacific Ocean region. Particles of
sediment that are moved via this erosional process are typically suspended into the water
column by wave or current action, transported some distance by longshore currents, and
deposited on adjacent beaches. The void (or erosion) left behind by this movement is
normally replenished by similar sediment that has been eroded from yet another beach
area. Although this process gives the illusion of stationary beaches, the actual sediment
constituting beaches is in a constant state of movement (ACOE 1994).
The Oceanside Littoral Cell extends from Dana Point in Orange County, south to the
Scripps-La Jolla Submarine Canyon system at La Jolla Shores near the foot of Mount
Soledad. The Oceanside Harbor complex is located in the approximate midpoint of this
cell. Harbor jetties interrupt the natural flow of sand and to a large extent divide the cell
into a sub-cell north of Oceanside Harbor. Receiver beaches are located along the
southern half of the Oceanside Littoral Cell.
Historical longshore transport rates and shoreline changes are documented in the Coast of
California Storm and Tidal Waves Study (CCSTWS) (ACOE 1991). This study
concluded that the future condition of beaches in northern San Diego County would be
governed by cycles of accretion and erosion similar to those of the past 50 years, with
accelerated trends toward erosion due to the following conditions: (1) reduction of river-
borne sediment due to impoundment by dams, (2) influence of Oceanside Harbor, and
(3) increase in the rate of sea level rise.
Extensive studies of longshore sediment transport rates have been conducted on the
Oceanside Littoral Cell. Table 3-1 summarizes sediment transport rates, as identified by
previous researchers. Results indicate a net southerly sediment transport at a rate ranging
between 78,000 and 194,000 m3/yr (or approximately 100,000 to 250,000 cy/yr).
3-2 211603000
Table 3-1
LONGSHORE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT RATE ESTIMATES
FOR THE OCEANSIDE LITTORAL CELL
Study
Marine Advisers (1961)
Hales (1978)
Inman and Jenkins
(1983)
Northerly
mVyr (ydVyr)
416,700
(545,000)
413,600
(541,000)
422,800
(553,000)
Southerly
rnVyr (yd3/yr)
581,100
(760,000)
491,600
(643,000)
617,000
(807,000)
Net
m3/yr(yd3/yr)
164,400
(215,000)
78,000
(102,000)
194,200
(254,000)
Source: Frederic R. Harris, Inc. 1997
Historical sources of sediment for Oceanside Littoral Cell beaches include rivers,
streams, and lagoons. However, since the 1950s, dams have significantly reduced these
sediment sources. Furthermore, urbanization has accelerated the erosion rate of coastal
bluffs and increased the rate of sedimentation in lagoons. Thus, current sources of
onshore littoral material primarily include rivers, bluffs, and artificial fills.
Several other elements also contribute to the decline of sediments within the littoral cell.
Storms carry sediment away from the nearshore area and deposit it on the continental
shelf. Due to the steepness of the Oceanside Littoral Cell shelf, littoral material can be
permanently lost from the littoral zone. Additionally, littoral transport between
Oceanside and La Jolla is affected by two submarine canyons located at Carlsbad and
La Jolla, which act as significant sediment sinks for littoral material. However, the North
Carlsbad site is located north of these submarine canyons; thus, littoral transport at this
receiver site would not be as affected as beaches to the south. Because of the reduction in
littoral material sources, and the loss of material due to storms and submarine canyons,
211603000 3-3
there has been a net reduction in available natural sources of beach replenishment at the
North Carlsbad receiver beach.
3.13 South Carlsbad
3.13.1 Coastal Geology
The South Carlsbad receiver site is located on a low tide terrace, which lies hi front of
coastal cliffs between Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon. The steep coastal
cliffs in this area have been continually forming from wave action cutting against the
marine terrace. This process has occurred since the last relative still-stand of sea level,
approximately 6,000 years ago (FRH 1997). The existing beach comprises the flat,
rocky, shallow part of the shoreline.
3.1.3.2 Littoral Processes
The South Carlsbad receiver beach is within the Oceanside Littoral Cell which is subject
to similar transport processes as those described hi Section 3.1.2.2 and is located within a
critical erosional area (ACOE 1991). Additionally, this site is located south of the
Carlsbad Submarine Canyon, which may act as a sediment sink, thereby reducing the
amount of littoral transport to the area (FRH 1997).
3.1.4 Encinitas
3.1.4.1 Coastal Geology
The Encinitas receiver site is located on a low tide terrace, which lies hi front of coastal
cliffs south of Batiquitos Lagoon. The steep coastal cliffs hi this area have been
continually forming from wave action cutting against the marine terrace. The existing
beach comprises the flat, rocky, shallow part of the shoreline visible during periods of
low tide.
Batiquitos Lagoon was formed in the geologic past when the sea level was at a lower
level, the shoreline was located further to the west, and existing streams quickly eroded
the exposed marine terraces. This led to the formation of steep canyons and as the sea
level rose (approximately 18,000 years ago), sediments quickly filled the lower reaches of
3-4 211603000
the channels that created the lagoon. Batiquitos Lagoon is currently a tidal lagoon due to
an enhancement project completed in early 1997 that opened the inlet channel to tidal
flows.
3.1.4.2 Littoral Processes
The Encinitas receiver beach is located within the Oceanside Littoral Cell and is subject
to similar transport processes as those described in Section 3.1.2.2. The Encinitas
receiver beach is located within a critical erosional area (ACOE 1991). Additionally, this
site is located south of the Carlsbad Submarine Canyon, which may act as a sediment
sink, thereby reducing the amount of littoral transport to the area (FRH 1997).
3.1.5 Torrey Pines
3.1.5.1 Coastal Geology
The northern and southern Torrey Pines receiver beaches are located on a low tide
terrace, which lies hi front of coastal cliffs to the north and south of Los Penasquitos
Lagoon. The steep coastal cliffs in this area have been continually forming from wave
action cutting against the marine terrace. The existing beach comprises the flat, rocky,
shallow part of the shoreline visible during low tide.
Similar to Batiquitos Lagoon, Los Penasquitos Lagoon was formed in the geologic past
when the sea level was lower, the shoreline was located further to the west, and existing
streams quickly eroded the exposed marine terraces. Los Penasquitos Lagoon is an
intermittent tidal lagoon due to occasional lagoon closures from sediment accretion at the
channel inlet.
3.1.5.2 Littoral Processes
The Torrey Pines receiver sites are both within the Oceanside Littoral Cell and are subject
to similar transport processes as described hi Section 3.1.2.2. According to the
CCSTWS, the Torrey Pines receiver beaches are not located within a critical erosional
area. The Torrey Pines receiver sites are located south of the Carlsbad Submarine
Canyon, which may act as a sediment sink, thereby reducing the amount of littoral
transport to these areas (FRH 1997).
211603000 3-5
3.1.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
3.1.6.1 Coastal Geology
Geologic characteristics of the Buccaneer Beach alternative receiver site are similar to
those of the North Carlsbad receiver site due to their directly adjacent locations. Existing
geologic conditions at the Buccaneer Beach site are described in Section 3.1.2.1.
Similarly, the geologic characteristics of the proposed additional fill associated with the
South Carlsbad alternative site are described in Section 3.1.3.1.
3.1.6.2 Littoral Processes
The alternative receiver sites are within the Oceanside Littoral Cell and are subject to
similar transport processes as described in Section 3.1.2.2. The Buccaneer Beach and
South Carlsbad alternative receiver sites are located within a critical erosional area
(ACOE 1991). Littoral transport to the Buccaneer Beach site would not be affected by
the Carlsbad Submarine Canyon due to its location north of the canyon; however, the
South Carlsbad receiver site is located south of the Carlsbad submarine canyon, which
may act as a sediment sink, thereby reducing the amount of littoral transport to this area
(FRH 1997).
3.2 COASTAL WETLANDS
3.2.1 Definition of Resource
Coastal wetlands discussed in this report include creeks, rivers, or lagoons that discharge
into the ocean near the proposed receiver sites (FRH 1997). Coastal wetland areas
identified in the vicinity of the proposed receiver sites include San Luis Rey River, Loma
Alta Creek, Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Encinas Creek, Batiquitos
Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, San Dieguito Lagoon, and Los Penasquitos Lagoon. Each of
these coastal wetland areas is described below.
3-6 211603000
This section provides a brief overview of coastal wetland areas in the vicinity of the
proposed action. For a more detailed discussion of coastal wetlands, refer to the Beach
Sand Transport and Sedimentation Report by FRH (1997).
3.2.2 San Luis Rey River
The San Luis Rey River has a watershed area of 1,445 square (sq) km (560 sq mi) and is
located below Lake Henshaw Dam. It has been estimated that construction of the dam
has reduced the average sediment yield of the river by approximately 32 percent. The
San Luis Rey River has historically received discharges of treated wastewater. The ocean
inlet at this location is open intermittently due to the presence of a sand barrier and low
freshwater flows. The wetland area adjacent to the ocean inlet consists of approximately
300 acres, of which 52 acres are open estuarine lagoon waters. This wetland is primarily
a fresh/brackish water habitat. The dominant habitat adjacent to the ocean inlet is
riparian, which occupies approximately 130 acres. Saltwater and freshwater marsh
habitats are also adjacent to the ocean inlet. Endangered species that forage or nest hi this
area include California least tern and California brown pelican. Least Bell's vireo also
nest in adjacent riparian habitat. No endangered species are known to nest directly on the
beach at the San Luis Rey River.
3.23 Loma Alta Creek
Loma Alta Creek, which discharges south of the proposed beach fill area, is a seasonal
freshwater creek, but suffers from urbanization and poor water quality (City of Oceanside
1985). The outlet area crosses a small steep sand beach that is defined by rip-rap on both
sides. A small freshwater marsh is located east of the outlet area. During the dry season,
when the creek is not running, the outlet is closed to the ocean by a sand berm
(FRH 1997).
3.2.4 Buena Vista Lagoon
Buena Vista Lagoon, located south of the receiver beach, is the smallest of the area
lagoons. Historically, Buena Vista Lagoon had 376 acres of low marsh and 290 acres of
high marsh habitat; however, it presently consists of a 246-acre fresh/brackish water
wetland area (MEC 1993). The lagoon has historically received discharges of secondary
treated wastewater and presently continues to experience sewage spills. The accumulated
211603000 3-7
sludge, plant detritus, excess nutrients, and contained basin combine to cause eutrophic
conditions. Nonetheless, a diverse assemblage of sensitive bird species (e.g., California
least tern, Belding's savannah sparrow, and California brown pelican) forage or nest in
the vicinity of this lagoon (MEC 1993). However, none of these sensitive species are
known to nest on the beach in front of the lagoon due to high recreational use of this
beach segment. The lagoon is managed by the CDFG as a State Ecological Reserve.
Buena Vista Lagoon is no longer connected to the ocean due to the construction of a fixed
weir in 1940, which was designed to provide a year-round aquatic environment. Excess
seasonal freshwater runoff flows over the weir to the ocean. The weir is located in the
back end of a small pocket beach, approximately 44 m (145 ft) behind the crest of a
longshore cobble berm. High tides do not usually wash over the weir; however, evidence
suggests that high waves occasionally overtop the weir during the winter.
3.2.5 Agua Hedionda Lagoon
The ocean inlet to Agua Hedionda Lagoon is located south of the proposed North
Carlsbad receiver site and north of the proposed South Carlsbad receiver site. Agua
Hedionda is of particular interest because it has been a tidal lagoon since 1954 when
San Diego Gas and Electric completed a 3.3 million m3 dredging project to provide a
deep water basin and cooling water source for the Encina Power Plant. As a result, the
lagoon exhibits a diverse community of marine benthic invertebrates and fish (Bradshaw
et al. 1976). The lagoon supports a number of uses including bivalve and fish
aquaculture, recreational boating and skiing, fishing and clamming, and a marina. Two
pairs of jetties maintain tidal flow and power plant circulation; the northern jetties serve
as an ocean inlet to the lagoon and the southern jetties serve as the warm water discharge
flow from the power plant.
Agua Hedionda Lagoon has a total wetland area of approximately 390 acres, of which
250 acres are open estuarine waters. The lagoon has a relatively small watershed area
consisting of 185 acres. Sedimentation has been a problem in the lagoon, occurring from
both tidal and freshwater flows. The west basin of the lagoon is dredged approximately
every 2 years to sustain tidal flushing and to ensure a source of cooling water for the
Encina Power Plant. Dredged sediments are typically discharged hi front of the power
plant between the ocean inlet and the warm water discharge canal, and south of the warm
water discharge canal. Agua Hedionda is a deep lagoon with limited shallow water areas
3-8 211603000
or intertidal habitats. Consequently, it is a unique wetland because it supports 70 acres of
eelgrass and only 4 acres of salt marsh. Although species diversity is low, a number of
sensitive species (including California least tern and Belding's savannah sparrow) have
historically nested and/or foraged in the lagoon area; however, no sensitive species are
known to nest directly on the beach in front of the lagoon (FRH 1997).
3.2.6 Encinas Creek
Encinas Creek is a narrow, seasonal freshwater creek that discharges into the ocean in the
vicinity of the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant and approximately 300 m (985 ft)
north of the proposed South Carlsbad receiver site. The creek drains a former agricultural
area and the Palomar Business Park near El Camino Real. The creek passes under
Carlsbad Boulevard through two cement culverts. East of Carlsbad Boulevard, the
channel widens to include 4.2 acres of freshwater marsh. Stormwater runoff typically
flows across a cobble berm and sand beach and often creates a turbidity plume in the
nearshore zone. High tides occasionally reach the western of the two culverts under
Carlsbad Boulevard but are not known to reach the freshwater marsh area (FRH 1997).
3.2.7 Batiquitos Lagoon
Batiquitos Lagoon inlet is located south of the proposed South Carlsbad receiver site and
north of the proposed Encinitas receiver site. The lagoon is managed by the CDFG as an
ecological reserve. A major wetlands enhancement project that involved dredging the
entire lagoon was completed in January 1997, which allowed sustained tidal flushing of
the lagoon. Prior to the enhancement project, the lagoon consisted of 550 acres of
shallow wetland, which included estuarine open water, southern coastal salt marsh, and
tidal estuarine flats. The lagoon area supported a number of nesting migratory birds,
including California least terns and western snowy plovers. The lagoon had been
subjected to frequent inlet closures due to the buildup of a sand and cobble berm. The
lagoon closures led to a substantial accumulation of organics and fine anaerobic
sediments, persistent eutrophic conditions, development of extensive algal mats, and wide
swings in salinity.
Since completion of the enhancement project, habitats throughout the lagoon have been
altered. Consequently, the lagoon is currently in a transition phase, and it is not possible
to represent its hydrological performance, ecological status, or to what extent the habitat
211603000 3-9
restoration efforts will succeed. Sediments dredged from the lagoon were placed onshore
north and south of the inlet, which covered an extensive longshore cobble berm that had
been responsible for lagoon closures. Over time, the beach fill associated with the lagoon
dredging project will erode and the cobble berm will become active again.
The new ocean inlet to the lagoon is protected by two jetties that enable sustained tidal
flushing. Due to the dynamics of the lagoon, the west and central basins are expected to
accumulate beach sand and will require routine maintenance dredging similar to that
conducted at Agua Hedionda Lagoon every 2 years (FRH 1997).
3.2.8 San Elijo Lagoon
The San Elijo Lagoon inlet is located approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) south of the proposed
Encinitas receiver beach. San Elijo Lagoon is comprised of approximately 900 acres and
includes the 590-acre San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve, which is managed by the
CDFG and the San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation. The lagoon
supports a multitude of habitats, including coastal salt marsh, tidal channels, mudflats,
and freshwater marsh habitats. Adjacent to the wetland are upland chaparral and riparian
habitats. Sensitive bird species known to nest and forage hi this area include California
least tern, western snowy plover, and Belding's savannah sparrow (MEC 1993). The
western snowy plover has historically nested along the beach in front of the lagoon;
however, due to a reduction in beach area over the past decade, this sensitive bird is no
longer known to nest on the beach at this location. Habitat quality has been degraded
from changes in hydrology, land use surrounding the watershed, urbanization,
sedimentation resulting in poor water quality, introduction of exotic species, and severely
limited tidal action (County of San Diego 1995). A combination of these effects has
resulted in regular closures of the lagoon mouth.
3.2.9 San Dieguito Lagoon
San Dieguito Lagoon is located approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) south of Fletcher Cove
Beach park. The lagoon includes a lengthy river channel, which serves as the main body
of the lagoon, along with a channel tributary. Historically, the lagoon was a 604-acre salt
marsh but was filled hi to construct the Del Mar fairgrounds and racetrack in 1935.
Today, San Dieguito Lagoon is primarily a river channel with dominant seasonal fluvial
flows. The watershed consists of the San Dieguito River and its tributaries; however,
3-10 211603000
Lake Hodges Dam restricts storm flows on the river, affecting the natural function of the
lagoon. During drought periods, the ocean inlet is typically closed. During wet years,
storm flows would blow out the ocean inlet barrier and scour the river bed in the lagoon.
Wastewater discharges and sewage spills have occurred hi the lagoon and have
contributed to increased eutrophic conditions. The wetland acreage of the lagoon totals
520 acres; however, 259 acres consist of highly disturbed, agricultural, and nonvegetated
habitat. The lagoon serves as nesting and foraging habitat for several shorebirds and
water fowl. No sensitive bird species are known to nest on the beach in front of
San Dieguito Lagoon due to its high recreational use.
3.2.10 Los Pefiasquitos Lagoon
Los Pefiasquitos Lagoon inlet is located between the proposed northern and southern
Torrey Pines receiver sites. The lagoon has a total wetland area of 217 acres and includes
southern coastal salt marsh habitat, riparian habitat, and tidal channels. The watershed is
of moderate size at 625 acres; however, it has become increasingly hardened with
construction of industrial sites and urban development, which has accelerated stormwater
runoff to the lagoon.
The Los Pefiasquitos Lagoon Foundation has been successfully experimenting to keep the
ocean inlet open and enable sustained tidal flushing. However, the presence of a
longshore cobble berm adjacent to the ocean inlet complicates maintenance of tidal
exchange. Transport and deposition of cobbles into the inlet and main lagoon channel
accelerates inlet closure processes. Historically, the lagoon has received discharges of
secondary treated wastewater and accumulated deposits of sludge, plant organic detritus,
and fine sediments. Several large sewage spills have occurred hi recent years, which has
led to the recent replacement of a sewage pump station located within the lagoon.
Substantial accumulation of sediments throughout the lagoon has reduced tidal flushing,
resulting hi degraded water quality conditions, degradation of salt marsh habitat,
establishment of invasive plant species, and mortality of benthos and fish. A
fresh/brackish water marsh, supported by freshwater flows from Cannel Creek, is located
adjacent to Interstate 5 (1-5). Ongoing construction of the new State Highway 56/1-5
interchange has increased turbidity and sedimentation in the lagoon.
A number of endangered bird species forage and nest in the vicinity of Los Pefiasquitos
Lagoon, including California least tern, Belding's savannah sparrow, and western snowy
211603000 3-11
plover; however, none of these sensitive species are known to nest on the beach in front
of the lagoon. Endangered plant species identified within the lagoon include salt marsh
daisy, southern poverty weed, and beach deerweed.
Tidal flushing and storm runoff are the major sources of sediment input to the lagoon.
Tidal inflow transports marine sand and cobbles into the main channel where they
accumulate, reduce tidal flushing, and may cause lagoon closure. When the lagoon
closes, water quality deteriorates rapidly, leading to fish kills and insect production.
Stormwater transport and sediment deposition varies greatly with the rate of precipitation
and storm frequency and intensity. Urban development in the vicinity of the lagoon has
facilitated year-round runoff and the growth of fresh/brackish water habitat (including
invasive plant species), primarily along Carmel Canyon Creek adjacent to 1-5.
3.3 WATER RESOURCES
33.1 Definition of Resource
Water resources analyzed in this study include physical processes and chemical
properties. Physical processes include tides and water levels, currents, wave exposure,
and littoral processes. Chemical properties are characterized by temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, and water visibility (turbidity).
The following is a discussion of the factors that contribute to the quality of existing water
resources at each of the proposed receiver beaches.
3.3.2 Physical Processes
Southern California has a mixed semidiurnal (daily) tide with two high tides and two low
tides, each of different magnitude, every 24 hours and 50 minutes. The range between
mean high and low water is approximately 1.1 m (3.7 ft) and the diurnal range is
approximately 1.6 m (5.4 ft). Tidal characteristics in the vicinity of the proposed receiver
beaches range from a lowest observed tide of -1.6 m (-5.4 ft) MSL to a highest observed
tide of+1.5 m (+5.1 ft) MSL (ACOE 1996b).
Local currents in nearshore waters are complex and include longshore currents, which
flow parallel to the shore, and cross-shore currents, which move in an onshore-offshore
3-12 211603000
direction. The combination of these currents makes up the littoral transport process.
Longshore currents in the coastal zone are driven primarily by waves striking the
shoreline at oblique angles. Overall, longshore currents produce drift and sediment
transport from north to south. Wave exposure affects the receiver beaches from the south
and west. For further discussion of littoral transport processes affecting the proposed
receiver sites, refer to Section 3.1.
333 Chemical Properties
Due to the local physical characteristics of the area, the water column is well mixed
vertically, with seawater temperatures ranging between 13.9 and 23.9 degrees Celsius
(57 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit). Salinity in the coastal area typically varies between 33
and 3 5 parts per thousand (ACOE 1996b).
High dissolved oxygen concentrations are maintained by tidal and wave action, while low
concentrations result from respiration by aquatic organisms, poor circulation, and
oxidation of organic matter. A dissolved oxygen level equal to or greater than 5 parts per
million (ppm) has been recommended as a generalized standard of acceptable water
quality for aquatic life (EPA 1986). Dissolved oxygen concentrations are routinely
measured off the coast of Encinitas, approximately 12.8 km (8 mi) south of the North
Carlsbad receiver site, 3.2 km (2 mi) south of the South Carlsbad receiver site, and
14.5 km (9 mi) north of the Torrey Pines receiver site. Average recorded dissolved
oxygen levels are 10 ppm (ACOE 1996b).
33.4 Turbidity
Turbidity refers to the total amount of suspended sediments in the water column.
Increases hi turbidity can affect fish growth, propagation, feeding, and respiration.
Turbidity is caused by the presence of fine sediments (e.g., silts and clays) in the water
column. It reduces the transparency of seawater and therefore reduces the amount of light
available for phytoplankton and photosynthesis. Suspended silt particles in the water
column will increase turbidity; however, larger sand particles (>63 micrometers Qim])
will settle out rapidly and do not cause a significant increase hi turbidity. Testing of the
dredged material suitable for beach disposal determined that approximately 97 percent of
the sand is greater than 63 um (Navy 1996). Sampling of the water near the receiver
beaches indicates that nearshore water visibility typically ranges between 1.5 and 6 m
211603000 3-13
(5 and 20 ft) (ACOE 1996b); however, visibility is significantly reduced in the surf zone
due to sediment disturbance from wave action. Therefore, intertidal waters of the
receiver beaches are characteristically turbid due to the high energy activity in the
nearshore environment.
3.4 BIOLOGY
3.4.1 Definition of Resource
The following section provides an introduction to the existing biological communities
occurring within the proposed alternate receiver areas. Habitat and biological
descriptions are based on field studies of the proposed fill areas at each receiver site using
both fathometer and diver surveys.
Marine biological field surveys were performed to identify and map the locations of
sensitive marine resources. Sensitive marine resources are defined as rocky intertidal
reefs, subtidal vegetated reefs that contain feather boa kelp (Egregia menzesif), surfgrass
(Phyllospadix torreyf), and sea palms (Eisenia arbored), and nearshore reefs with giant
kelp (Macrocystis pyriferd). Reefs that support sea fans (Muricea spp.) are also
considered sensitive because sea fans are indicative of persistent reefs that are not
covered by sand.
The intertidal zone is defined as the area between the highest high tide and the lowest low
tide and can be divided into three areas (upper, middle, and lower) based on the frequency
and duration of inundation by seawater. The intertidal zone is also characterized by
breaking surf. Shallow subtidal zone is defined as the area between the lower intertidal
and the nearshore zone. The nearshore zone is defined as the subtidal zone between -6 m
and -33 m (-20 ft and -100 ft) MSL.
Fathometer surveys were designed to identify the location of different habitat types (i.e.,
sand and rock reefs) and also to differentiate between different topographical features
(i.e., flat sandy areas, and low and high relief reefs) within the predetermined disposal
footprint at each of the six potential receiver beaches. Low relief reefs are defined as
reefs that extend less than 1 m from the sand surface; high relief reefs are defined as reefs
that extend greater than 1 m from the sand surface. When elevated reef areas were
identified on the fathometer, divers made bounce dives (dives of <5 minutes) to
3-14 211603000
determine the elevation of the reefs. Locations of the reefs were mapped using a
Differential Geographic Positioning System (DGPS) and plotted on a map with an
accuracy of 2 to 3 m. (6.6 to 10 ft).
Fathometer surveys also enabled marine biologists to (1) cover large areas of the shallow
subtidal zone at each receiver beach; (2) identify the locations of the different habitat
types and bathymetry of the seafloor; and (3) identify areas where sensitive marine
resources may exist.
In areas where sensitive marine resources were identified, divers swam transects to
describe the species composition of the reefs and map the extent of the sensitive marine
resources. Divers attached a metered tape to the anchor and swim a predetermined
compass heading. Qualitative assessments of habitat type and species composition of
eight reefs per disposal footprint at each beach site were performed. Transects were run
in a rrunimum of three directions. In general, one transect was oriented towards the
shoreline (east) and two transects parallel to the shoreline (upcoast and downcoast).
3.4.2 North Carlsbad
The North Carlsbad receiver area is located north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and is
characterized by sandy beaches in the intertidal zone, and hard substrates (i.e., low and
high relief reefs) interspersed among sand channels in the shallow subtidal zone.
Organisms that live within the intertidal have adapted to a continually changing
environment and physical factors such as grain size, slope of the beach, turbidity, and
wave action. These organisms also have physical tolerances (e.g., desiccation) which
influence species diversity, abundance, and distribution.
Sand Habitats
Beach hoppers (Orchestoidea), the predatory isopod Excirolana chiltoni, and three
species of polychaete worms are commonly found in the upper intertidal zone (Thompson
et al. 1993). Sand crabs (Emerita analoga) are common hi the middle intertidal zone but
move with the tide throughout the intertidal area. Polychaetes, snails, and the bean clam
(Donax gouldi) are also found in the middle intertidal zone. Tubicolus polychaete
(Diopatra ornata and D. splendissimd) and nemertean worms dominate the lower
intertidal area (Straughan 1982).
211603000 3-15
Areas that are permanently inundated by seawater are defined as subtidal. California
corbina (Menticirrhus undulatus) and barred surfperch (Amphistichus argenteus) are
common in shallow subtidal areas, often darting into the surf zone to feed on sand crabs.
Other fishes that commonly occur over sandy bottoms include topsmelt (Atherinops
affinis), queenfish (Seriphus politus), spotfin croaker (Roncador stearnsii), white croaker
(Genyonemus lineatus), California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), shovehiose
guitarfish (Rhinobatosproductus), and round stingray (Urolophus halleri) (ACOE 1994).
Large (visible) algae are not found on sandy substrates. Phytoplankton (planktonic forms
of algae) do occur in the water column at North Carlsbad. However, phytoplankton
abundance is seasonal and has not been measured.
California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) may be found seasonally in the nearshore waters of
the North Carlsbad receiver site. Grunion typically utilize sandy beach areas for
spawning (runs) from March through mid-September with peak activity between April
and June; however; due to their unique spawning behavior along the coast, exact
locations where spawning will occur cannot be determined. Grunion spawn only on 3 or
4 nights after the highest high tide associated with each full or new moon. They are
considered a "Species of Special Concern" due to their unique spawning behavior and are
managed as a game species by the CDFG. Based on expected grunion runs for 1997,
spawning is not expected to occur during sand replenishment activities.
Reef Habitats
The shallow subtidal zone also contains low relief and high relief reefs that are scattered
among sand channels (Figure 3-1). Reefs are made of hard substrate (rock or sandstone),
are elevated above the sand, and provide increased surface area and crevices for species to
seek refuge. Consequently, the reefs are home to more species than the sandy substrates.
Sessile invertebrates and algae attach to the reefs, while the reef crevices provide habitat
for fishes and invertebrates. Vegetated reef habitat is considered a sensitive marine
resource by NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG because the reefs support surfgrass and macro
algae that act as habitat for smaller species of algae, fishes, and invertebrates. Reef
habitats are found primarily in the southern part of the receiver beach.
3-16 211603000
Buccaneer BeachAlternative Fill Site
Feathei Boaand Sea
nvegetated
Giant Kelp
e>
Feather Boa KelpLEGEND
SAND Feather Boa Kelp
LOW RELIEF
SCATTERED REEF
HIGH RELIEF
REEF
Historical MaximumKelp Bed Canopies1978 to 1996
Kelp Bed Canopy1997
Mono Buoy
L"L~;1! Offshore Restricted Zone
/V Fill Area
/V Sinker Line
A/ Railroad
Scattered
Surf grass
Surf grass
Feather Boa Kelp
F I G U R E
North Carlsbad/Buccaneer Beach
Biological Resources
tiotifo«<ttploti'Btu»i/li«l>itiUml 03/1H97
Only about 19 percent of the shallow subtidal reef habitats are vegetated. Vegetated reefs
are initiated by species of red (fleshy and coralline), green, and brown algae including
feather boa kelp. Surfgrass beds also exist on low relief reefs near the receiver beach area
(Figure 3-1). Giant kelp is not found on the shallow subtidal reefs.
Historically, large beds of giant kelp were present on the nearshore (> 6 m deep) reef
substrates of North Carlsbad; however, surveys conducted in 1996 found smaller and
fewer kelp beds. The spatial extent of historic kelp growth in the North Carlsbad receiver
area is shown in Figure 3-1.
Invertebrate diversity is expected to be higher on the hard substrates and include sessile
species such as mussels, burrowing clams, tube worms (Family Serpulidae), sponges, and
bryozoans. Mobile species consist of lobsters (Panuliris interruptis), crabs (Cancer spp.
and Lochoryncus sp.), sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus spp.), sea stars (Pisaster spp.,
Asterina miniatd), and gastropods (e.g., snails, limpets, and sea slugs).
Numerous fish species that are important to recreational fisherman occur offshore of the
North Carlsbad receiver site. Fish diversity and abundance within reefs and kelp beds are
influenced by the presence or absence of kelp and substrate relief (Cross and Allen 1990).
Kelp beds are not important spawning areas for fish but do provide refuge and foraging
areas for juveniles and adults (Cross and Allen 1990). California sheephead
(Semicossyphus pulcher), garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus), blacksmith (Chromis
punctipinnis), rockfish (Sebastes spp.), kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus), surfperch
(Family Embiotocidae), and opaleye (Girella nigricans) are commonly found near kelp
beds and rocky reefs.
Marine Mammals
California sea lions (Zalophus californicanus) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulind) occur
offshore and may, infrequently, use the beach. Dolphins and porpoises have been
observed offshore and within the surf zone of the North Carlsbad receiver beach.
Birds
Numerous shorebird species forage in the intertidal zone of the North Carlsbad receiver
area, a majority of which are winter visitors. Species that may be seen in the North
211603000 3-19
Carlsbad receiver area include American avocet (Recurvirostra americand), black-bellied
plover (Plitvialis squatarold), greater and lesser yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca and
T.flavipes), spotted sandpipers (Actitis macularid), willets (Catoptrophorus
semipalmatus), long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus), marbled godwit (Limosa
fedod), and sanderlings (Calidris alba). Western gulls (Larus occidentalis), California
gulls (Larus californicus), ring-billed gulls (Larus delewarensis), and herring gulls
(Larus argentatus) are also common at the North Carlsbad receiver area.
Sensitive bird species are those that are listed by the USFWS or CDFG as threatened or
endangered, are proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or are considered a
"Species of Special Concern" by the CDFG. Sensitive birds that may occur at the North
Carlsbad receiver area include the California brown pelican, California least tern, and
western snowy plover.
The federally and state-listed endangered California brown pelicans have been observed
in the vicinity of the North Carlsbad receiver site, and forage and rest in nearshore waters.
This species is tolerant of human activity near its daytime roosts and readily utilizes
various man-made structures (e.g., piers, breakwaters, buoys) as roosting sites. Brown
pelicans breed at the Coronado Islands, which are approximately 35 mi (56 km) south of
the North Carlsbad receiver site.
The federally listed (endangered) California least tern is a migratory bird that visits
southern California's coastline from April through mid-September. This species breeds
in open, unvegetated sandy areas and forage on small fish hi nearshore waters near their
breeding colonies. California least terns are not expected to nest at the North Carlsbad
receiver site due to the presence of humans; however, they may forage in the nearshore
waters.
The federally listed (threatened) western snowy plover nests hi flat open areas with sandy
or saline substrates such as bays and lagoons. Breeding typically occurs from March to
mid-September. Snowy plovers forage on invertebrates hi the intertidal zone. Western
snowy plovers have not historically occurred along the North Carlsbad receiver site and
are not expected to nest in the area due to high human presence.
3-20 211603000
3.4.3 South Carlsbad
The South Carlsbad receiver site is located about 3 km (1.9 mi) south of the North
Carlsbad receiver beach, south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The habitat and biological
resources of the South Carlsbad receiver beach are similar to North Carlsbad.
Sand habitat
The upper intertidal is characterized by sandy beach habitat that extends into the middle
and lower intertidal zones. The invertebrate and fish species inhabiting the sandy areas
are similar to those found at North Carlsbad.
Reef Habitat
Low and high relief reef habitats are scattered throughout the shallow subtidal zone. The
majority of the low relief reefs are vegetated with scattered patches of surfgrass, whereas
the high relief reefs are vegetated with feather boa kelp, sea palms, and surfgrass
(Figure 3-2). Giant kelp is not found on the shallow subtidal reefs; however, it is found
in small patches on the deeper nearshore reefs. Surveys conducted in 1997 found smaller
and fewer kelp plants than the historical maximum. The spatial extent of historic kelp
growth in the South Carlsbad receiver area is shown in Figure 3-2.
Invertebrate and fish species inhabiting the reef areas are similar to those found at North
Carlsbad.
Marine Mammals
The South Carlsbad receiver beach is utilized by the same species of marine mammals as
the North Carlsbad site.
Birds
The presence or absence of both sensitive and nonsensitive bird species and the potential
for these species to utilize the South Carlsbad receiver site is similar to North Carlsbad.
211603000 3-21
3.4.4 Encinitas
The Encinitas receiver site is located just south of the South Carlsbad receiver site and
south of Batiquitos Lagoon. The habitats and biological resources found at the Encinitas
receiver beach are similar to the North Carlsbad and South Carlsbad sites; however, the
Encinitas site has substantially more reef habitat that extends from the shallow subtidal to
the upper intertidal zone.
Sand Habitat
The upper intertidal is characterized by sandy beach and cobble habitats that extend into
the middle and lower intertidal zones. The invertebrate and fish species inhabiting the
sandy areas are similar to those found at North Carlsbad.
Reef Habitat
The middle and lower intertidal zones have low relief scattered reefs that are connected to
the shallow subtidal reefs. In addition, low and high relief reef habitats are scattered
throughout the shallow subtidal zone. The majority of the low relief reefs are vegetated
with patches of surfgrass. High relief reefs are vegetated with giant kelp, feather boa
kelp, sea palms, and surfgrass (Figure 3-3). Based on the species compositions that
predominate the low and high relief reefs at Encinitas, the reefs appear to be perennial
and show no signs of being covered and uncovered by sand.
Although surveys conducted in 1997 found smaller and fewer kelp beds than the
historical maximums, Encinitas has larger patches of giant kelp than the other receiver
beach locations. In addition, giant kelp is also found in the shallow subtidal zone. The
spatial extent of historic kelp growth in the Encinitas receiver beach is shown on
Figure 3-3.
Invertebrate and fish species inhabiting the reef areas are similar to those found at the
other receiver beach sites.
3-22 211603000
LEGEND
SAND vi VJSJ\i •-• VLOW RELIEF
SCAHERED REEF
HIGH RELIEF
REEF
COBBLE/SAND
Historical MaximumKelp Bed Canopies1978I0199B
Kelp Bed Canopy1997
4- Mono Buoy
L1TJ Offshore Restricted Zone
/V Fill Area
/V sinker Line
Ax Railroad
Enclnltas
Biological Resources
OJ/1IW7
Feather Boa Kelp
and Sea Balms
South Carlsbad
Alternative Fill Site
Scattered Surfgrass
ScatteredFeather Boa Kelp
and Surfgrass
LOW RELIEF
SCATTERED REEF
HIGH RELIEF
REEF
Historical MaximumKelp Bed Canopies1978 to 1998
Kelp Bed Canopy1997
4 Mono Buoy
L1~U Offshore Restricted Zone
/V Fill Area
Sinker Line
Railroad Northern Survey Boundaryfor Endrdtas FID Site
South Carlsbad
Biological Resources
OS/HOT
Marine Mammals
The Encinitas receiver beach is utilized by the same species of marine mammals as the
North Carlsbad and South Carlsbad sites.
Birds
The presence or absence of both sensitive and nonsensitive bird species and the potential
for these species to utilize the Encinitas receiver site is similar to North Carlsbad and
South Carlsbad.
3.4.5 Torrey Pines
The Torrey Pines receiver beach is divided into two receiver sites located along Torrey
Pines State Park. The habitats and biological resources found at the Torrey Pines receiver
beaches are similar to the other receiver sites.
Sand Habitat
The intertidal and shallow subtidal zones of the northern receiver beach consist entirely
of sand habitat. The northern portion of the southern site is entirely sand. The algae,
invertebrate, and fish species that inhabit the sandy areas are similar to those found at the
other receiver beaches.
Reef Habitat
Low and high relief reef habitats are found hi the southern portion of the shallow subtidal
zone at the south receiver site. The majority of the low relief reefs are vegetated with
scattered patches of surfgrass and feather boa kelp. The high relief reefs are vegetated
with feather boa kelp, sea palms, and dense surfgrass (Figure 3-4).
Giant kelp is only present in one small patch offshore of the southern portion of the south
site. Historical maximums for giant kelp beds indicate that kelp beds have existed at the
north Torrey Pines receiver beach, but as of the 1997 survey these beds no longer exist.
The spatial extent of recent and historic kelp growth at the Torrey Pines receiver beaches
is shown in Figure 3-4.
211603000 3-27
Invertebrate and fish species inhabiting the reef areas are similar to those found at the
other receiver beach sites.
Marine Mammals
The Torrey Pines receiver beaches are utilized by the same species of marine mammals as
the other receiver sites.
Birds
The presence or absence of both sensitive and nonsensitive bird species and the potential
for these species to utilize the Torrey Pines receiver beaches are similar to other receiver
beaches.
3.4.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
Onshore placement of sand at alternative beach sites (Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad)
is proposed as an alternative to onshore placement at Encinitas. The habitats and
biological resources found at the alternate receiver beaches are similar to the other
receiver sites.
Sand Habitat
The intertidal and shallow subtidal zones of these alternative receiver beaches are
predominately sand habitat. The algae, invertebrate, and fish species that inhabit the
sandy areas of these beaches are similar to those found at the other receiver beaches.
Reef Habitat
Buccaneer Beach receiver beach is devoid of reefs. Consequently, no sensitive marine
resources exist at this site (Figure 3-1).
The alternative South Carlsbad site has one small area of high relief reef surrounded by
sand. This reef is vegetated with feather boa kelp and sea palms (Figure 3-2). Giant kelp
is not present at either of these sites.
3-28 211603000
I I
Feather Boa Kelp
and Surfgrass
Feather Boa Kelp
Feather Boa Kelp
LEGEND
SAND
LOW RELIEF
SCATTERED REEF
HIGH RELIEF
REEF Scattered Feather Boa Kelp,
Sea Palms,Dense SurfgrassCOBBLE/SAND
Historical MaximumKelp Bed Canopies1978 to 1996 Feather Boa KelpKelp Bed Canopy1997
Mono Buoy
Offshore Restricted Zone
Fill Area
Sinker Line
Railroad
DenseSurfgrass
F I G U R E
Torrey Pines
Biological Resources
/rotofcM(h/|iloli/fitunt/luMI>Unil
Invertebrate and fish species inhabiting the reef at the alternative South Carlsbad site are
similar to those found at the other receiver beach sites.
Marine Mammals
The Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad receiver beaches are utilized by the same species of
marine mammals as the other receiver sites.
Birds
The presence or absence of both sensitive and nonsensitive bird species and the potential
for these species to utilize the Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad receiver beaches are
similar to other receiver beaches.
3.5 LAND USE AND RECREATION
3.5.1 Definition of Resource
Land use comprises natural conditions or human-modified activities occurring at a
particular location. Human-modified land use categories include residential, commercial,
industrial, transportation, communications and utilities, agriculture, institutional,
recreational, and other developed use areas. Management plans and zoning regulations
determine the type and extent of land use allowable in specific areas and are typically
intended to protect specifically designated or environmentally sensitive areas.
Recreational resources represent a significant element for beach areas and often provide a
variety of recreational opportunities. These include surfing, sunbathing, swimming,
diving, hiking, etc.
The proposed beach replenishment areas are located in northern San Diego County along
the Pacific Ocean, within the jurisdictions of the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, and
San Diego, and the California State Department of Parks and Recreation. The alternative
receiver site at Buccaneer Beach is under the jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside.
Regional access is provided by 1-5 to the east, State Route (SR)-52 to the south, and
SR-78 to the north. The coastal area of northern San Diego County is generally
211603000 3-31
characterized as suburban residential interspersed with commercial uses. Recreational
opportunities along the coast consist of a variety of activities. One of the more popular
recreational activities is surfing. Figure 3-5 illustrates popular surf breaks from
Oceanside to Torrey Pines.
3.5.2 North Carlsbad
The North Carlsbad receiver beach is located within the jurisdiction of the City of
Carlsbad. The site is moderately utilized for beach activities due to its confined location
between Buena Vista Lagoon and Carlsbad State Beach. Access to the site is via public
accessways from Ocean Street. The area located adjacent to the proposed beach receiver
site is comprised of new and older residential uses and a military (Army/Navy)
preparatory school. Buena Vista Lagoon is located to the north of the proposed beach
replenishment footprint. Recreational activities on the site include swimming, sport
fishing, surfing, sailing, picnicking, and hiking. Beach surf breaks are scattered along the
shore near the proposed beach receiver site; however, no nearshore reefs supporting surf
breaks are located in the vicinity. Surfing conditions in this area are primarily dependent
upon shifting formations of nearshore sandbars. Most ocean-related recreational
activities that occur at the beaches or in nearshore areas are available year-round due to
the mild climate.
The site is located within the Coastal Zone as designated in the City of Carlsbad General
Plan (1994). The objective of the Coastal Zone is to identify areas subject to the
requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Any project within the Coastal Zone
is subject to review by the City of Carlsbad and California Coastal Commission.
In compliance with the California Coastal Act of 1976, the City certified a Local Coastal
Program (LCP) in 1980. Subsequent amendments to the LCP in 1982, 1985, and 1988
have produced a substantive LCP, comprised of six segments. The proposed North
Carlsbad receiver beach is located within the Mello II Segment (City of Carlsbad LCP
1996). In general, the LCP requires that development not impact biological or cultural
resources, interfere with the public access to and along the shoreline, or impact visual or
natural resources in the Coastal Zone.
The following policies identified in the City of Carlsbad Land Use Element of the
General Plan, Chapter III: Environmental, Section C, are relevant to the proposed action:
3-32 211603000
Oceamideji
Oceanside Pier
Buccaneer Beach
Alternative Fill Site
North Carlsbadnil Site
3800
FEET
SOURCE: Brim Gates & Pipes
Terra Mar
South Carlsbad
Alternative Fill Site
South Carlsbadnil Site
Ponto
Turtles
85/«Ts
Tippers
Cardiff Reef
George's
Tomato Patch
Grandview
Beacon's
Stonesteps
Moonlight
D Street-
GT's
G Street
Pacific
Ocean
Tree's
Boneyards
Swami's
Dabbers-
Pipes
Traps
Seaside Reef
Palisades
Table Tops
Pill Box
Cherry Hffl
River Mouth
Beach Break
8th Street
South Del Mar
Torrey Pines
nil Site
F I G U R E
Recreational Surfing Sites 3-5
C.9. Implement to the greatest extent feasible the natural resource
protection policies of the Local Coastal Program.
C.ll. Participate in programs that restore and enhance the City's
degraded natural resources.
The following policy identified in the City of Carlsbad LCP5 Chapter II-2,
Policy 4-1: Coastal Erosion, is also relevant to the proposed action:
b. Beach Sand Erosion. Pursue mitigation measures -which address
the causes of beach sand erosion; sand dredging ... is one such
method -which has been suggested. The City should continue to
participate in the Regional Coastal Erosion Committee's studies of
the causes and cures for shoreline erosion.
3.53 South Carlsbad
The proposed South Carlsbad receiver beach is located within the jurisdiction of the City
of Carlsbad and the California State Department of Parks and Recreation, located
approximately 1,100 m (3,600 ft) north of the Batiquitos Lagoon inlet. Due to its
location on a State Beach adjacent to the South Carlsbad State Beach Campground, the
receiver site is highly utilized for recreational purposes. The campground consists of
226 campsites, a lifeguard tower, park ranger facilities, and maintenance facilities. Beach
surf breaks are scattered along the shore in the vicinity of the receiver site; however, no
nearshore reefs supporting surf breaks are located in the immediate vicinity of the South
Carlsbad receiver site. Surfing conditions in this area are primarily dependent upon
shifting formations of nearshore sandbars.
The site is located within the Coastal Zone as designated in the City of Carlsbad General
Plan (1994). For relevant plans and policies under the City's Land Use Element and
LCP, refer to Section 3.5.1.
The receiver site is also subject to the plans and policies identified in the San Diego
Coastal State Park System General Plan, Volume 3: South Carlsbad State Beach (1984).
3-34 211603000
This plan identifies proposed improvements to South Carlsbad State Beach facilities and
policies intended to protect natural resources hi the vicinity of the State Beach.
The following policy identified in the San Diego Coastal State Park System General Plan,
Volume 3 is relevant to the proposed action:
Littoral sand loss is recognized as a major threat to existing facilities and
recreational resources. The department shall -work with other agencies,
including the California Department of Boating and Waterways, the City
of Carlsbad, the San Diego Association of Governments, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, to develop regional solutions to the sand loss
problem. Any major program of sand replenishment or retention must
consider the regional nature of the problem and the regional impact of
actions taken along a segment of the shoreline.
3.5.4 Encinitas
The proposed Encinitas receiver beach is located within the jurisdiction of the City of
Encinitas and is located approximately 70 m (230 ft) south of the Batiquitos Lagoon inlet.
Due to erosion at the beach receiver site, it is only moderately used for recreational
purposes. In addition, public access to this segment of beach is limited due to steep cliffs
abutting the beach. Public stairways exist at Grandview Street and South El Portal Street,
and several private stairways serve existing residences on the bluff. Several popular surf
breaks exist along the shore in the vicinity of the receiver site, including "Tomato Patch,"
"Grandview," "Beacon's," and "Stone Steps." All surf breaks from "Tomato Patch"
south to D Street are known as beach breaks (refer to Figure 3-5); however, scattered
rocky reefs in the surf zone have an influence on breaking waves forming peaks along
this beach segment. Popular surf breaks along this stretch are primarily a result of beach
access points (due to the difficulty of access along this segment as a result of steep coastal
cliffs). Moving south from G Street (refer to Figure 3-5), the surf breaks are more
heavily influenced by reefs. Wave peaks are formed from reefs located within the surf
zone. "Boneyards" and "Swami's" are definite examples of reef surf breaks south of the
Encinitas receiver site.
211603000 3-35
The site is located within the Coastal Zone as designated in the City of Encinitas General
Plan (1989). Any project within the Coastal Zone is subject to review by the City of
Encinitas and California Coastal Commission.
In compliance with the California Coastal Act of 1976, the City of Encinitas includes an
LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) in their General Plan. The LUP identifies policies and
provisions that serve to apply the Coastal Act hi the City.
The Encinitas General Plan identifies issues and opportunities relative to planning
decisions within the City. Regarding beaches, the plan states, "the beach areas are losing
sand depth each year and sand replenishment programs are needed to provide for their
restoration." Additionally, the Resource Management Element of the General Plan
identifies the following policy relevant to the proposed action:
8.6 The City will encourage measures which would replenish sandy
beaches in order to protect coastal bluffs from wave action and
maintain beach recreational resources. The City shall consider
the needs of surf-related recreational activities prior to
implementation of such measures.
3.5.5 Torrey Pines
The proposed Torrey Pines receiver sites are located within the jurisdiction of the cities of
Del Mar and San Diego, and the California State Department of Parks and Recreation.
Vicinity land use includes open space, single-family, and multi-family residential uses.
Public access is via trails at Torrey Pines State Beach/State Reserve and South Camino
Del Mar. Popular reef surf breaks identified in the vicinity of the Torrey Pines site are
"8th Street" and "South Del Mar," located north of the proposed receiver site (refer to
Figure 3-5). Scattered beach surf breaks also exist along the shore in front of the receiver
site.
The proposed Torrey Pines receiver sites are located within the Coastal Zone as
designated hi the City of San Diego General Plan (1989) (southern site) and the City of
Del Mar Land Use Element (1985) (northern site). Both of these cities have LCPs, which
guide development in sensitive coastal areas and provide for the preservation of natural
3-36 211603000
resources. The LCPs require any project occurring within the Coastal Zone to be
reviewed by the city and the California Coastal Commission.
The receiver sites are also subject to the plans and policies identified in the San Diego
Coastal State Park System General Plan, Volume 8: Torrey Pines State Beach and State
Reserve (1984). This plan identifies proposed improvements to facilities at Torrey Pines
State Beach and policies intended to protect natural resources in the vicinity of the State
Beach.
The following policy identified in the San Diego Coastal State Park System General Plan,
Volume 8 is relevant to the proposed action:
Sand and similar sediment in active alluvial fans and other storage areas
in the Los Penasquitos -watershed is a valuable resource that shall be
considered for replenishment of littoral beach sand. Material excavated
from sediment basins and other depositional storage areas in the
-watershed, and which is of suitable quantity, size, and chemical
constituency to meet the management objectives of the state beach and
state reserve, shall be considered for disposal into the littoral zone just
below the Los Penasquitos Lagoon opening. When beach replenishment is
not needed or appropriate at the time of necessary dredging, the sand
should be deposited for eventual use as beach replenishment, provided
that suitable locations for deposit are available and that steps are taken at
them to protect significant natural resources and their public use.
3.5.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
The proposed Buccaneer Beach alternative receiver site is located within the jurisdiction
of the City of Oceanside. The area adjacent to the proposed receiver site is comprised of
new and older residential uses. Loma Alta Creek is located directly north and Buena
Vista Lagoon is located directly south of the replenishment footprint. Erosion has
affected the existing beach in this area; therefore, recreational activities are primarily
limited to periods of low tide. Scattered beach surf breaks occur at various locations
along the receiver site; however, no nearshore reefs supporting surf breaks are located in
the vicinity of the Buccaneer Beach alternative site.
211603000 3-37
The site is located within the Coastal Zone as designated in the City of Oceanside Land
Use Element (1989). The objective of the coastal zone is to "provide for the conservation
of the City's coastal resources and fulfill the requirements of the California Coastal Act
of 1976."
In compliance with the California Coastal Act of 1976, the City adopted an LCP in 1985.
In general, the City of Oceanside LCP requires that development not interfere with the
public access to and along the shoreline. As stated in Policy A of Section 1.32 of the
Land Use Element,
The City shall utilize the certified Local Coastal Plan and supporting
documentation for review of all proposed projects -within the Coastal
Zone. Specifically, the goals and policies of the Local Coastal Program
Land Use plan shall be the guiding policy review document.
The following policies identified in the Land Use Element, Section 3.17 Coastal
Preservation, are relevant to the proposed action:
A. The City shall attempt to preserve shoreline beach area as a
valuable recreational asset and visitor inducement.
B. The City shall continue with periodic replenishment of beach sand
by the Federal government until permanent beach sand
management systems are decided on and implemented.
Information relative to the additional fill area alternative at the South Carlsbad receiver
site is included in Section 3.5.3.
3.6 SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
3.6.1 Definition of Resource
For the purposes of this EA, safety issues are defined as those that directly affect the
continued ability to protect and preserve life and property at locations along the proposed
beach receiver sites.
3-38 211603000
Extensive sediment characterization analyses were conducted for the proposed receiver
beaches as part of the Homeporting EIS. These analyses were conducted in accordance
with ACOE, EPA, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) procedures for
dredged sediment. Based on sediment studies, it was determined that the dredged
material from San Diego Bay is suitable for beach replenishment and does not pose a
threat to human health or the environment. Furthermore, approximately 5.4 million m3
(7.0 million cy) of dredged material is considered suitable for beach replenishment, of
which approximately 2.2 million m3 (2.9 million cy) would be used as beach
replenishment at the four proposed receiver beaches.
3.6.2 North Carlsbad
The California State Department of Parks and Recreation provides lifeguard services in
the vicinity of the North Carlsbad receiver beach. The lifeguards are responsible for all
recreational safety measures along the beaches. Safety measures include manned
lifeguard towers and regular vehicle patrols during the summer months.
3.63 South Carlsbad
The California State Department of Parks and Recreation provides lifeguard services in
the vicinity of the South Carlsbad receiver beach. Safety measures include manned
lifeguard towers and regular vehicle patrols during the summer months. Lifeguard towers
are more heavily staffed on weekends during the summer.
3.6.4 Encinitas
The City of Encinitas provides lifeguard services in the vicinity of the Encinitas receiver
beach. Safety measures include manned lifeguard towers and regular vehicle patrols
during the summer months and intermittent vehicle patrols throughout the year.
Lifeguard towers are only staffed during summer months.
3.6.5 Torrey Pines
The California State Department of Parks and Recreation provides lifeguard services at
Torrey Pines State Beach in the vicinity of the receiver beach. Safety measures include
211603000 3-39
manned lifeguard towers and regular vehicle patrols on weekends during the summer
months. Vehicle patrols are provided on weekdays during the summer.
3.6.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
The City of Oceanside provides lifeguard services in the vicinity of the proposed
Buccaneer Beach alternative receiver beach. Safety measures include regular vehicle
patrols during the summer months. The beach area added to the South Carlsbad receiver
site under the alternative plan would be under the jurisdiction of the California State
Department of Parks and Recreation. Refer to Section 3.6.3 for lifeguard services in this
area.
3.7 AESTHETICS
3.7.1 Definition of Resource
Aesthetic resources comprise natural and manufactured features that give a particular area
its visual qualities. These features form the overall impression that an observer receives
of an area, or its landscape character. Landforms, water surfaces, vegetation, and
manufactured features are considered characteristic of an area if they are inherent to the
structure and function of its landscape.
The significance of a change hi visual character is influenced by social considerations,
including public value placed on the resource, public awareness, and general community
concern for visual resources in the area. These social considerations are addressed as
visual sensitivity and are defined as the degree of public interest hi a visual resource and
concern over adverse changes hi the quality of that resource. High visual sensitivity
exists when the public can be expected to react strongly to a potential change hi visual
quality. Moderate visual sensitivity would exist when affected views are secondary in
importance or are similar to others hi the region. Low visual sensitivity exists when the
public has little or no concern about changes hi the landscape.
3.7.2 North Carlsbad
Primary views of the proposed North Carlsbad receiver beach are from beach-front
residences, which run the length of the proposed receiver site. The North Carlsbad
3-40 211603000
receiver site is also visible from Buena Vista Lagoon, areas with beach access on Ocean
Street, and Carlsbad Boulevard (south of Pine Avenue). Visual resources at the North
Carlsbad receiver site consist of a flat sandy beach lying in front of rip-rap slopes and sea
walls that support beach-front structures. Slopes behind rip-rap and sea wall structures
rise to a height of approximately 10 m (30 ft). Structures along the receiver segment
include single-family residences, apartments, condominiums, and a military preparatory
school. The sand beach along this segment is typically under water during high tide
(Figure 3-6).
3.73 South Carlsbad
The proposed South Carlsbad receiver beach is visible from South Carlsbad State Beach
Campground, parking areas north of the campground, and Carlsbad Boulevard. This
receiver beach is characterized by a sand and cobble beach abutted by steep bluff slopes.
Virtually no development exists along this stretch of beach with the exception of the State
Beach Campground located on the bluff approximately 20 m (65 ft) above the beach.
Several stairways run from the campground down onto the beach (Figure 3-7).
3.7.4 Encinitas
The proposed Encinitas receiver beach sits below steep cliffs and is visible from
Highway 101 (at Batiquitos Lagoon), several residences along the bluff, and Moonlight
State Beach. It consists of very little existing beach area. Development along this beach
segment includes single-family residences, apartments, and condominiums, which are
located approximately 25 to 30 m (80 to 100 ft) above the beach on the bluff. Views of
the beach along this stretch are dependent upon the tides. At high tide, the beach is not
visible along the majority of the receiver area, as waves crash directly against the cliffs.
At low tide, a low profile sand and cobble beach is visible below the cliffs. Several
stairways descend onto the beach from residences located on the bluff (Figure 3-8).
3.7.5 Torrey Pines
The proposed Torrey Pines receiver beach consists of two receiver sites; however, both
sites are located on Torrey Pines State Beach.
211603000 3-41
a. View looking south from Buena Vista Lagoon outlet.
I
I
I
I
I
I
b. View looking north from Oak Avenue.
I
I
I
I
I
I
North Carlsbad Receiver Site
Existing Views
FIGURE
3-6
E:\ENVIR ASS'MT (ENV)\Environ AssessmenttCentre City DevelopmenftNth Carlsbad Views 1 .Fh5
c. View looking south from Palomar Airport Road.
... S:SK.
,,111
d. View looking north from maintenance area south of State Beach Campground.
FIGURE
South Carlsbad Receiver Site
Existing Views 3-7
E:\ENVIR ASS'MT (ENV)\Environ AssessmenttCentre City DevelopmenftNth Carlsbad Views 2.Fh5
JSSgSS3888SSgg|ffigS
e. View looking south from Batiquitos Lagoon inlet.
Bjlllliil
f. View looking north from Moonlight State Beach
FIGURE
Encinitas Receiver Site Existing Views 3-8
BENVIR ASSW(ENV)\Environ AssessmenftReceiver Beach EA\Encinrtas Receievr Site Photos
The northern receiver beach consists of a fairly large low profile sandy beach abutted by
steep slopes. This receiver site is visible from the Amtrak/Coaster railroad tracks, several
residences along the bluff, and sections of South Camino Del Mar. The Amtrak/Coaster
railroad tracks are located on the bluff approximately 12m (40 ft), directly above the
beach. Several residences are located 5 to 10 m (15 to 30 ft) upslope of the railroad
tracks (Figure 3-9).
The southern Torrey Pines receiver site is visible from North Torrey Pines Road, the
parking area at Torrey Pines State Reserve, and view points within the State Reserve.
This segment consists of a thin sand and cobble beach abutted by steep cliffs. The
majority of the beach is visible only during low tide, as waves reach the base of the cliffs
at high tide. Cliffs range in elevation from approximately 15 to 60 m (50 to 200 ft). The
beach trail from the State Reserve descends onto the beach, south of the receiver area.
With the exception of the parking area for the State Reserve, no development exists in the
vicinity of this beach segment (Figure 3-10).
3.7.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
The proposed Buccaneer Beach alternative receiver site is visible from beach-front
residences along the entire segment and beach access areas on South Pacific Street.
Buccaneer Beach, directly south of Loma Alta Creek, consists of a sandy beach abutted
by rip-rap slopes. Rip-rap and sea walls extend the length of the alternative receiver site
to protect existing structures from high seas. The southern end of the alternative receiver
site, located directly north of Buena Vista Lagoon, consists of a private development
known as Saint Malo Beach. Little existing beach area remains along this segment
(Figure 3-11).
The alternative extension to the South Carlsbad receiver area consists of a sandy beach
with scattered cobbles abutted by steep slopes. High scarps (approximately 3 m [10 ft])
are located between the high tide mark and existing slopes. This segment is visible from
the northern portion of the State Campground, the parking area north of the campground,
and Carlsbad Boulevard.
211603000 3-45
&; :
g. View looking south from 4th street.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h. View looking north from Los Penasqurtos Lagoon outlet.
North Torrey Pines Receiver Site
Existing Views
FIGURE
3-9
E:\ENVIR ASS'MT (ENV)\Environ AssessmenftCentre City DevelopmenftNth Carlsbad Views 3.FH5
I
I
I
i. View looking south from Torrey Pines State Beach parking area.
j. View looking north from end of Beach Trail.
Southern Torrey Pines Receiver Site
Existing Views
FIGURE
3-10
WIR ASS'MT (ENV)\Environ AssessmenftCentre City DevelopmenttNth Carlsbad Views 4.Fh5
•:::::;::iiis&v
k. View looking south from Loma Alta Creek.
I. View looking north from Buena Vista Lagoon outlet.
Buccaneer Beach Alternative Receiver Site
Existing Views
FIGURE
3-11
E:\ENVIR ASSMT (ENV)\Environ AssessmenftCentre City DevelopmenftNth Carlsbad Views 5.Fh5
3.8 STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES
3.8.1 Definition of Resource
For the purpose of this EA, structures and utilities are defined as sewer outfalls, access
stairs and ramps, storm drain pipes, seawalls, and lifeguard towers. The following
section identifies the location of the existing structures and utilities within or adjacent to
the beach receiver sites. To determine existing conditions for structures and utilities, a
limited field survey was conducted and a field survey report was prepared by FRH. In
addition, city engineering personnel were contacted to determine the location of city
sewer and storm drain ocean outfalls and any other related facilities that could be
potentially impacted by implementation of the proposed action.
3.8.2 North Carlsbad
Several structures and utilities currently exist within the shoreline area of the proposed
North Carlsbad beach receiver site. Each structure and utility is described below, and
locations are depicted in Figure 3-12.
3.8.2.1 Access Stairs
Public access stairs are located off of Ocean Street. In addition, several residential
properties have private stairways for beach access, a few of which reach the beach
surface. All other stairways in the vicinity of the proposed receiver site end
approximately 1 m (3 ft) above the beach surface.
3.8.2.2 Storm Drains
A 46-centimeter (cm) wide by 15 cm high (18 in by 6 in) rectangular concrete drainage
outlet structure is located adjacent to the bottom of the public access stairs off Ocean
Street. The top of the structure lies approximately 46 cm (18 in) above the beach surface.
The concrete drainage structure contains two 10-cm-dia (4-in-dia) storm drain outlets,
which extend approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) above the existing beach surface at the base of
the stairs.
211603000 3-49
Bueng Vtata LoiInlet/Outlet
Exlitlng Structure* and Utllty Impooti - North Corlebad
Structure
Buwia Vltto Lagoon Weir
PuWlc Stair* from Ocean Av*.
Stormdrolne
Low eeawoll O Ocean Av*.
SMWotl
SeaWall
Terraced SeoWall • "
Steps
Ground eovw
Private St«pt
(sJ^to 1)
68, 72
72
74
73,74
73.73A.74
73,75,78
76
77,78
76,77
Outltt Jnvwrt.Approx. a (m, MSL)
Top 1.5m
2.6m
T
-fottorn ofStolg/RamDApprox. B. (m, Us.)
Z8rn
2.0m
1.3m to 4.5m
Comment*
maintain lnl«t/outlit flow
no advert* Impact
Top of h<odwall»3.5m; Keep drain path dear
Top woll-3.4m - no adverM Impact
Bat* *l*v. • 4.1m; Top <l*v. • 4.6m - no adv*r»* Impact
SeaWall
Terraced SeoWoll
Slept
Ground cover
Private .Stepe
FIGURE
Existing Structures and Utilities, North Carlsbad Site 3-12
BENVIR ASS'MT(ENV)\Envlron AssessmenftRecelver Beach EA\RB-Form«t.FH5
3.8.23 Sea Walls
Several properties in the vicinity of the proposed North Carlsbad beach receiver site have
sea walls to protect against erosion, a few of which are terraced sea walls. In addition,
landscaping exists within the boundaries of the proposed beach receiver sites.
3.8.3 South Carlsbad
Structures hi the vicinity of the proposed South Carlsbad beach receiver site include
public access stairs and lifeguard towers. The structures are described below, and
locations are depicted in Figure 3-13.
3.8.3.1 Access Stairs
Four sets of public access stairways are located in the vicinity of the proposed receiver
beach. All stairways have beach access from the State Park on top of the bluff. Base
elevations of the stairways range from 1.5 m to 2.6 m (5 ft to 9 ft). In addition, five
lifeguard towers are located along the beach with base elevations ranging from 1.7 m to
3.6m (6 ft to 12 ft).
3.8.4 Encinitas
Several structures and utilities currently exist within the shoreline area of the proposed
Encinitas receiver beach. Each structure and utility is described below, and locations are
depicted in Figure 3-14.
3.8.4.1 Access Stairs
Public and private stairways are located along the proposed receiver beach. Public
stairways are located at Grandview Street and South El Portal Street. Several private
stairways lead from residences on the bluff onto the proposed receiver beach. The base
elevation of the stairways ranges from 0.5 to 3.5 m (1.6 to 11.5 ft).
211603000 3-51
' *• *f-.> -_.^~—-^
89 Stolre |3
Llfeguord Tower ato
Stolre |4
Existing Structure* and Utllty Impacte - South Oceanelde
Structure
Stotre fl
Stair* |2
Stolre |3
Lifeguard Tower fl
Lifeguard Tower §2
Lifeguard Tower |3 •
Lifeguard Tower §4 . . . :
Lifeguard Tower #3 •
Stairs |4
Dirt Road
Lifeguard Tower 08
(*.% 1)
98, 99
Outlet InvertAppro*. 0. (m. Ma)Bottom ofStolre/ romDApprax. 0. m. MSI)
2.5m
2.6m
1.0m
2.5m • Boee
3.6m O Bate
5.0m O Bate
1.8m O Baee
1.7m O Baee
2.3m
2.3m O end
2.5m O Baee
Commente
550m S/0 Enclnae Ch, — no adverse frnpact
25m S/0 Lifeguard Tower |3 - no adveree Impact
• Potneettla (T)pleal for all etalre) - no adveree Impact
25m N/0 above etelre — no adveree Impact
275m S/0 Lifeguard Tower fl - no odveree Impact
250m S/0 Lifeguard Tower |2 - no adveree Impact
425m N/0 Pokiiettto etalre - no adveree Impact
175m N/0 Polniettlo etalre - no adveree Impact
288m N/0 Polntettla etalre - no adveree Impact
Maintenance Road - no adveree Impact
105m S/0 End Dirt Road - no advene Impact
FIGURE
Existing Structures and Utilities, South Carlsbad Site 3-13
BENVIR ASS'MT(ENV)\Envlron AssessmenftRecelver Beach EA\HB-Format.FH5
I BAT1QUITOS LAGOON
LH=P — ^
u i
Existing Strueturm and Utility Impact* - Enckiltoi
Structure
Public Stoto O B Portal
Stair* -Public and Prlvat*
Seawall*
Stomtdratn cutlet*
(S*.^?. 1)
122
Outlet Invertftppran a (m, MS.)
1.Sm
Jottom ofStolrj/HornD*pprcx. 0. (m, MSt)
0.5m
O.Sm to 3.8m
Om to 2m
Comment*.
no adveri* Impact
no advw** Impact
Baee of wall - no adver** Impact.
4-1S2om dla. and 1-91 cm dto. RCP'e - no adver** Impact
FIGURE
Existing Structures and Utilities, Enclnitas Site 3-14
3.8.4.2 Storm Drains
One 91-cm-dia (36-in-dia) and four 152-cm-dia (60-in-dia) stonn drain pipes are located
at the end of B Street at Moonlight State Beach. The City of Encinitas has excavated
several meters around the outlets to expose the pipes and allow proper drainage flow.
3.8.4.3 Seawalls
Several sea walls are located along the proposed receiver beach. The lowest exposed
portion of the sea walls along this segment range from 0 to 2 m (0 to 6.6 ft).
3.8.5 Torrey Pines
No structures or utilities presently exist within the shoreline area of the proposed Torrey
Pines receiver beach.
3.8.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
No utilities are located along the shoreline area of the Buccaneer Beach alternative
receiver area. Structures in this area include public access stairs, which are depicted on
Figure 3-15.
No structures or utilities are identified in the shoreline area of the proposed extension to
the South Carlsbad receiver site.
3.8.6.1 Access Stairs
Public access stairs exist at Whaley Street along the Buccaneer Beach alternative
segment. The bottom elevation of the stairway is approximately 2.0 m (6.6 ft) above
MSL.
3-54 211603000
BUENA VISTA
LAGOON
Existing Structures ond Utility Impact* - Buccaneer Beach
Structure
Stair* O Whaley St
(SeMe 1)
87
Outlet InvertApprex. D. (m, NSl)
—
Bottom ofStolre/RampAppro* o'fm, OS.)
1.8+
Commente
Minor Impact - bottom portion will be covered with eond.
FIGURE
Existing Structures and Utilities, Buccaneer Beach Alternative Site
BENVIR ASS'MT(ENV)\Envlron Assessmenl\Recelver Beach EA\RB-Format.FH5
3-15
3.9 NOISE
3.9.1 Definition of Resource
Noise is defined as unwanted sound or, more specifically, as any sound that is undesirable
because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is
otherwise annoying. Human response to noise can vary according to the type and
characteristics of the noise source, the distance between the noise source and the receptor,
the sensitivity of the receptor, and the time of day.
Due to the wide range in sound levels, sound is expressed in decibels (dB), a unit of
measure based on a logarithmic scale. A 10 dB increase in noise level corresponds to a
100 percent increase (or doubling) in perceived loudness. As a general rule, a 5 dB
change is necessary for noise increases to be noticeable to the human ear. Sound
measurement is further refined by using an A-weighted decibel scale that emphasizes the
range of sound frequencies most audible to the human ear (between 1,000 and 8,000
cycles per second).
Lj,, is a noise metric that averages A-weighted sound levels over a 24-hour period, with
an additional 10 dB penalty added to noise events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. This penalty is intended to compensate for generally lower background noise
levels at night and the additional annoyance of night-time noise events.
Current ambient acoustical conditions at the proposed receiver beaches are typical of that
observed for nearshore beach communities. The areas are dominated by existing noise
sources including ocean surf, recreational activities, and vehicle traffic on adjacent roads.
3.9.2 North Carlsbad
3.9.2.1 Noise Measurements
To determine existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, a limited noise
monitoring study was performed at the proposed replenishment site on April 16, 1997.
Measurements were taken at the most accessible beach locations (i.e., direct beach access
pouits). Ideally, meter placement corresponded to a position relatively close to existing
receptors. When this condition was not possible, measurements were taken at the closest
3-56 211603000
available point. In all cases, three measurements per receiver site were taken, which
corresponded to respectively (1) the northernmost end of the receiver area, (2) the
midpoint of the project area, and (3) the southernmost end of the receiver area. Surf
conditions during all tests were moderate with low surge and 2 to 4 ft waves at
approximately 10-second intervals.
A Larson Davis Model 700 ANSI Type 2 integrating sound level meter was used to
collect the data. A series of short-term (15-minute) sound level measurements were taken
to quantify the existing ambient conditions. This monitoring duration was deemed
adequate since the background noise was of a steady-state nature. All measurements
were taken in the morning between 8 a.m. and 12 p.m.
The North Carlsbad area consists primarily of residential uses situated at an elevation of
approximately +3 to +4.5 m (+10 to +15 ft) above MSL with approximately 10 to 15 m
(30 to 50 ft) of setback from the boundary of the proposed construction operations.
Current average ambient acoustical conditions are shown in Table 3-2. From the
observed readings it is apparent that the site has a relatively high background level due to
the constant surf activity. This is typical of a beach environment.
Table 3-2
AMBIENT ACOUSTICAL CONDITIONS AT NORTH CARLSBAD
Monitoring Point Leq-15 (dBA) Min(dBA) Max(dBA)
(MP)
NC-1
NC-2
NC-3
66.0
68.0
69.5
62.5
62.5
62.0
71.5
69.5
72.0
Measurements corresponded to (NC = North Carlsbad):
• NC-1: The northernmost portion of the receiver area
• NC-2: The midpoint of the receiver area
• NC-3: The southernmost portion of the receiver area
Measurements performed by Ogden on April 16,1997
In addition to the above point measurements, a 24-hour continuous monitoring test was
performed adjacent to the beach to determine the temporal variation of the ambient sound
211603000 3-57
level as a function of time. For this effort, a fixed noise monitoring station was installed
in the outside recreational area of the Army and Navy Academy located at 2605 Carlsbad
Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad. The recreational area was abandoned during the test
interval.
Based on the field measurements (24 hours, 9 minutes of monitoring), the average sound
level was 65.0 dBA Leq(24h). The maximum recorded sound level was 96.0 dBA while
the minimum attainable level was 56.5 dBA. These levels describe the typical bounds of
noise to be expected at any beach site under investigation.
3.9.2.2 Noise Ordinances
The Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 8.48.010 describes specific noises prohibited
within the City. The maximum permissible noise level limit is set at 75 dBA L^. The
section of the City Code relevant to the proposed action is cited below:
The erection, demolition, alteration, or repair of any building or structure
or the grading or excavation of land in such a manner as to create
disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise during the folio-wing hours, except
as hereinafter provided, is a violation of this code:
(1) After sunset on any day, and before seven a.m., Monday through
Friday, and before eight a.m. on Saturday;
(2) All day on Sunday, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence
Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas
Day.
3.93 South Carlsbad
3.93.1 Noise Measurements
Noise measurements were taken at South Carlsbad during the noise monitoring study
conducted for this project on April 16, 1997 (see Section 3.9.2.1). Equipment and
procedures were the same as those described for the North Carlsbad site. All
measurements were taken in the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m.
3-58 211603000
The South Carlsbad area consists of open space with recreational uses (i.e., camping areas
at South Carlsbad State Beach) adjacent to the South Carlsbad replenishment area. These
campsites are situated at an elevation of approximately +18 to +23 m (+60 to +75 ft)
above MSL with approximately 15 m (50 ft) of setback from the boundary of the
proposed construction operations. Current average ambient acoustical conditions at the
South Carlsbad site are shown in Table 3-3. This type of acoustical response is typical of
a beach environment.
Table 3-3
AMBIENT ACOUSTICAL CONDITIONS AT SOUTH CARLSBAD
Monitoring Point Leq-15 (dBA) Min(dBA) Max(dBA)
(MP)
SC-1
SC-2
SC-3
64.0
66.5
66.0
62.5
62.5
62.5
73.0
71.5
70.0
Measurements corresponded to (SC = South Carlsbad):
• SC-1: The northernmost portion of the receiver area
• SC-2: The midpoint of the receiver area
• SC-3: The southernmost portion of the receiver area
Measurements performed by Ogden on April 16, 1997
3.93.2 Noise Ordinances
The area encompassed by the South Carlsbad site is under the jurisdiction of the State of
California Department of Parks and Recreation. Although no formal noise standards exist
for activities within state beaches, the California Department of Health Services (formerly
known as the Office of Noise Control), has identified standards for noise levels based
upon land use compatibility. These standards, known formally as the State of California
Model Noise Ordinance, would serve as applicable guidelines for noise impact
determination at state-operated campgrounds (Dupree 1997).
Based upon these guidelines, campground areas at South Carlsbad would be classified as
suburban single-family residential and have an hourly average noise threshold limit of
55 dBA between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and a level of 45 dBA between the hours
211603000 3-59
of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These noise limits are only guidelines for the determination of
possible noise impacts.
3.9.4 Encinitas
3.9.4.1 Noise Measurements
Noise measurements were taken at the Encinitas site during a noise monitoring study
conducted for the Phase One Study (March 26, 1997). Equipment and procedures were
the same as those described above for the North Carlsbad site.
Land use at the Encinitas site consists of single- and multi-family dwellings located at the
top of the adjacent sea cliff. These residences are situated at an elevation of
approximately +18 to +27 m (+60 to +90 ft) above MSL with approximately 15 to 21 m
(50 to 70 ft) of setback from the boundary of the proposed construction operations.
Current average ambient acoustical conditions at the Encinitas site are shown in
Table 3-4. The results are typical of a beach environment.
Table 3-4
AMBIENT ACOUSTICAL CONDITIONS AT ENCINITAS
Monitoring Point Leq-15 (dBA) Min(dBA) Max(dBA)
(MP)
E-l
E-2
E-3
68.0
66.5
67.0
64.5
64.0
64.0
69.0
68.0
72.5
Measurements corresponded to (E = Encinitas):
• E-1: The northernmost portion of the receiver area
• E-2: The midpoint of the receiver area
• E-3: The southernmost portion of the receiver area
Measurements performed by Ogden on March 26,1997
3-60 211603000
3.9.4.2 Noise Ordinances
City of Encinitas
Construction noise within the City of Encinitas is governed by Performance Code Section
30.40.010. This section sets forth a list of performance standards dealing with any noise
emissions affecting adjacent property. The sections of the City Code relevant to the
proposed action are cited below:
1. Every use shall be so operated that the noise generated does not
exceed the following levels at or beyond the lot line and does not
exceed the limits of any adjacent zone {see below}
2. The interior noise level...must not exceed {a day-night average} of
45 dB. (It is assumed that the limit is set in A-weighted decibels).
3. It shall be unlawful for any person on any property within the City to
create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property
owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person,
which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to
exceed the following:
Adjacent Zone
Residential
Multifamily Residential
Office/Commercial
Light Industrial/Business Park
One Hour Average Sound Level
7am- 10pm 10pm-7am
50 dB 45 dB
55 dB 50 dB
60 dB 55 dB
60 dB 55 dB
Note: Even though dB is cited in the ordinance, it is understood that this is A-weighted decibels
(ordBA)
211603000 3-61
a. The noise standard for cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in
any hour; or,
b. The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than
15 minutes in any hour; or,
c. The noise standard plus up to 15 dBfor a cumulative period of more
than 1 minute in any hour; or,
d. The noise standard plus 20 dBfor any period of time.
3.9.5 Torrey Pines/Del Mar
3.9.5.1 Noise Measurements
Noise measurements were taken at Torrey Pines/Del Mar during the noise monitoring
study conducted for this project on April 17, 1997. Equipment and procedures were the
same as those described for the North Carlsbad site. All measurements were taken in the
afternoon between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m.
The Torrey Pines area consists primarily of residential uses along the northern portion of
the project area (i.e., areas north of Penasquitos Lagoon entrance) and state park areas to
the south. Residential uses within the northern portion are located within the City of
Del Mar and are situated at an elevation of approximately +23 to +27 m (+75 to +90 ft)
above MSL with approximately 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 ft) of setback from the boundary
of the proposed construction operations. The actual construction activity, however, is
taking place on State of California lands.
Land uses along the southern portion of the project area consist of state lands known as
the Torrey Pines Recreation Area/State Park. There are no affected structures within this
area. Current average ambient acoustical conditions are shown in Table 3-5. From the
observed readings it is apparent that the site has a relatively high background level due to
the constant surf activity. This is typical of a beach environment.
3-62 211603000
Table 3-5
AMBIENT ACOUSTICAL CONDITIONS AT
TORREY PINES/DEL MAR
Monitoring Point , 15 (dBA) Min (dBA) Max (dBA)
(MP)
TP-1
TP-2
TP-3
64.5
64.5
61.5
61.5
61.0
59.0
71.0
78.0
72.0
Measurements corresponded to (TP = Torrey Pines):
• TP-1: The northernmost portion of the receiver area
• TP-2: The midpoint of the receiver area
• TP-3: The southernmost portion of the receiver area
Measurements performed by Ogden on April 17, 1997
3.9.5.2 Noise Ordinances
Construction noise within the City of Del Mar (northern Torrey Pines Receiver Beach) is
governed by Chapter 9.20.040 of the City of Del Mar Municipal Code. The section of the
Noise Regulations which is relevant to the proposed action is cited below:
Any person who operates powered construction equipment, erects,
constructs, demolishes, excavates for, alters or repairs any building or
structure within the City of Del Mar in such a manner as to cause noise to
be received beyond the boundaries of the property on which the
construction work is occurring shall comply with the following:
A. No construction work shall be performed on Sundays, or City holidays,
or before 9:00 a.m. or after 7:00p.m. on Saturday.
B. No construction work shall be performed before 7:00 a.m. or after
7:00 p.m.
C. Construction activity shall not cause an hourly average sound level
greater than 75 decibels on property zoned or used for residential
purposes.
211603000 3-63
D. Exception: A person may perform construction -work on the person's
own property, provided such construction activity is not carried on for
profit or livelihood, between the hours of10:00 a.m. and 5:00p.m. on
Sundays and City holidays.
Noise sensitive land uses within the southern Torrey Pines receiver area fall under the
jurisdiction of the City of San Diego. Construction noise within the City is regulated by
Noise Ordinance Section 36.410. This ordinance sets construction operations to occur
between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The maximum
permissible level over any 8-hour interval between these times is 75 dBA L^. There are
no noise sensitive receptors along the southern portion of the project area (i.e., areas
under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego).
3.9.6 Buccaneer Beach (City of Oceanside)/South Carlsbad Alternative
3.9.6.1 Noise Measurements
Noise measurements were taken at the Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
during the noise monitoring study conducted for this project on April 16, 1997.
Equipment and procedures were the same as those described for the North Carlsbad site.
All measurements were taken in the afternoon between 8 a.m. and 12 p.m.
All noise data relative to the South Carlsbad Alternative fill site is presented in
Section 3.9.3.
The Buccaneer Beach area consists primarily of residential uses situated at an elevation of
approximately +3 to +4.5 m (+10 to +15 ft) above MSL with an approximate 10 to 15m
(30 to 50 ft) of setback from the boundary of the proposed construction operations.
Current average ambient acoustical conditions are shown in Table 3-6. These measured
sound levels are typical of a beach environment.
3-64 211603000
Table 3-6
AMBIENT ACOUSTICAL CONDITIONS AT BUCCANEER BEACH
Monitoring Point L . 5 (dBA) Min (<fflA) Max ((fflA)
(MP)
BB-1
BB-2
BB-3
65.5
64.5
66.0
61.5
62.5
61.0
79.0
72.5
69.0
Measurements corresponded to (BB = Buccaneer Beach):
• BB-1: The northernmost portion of the receiver area
• BB-2: The midpoint of the receiver area
• BB-3: The southernmost portion of the receiver area
Measurements performed by Ogden on April 16, 1997
3.9.6.2 Noise Ordinances
Construction noise within the City of Oceanside is governed by Chapter 38 of the City of
Oceanside Noise Ordinance. This section deals with specific prohibited noises.
Subsection H deals with construction equipment of a pneumatic and diesel nature.
Individual noise level limits would be identified hi the projects Conditional Use Permit,
but admissible levels typically assigned by the City are 75 dBA Leq. The relevant part is
cited below:
Pile drivers, hammers, etc. The operation between the hours of 10:00p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. of any pneumatic or air hammer, pile driver, steam shovel,
derrick, steam, or electric hoist, parking lot cleaning equipment or
another appliance, the use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise is
prohibited.
211603000 3-65
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
3-66 211603000
SECTION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.1.1 Approach to Analysis
The protection of unique geologic coastal features and the minimization of erosion are
considered when evaluating potential impacts of a proposed action. For this analysis, an
impact to geologic resources would be significant if it would (1) destroy, cover, or
modify any unique geologic or physical features; (2) increase water erosion of soils,
either on or offsite; (3) change the deposition or cause erosion of beach sand; (4) change
the deposition or cause erosion that could modify a channel of a river or streambed, or an
ocean, bay, inlet, or lake.
Beach replenishment using dredged sediments is generally considered a beneficial use in
areas where beach erosion is a problem, as fill can be utilized to create a sand berm that
provides additional recreational uses and protects the shoreline. However, placement of
the sand can also create a temporary change in the shoreline. Over a period of
approximately 1 to 2 years, the sand would be moved and redistributed from the
placement location along shore and cross shore through natural littoral transport. At that
time, the shoreline would again reach an equilibrium position that would be similar to the
existing beach configuration. The shoreline would temporarily widen at locations
upcoast and downcoast of the beach fill site, until natural littoral transport redistributed
the sand along the coast, as described below.
The following analysis of coastal geology and littoral processes related to beach
replenishment is based on Chapter 8 of the Beach Sand Transport and Sedimentation
Report prepared by FRH (1997). Refer to Section 5 of this EA for cumulative impacts to
geology and soils.
211603000 4-1
4.1.2 North Carlsbad
4.1.2.1 Coastal Geology
The proposed action would place approximately 420,510 m3 (549,985 cy) of dredged
sediment at the proposed receiver location in North Carlsbad. Sediment deposited on the
beach would be spread along shore and cross shore through natural littoral transport.
Shoreline positions were modeled based on the anticipated sediment movement and were
predicted for periods of 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after sand placement
(Figure 4-1).
Placement of sand on the beach at North Carlsbad would widen the existing beach area to
the north and south subsequent to pumping operations. However, results of the modeling
indicate that most of the beach fill would erode over a 1- to 2-year period, spreading
longshore and cross shore. Longshore movement of sediment would generally be
confined to 4,000 m (13,000 ft) upcoast and downcoast of the beach fill area. Cross shore
movement would generally be confined to 350 m (1,150 ft) from the back of the existing
beach area. Seasonal cross shore movement would transport the fill material offshore in
the winter and back onto the beach in the summer, repeating this trend over subsequent
seasons; however, seasonal loss due to natural littoral processes would occur (FRH 1997).
Sediment would move to an offshore sandbar seasonally. Modeling indicates that the
average maximum thickness of the sandbar would consist of 0.5 to 1.5 m (1.6 to 5.0 ft) in
the summer and 1.5 to 2.0 m (5.0 to 6.6 ft) in the winter. Beach profile surveys taken
from 1987 to 1996 show the formation of an offshore sandbar in North Carlsbad starting
approximately 150 to 200 m (500 to 660 ft) offshore and extending an average distance of
100 m (330 ft) seaward (FRH 1997).
Sediment movement subsequent to the proposed action would follow natural seasonal and
littoral trends. A minor increase in average sand thickness would be anticipated, on the
order of 0.3 m (1.0 ft) (FRH 1997). The increased thickness would be greatest in the
vicinity of MSL and decrease seaward. The anticipated increase in sand thickness would
be similar to that which normally occurs with seasonal sediment fluctuation. Therefore,
significant impacts to coastal geology would not occur due to sediment transport or
increased sediment thickness.
4-2 211603000
EOHgos.imSr
.
APPROXIMATE SHORELINE AT 12 MONTHS AFTER PLACEMENT
o>
I
APPROXIMATE F*e
SHORELINE POS
-500
-550
-600
-650
-700
3500 4500 5500 6500
Shoreline Station (m)
Shoreline position exagerated 5X
7500 8500 9500
Source: Frederic R. Harris, Inc., 1997
FIGURE
Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, North Carlsbad 4-1
E:\ENVIRONMENTAL\RECEIVER BEACHVCOREL FILES\RES-NCA.CDR
4.1.2.2 Littoral Processes
Sediment placed onshore at North Carlsbad would be distributed along the coast by the
Oceanside Littoral Cell processes. Net littoral transport in the area of the receiver beach
is estimated to move south, with the capacity to move approximately 78,000m3 to
194,000 m3 (100,000 to 250,000 cy) per year. This downcoast movement is the net result
of both upcoast and downcoast movements that occur depending on the angle of wave
approach.
Previous placement of fills on beaches in Oceanside and Carlsbad have not shown
dramatic changes in the littoral process. Since 1955, over 10 million m3 (13 million cy)
of fill have been placed onshore or nearshore in Oceanside by the ACOE with no adverse
impacts having been recorded. Similarly, over 9 million m3 of fill have been placed
onshore in Carlsbad as a result of maintenance dredging of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and
enhancement of Batiquitos Lagoon. No adverse impacts to littoral transport have
occurred. These past beach fills were in the same range as the proposed fill quantity.
Therefore, based on past fill events, placement of sediment onshore at North Carlsbad
would not change the littoral transport process.
As discussed above, it is anticipated that the majority of beach fill would be transported
into the shallow subtidal area within 2 years of replenishment operations. During this
time, potential effects to wave activity in the vicinity of the receiver area could occur.
According to the sand transport study prepared for this project (FRH 1997), however,
minimal changes would occur to the beach profile due to the addition of sediment to the
nearshore area. Accretion of sediment in the shallow subtidal zone would be anticipated
to create sand bars, which would likely improve surf break conditions. Scarping could
occur during time of high waves. This could cause minor changes in wave breaking
characteristics and slightly increase wave energy reflection during times of low waves
(approximately 1 m or less). However, this change would be negligible and would be
considered insignificant.
4-4 211603000
4.1.3 South Carlsbad
4.1.3.1 Coastal Geology
The proposed action would place approximately 420,510 m3 (549,985 cy) of dredged
sediment at the receiver beach location in South Carlsbad. Sediment deposited on the
beach would be spread along shore and cross shore through natural littoral transport.
Shoreline positions were modeled based on the anticipated sediment movement and were
predicted for periods of 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after sand placement
(Figure 4-2).
Placement of sediment at the South Carlsbad site would widen the existing beach areas to
the north and south subsequent to pumping operations. Similar to the North Carlsbad
site, the majority of beach fill would erode over a 1- to 2-year period, spreading
longshore and cross shore. Longshore movement of sediment would generally be
confined to 6,000 m (19,700 ft) upcoast and downcoast of the beach fill area. Cross shore
movement would generally be confined to within 400 m (1,300 ft) from the back of the
existing beach (FRH 1997). Seasonal movement similar to that of the North Carlsbad site
would occur.
An offshore sandbar at the South Carlsbad fill site starts approximately 75 to 250 m (250
to 820 ft) offshore and extends an average distance of 100 m (330 ft) seaward.
Subsequent to fill activities, the average maximum thickness of the sandbar would be
0.8 to 1.5 m (2.6 to 5.0 ft) in the summer and 1.2 to 2.3 m (4.0 to 7.5 ft) in the winter.
A minor increase in sand thickness would be anticipated upon implementation of the
proposed action, on the order of 0.2 m (0.6 ft). The increased thickness would be greatest
in the vicinity of MSL and decrease seaward. The anticipated increase hi sediment
thickness would be similar to that which normally occurs with seasonal sediment
fluctuation. Therefore, significant impacts to coastal geology would not occur as a result
of sediment transport or increased sediment thickness.
4.1.3.2 Littoral Processes
Because littoral processes within the Oceanside Cell dominate a large region of the coast,
changes to beaches in the vicinity of the South Carlsbad receiver site would be similar to
211603000 4-5
•Tin
-BEACH FILL-
- APPROXIMATE SHORELINE AT 12 MONTHS AFTER PLACEMENT
Pre-RII3 months
6 months
12 months
CO
-700
500 1500 2500 3500
Shoreline Station (m)
4500 5500
Source: Frederic R. Harris, Inc., 1997
6500
Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, South Carlsbad Site
FIGURE
4-2
E:\ENVIRONMENTAL\RECEIVER BEACWCOREL FILES\RES-SCA3.DCR
those affecting the North Carlsbad site. A sand berm would be expected to form in the
shallow subtidal area as a result of sediment transported into this zone. Any changes to
breaking waves resulting from the proposed action would be similar to those previously
described for North Carlsbad. Significant impacts to littoral processes would not occur as
a result of the proposed action.
4.1.4 Encinitas
4.1.4.1 Coastal Geology
The proposed action would place approximately 871,620 m3 (114,000 cy) of dredged
sediment at the receiver beach in Encinitas. Sediment deposited on the beach would be
spread along shore and cross shore through natural littoral transport. Shoreline positions
were modeled based on the anticipated sediment movement and were predicted for
periods of 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after sand placement (Figure 4-3).
Placement of sediment at the Encinitas site would widen the existing beach areas to the
north and south subsequent to pumping operations. Similar to the Carlsbad sites, most of
the beach fill would erode over a 1- to 2-year period, spreading longshore and cross
shore. Longshore movement of sediment would generally be confined to 9,000 m
(29,500 ft) upcoast and downcoast of the beach fill area. Cross shore movement would
generally be confined to within 450 m (1,500 ft) from the back of the existing beach
(FRH 1997). Seasonal movement similar to that of the Carlsbad sites would occur.
Beach profile surveys taken from 1983 through 1996 show the formation of an offshore
sandbar at the Encinitas fill site starting at approximately 100 to 200 m (330 to 660 ft)
offshore and extending an average distance of 120 m (400 ft) seaward. Subsequent to fill
activities, the average maximum thickness of the sandbar would be 1.0 to 1.8 m (3.3 to
5.9 ft) in the summer and 1.8 to 2.4 m (5.9 to 7.9 ft) in the winter.
Upon implementation of the proposed action, a minor increase in sand thickness would
be anticipated, on the order of 0.2 m (0.6 ft). The increased thickness would be greatest
in the vicinity of MSL and decrease seaward. The anticipated increase in sediment
thickness would be similar to that which normally occurs with seasonal sediment
fluctuation. However, intertidal and shallow subtidal reefs could potentially be covered
211603000 4-7
-100
g -1504)
1
I
-200
-250
g -300
-350
-400
-APPROXIMATE SHORELINE AT 12 MONTHS AFTER PLACEMENT
BEACH FILL
- BATIQUITOS LAGOON
JETTIES
—— Pre-FIII
3 months
6 months12 months
5000 6000 7000 8000
Shoreline Station (m)
9000 10000 11000
Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, Encinitas Site
RENVIR ASS'MT(ENV)\Envlron Assessment\Recelver Beach EA\RB-Format.FH5
FIGURE
4-3
from the deposition of sediment in the substrate area at Encinitas. Refer to
Section 4.4.3.1, Biology, for discussion of impacts to biological resources.
Significant impacts to coastal geology would not occur due to sediment transport or
increased sediment thickness.
4.1.4.2 Littoral Processes
Because the littoral processes within the Oceanside Cell dominate a large region of the
coast, any changes to beaches in the vicinity of the Encinitas receiver site would be
similar to those affecting the Carlsbad sites. A sand berm would be expected to form in
the shallow subtidal area as a result of sediment transported into this zone. Any changes
to breaking waves resulting from the proposed action would be similar to those
previously described for the Carlsbad receiver sites; no significant impacts to littoral
processes would occur as a result of the proposed action.
4.1.5 Torrey Pines
4.1.5.1 Coastal Geology
The proposed action would place approximately 496,970 m3 (614,670 cy) of dredged
sediment at two areas within the Torrey Pines receiver site. Approximately 279,545 m3
(365,610 cy) would be placed along the northern portion of Torrey Pines State Beach and
approximately 217,425 m3 (284,530 cy) would be placed along the southern portion of the
State Beach adjacent to the State Reserve. Sediment deposited on the beaches would be
spread along shore and cross shore through natural littoral transport. Shoreline positions
were modeled based on the anticipated sediment movement and were predicted for
periods of 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after sand placement (Figure 4-4).
Placement of sediment on beaches at the Torrey Pines site would widen the existing
beach areas to the north and south subsequent to pumping operations. Similar to the
other receiver sites, most of the beach fill would erode over a 1- to 2-year period,
spreading longshore and cross shore. Longshore movement of sediment would generally
be confined to 6,000 m (19,700 ft) upcoast and downcoast of the beach fill area. Cross
shore movement would generally be confined to within 500 m (1,600 ft) from the back of
211603000 4-9
-100
-400
1000
SOUTH-
BEACH FILL
-APPROXIMATE SHORELINE AT 12 MONTHS AFTER PLACEMENT
APPROXIMATE
SHORELINE POS Pre-FIII3 months
6 months12 months
2000 3000 4000
Shoreline Station (m)
5000 6000 7000
Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, Torrey Pines Site
FIGURE
4-4
E\ENVIR ASS'MT(ENV)\Envlron Assessment\Recelver Beach EA\RB-Format.FH5
the existing beach (FRH 1997). Seasonal movement similar to that of the other receiver
areas would occur.
Beach profiles taken from 1983 through 1987 show the formation of an offshore sandbar
along the Torrey Pines site, which spans both the northern and southern receiver
locations. The bar is located approximately 120 to 200 m (400 to 660 ft) offshore and
extends an average distance of 85 m (280 ft) seaward. Subsequent to fill activities, the
average maximum thickness of the sandbar would be 0.7 to 1.4 m (2.3 to 4.6 ft) in the
summer and 1.8 to 2.5 m (5.9 to 8.2 ft) hi the winter.
A minor increase in sand thickness would be anticipated to occur upon implementation of
the proposed action, on the order of 0.2 m (0.6 ft). The increased thickness would be
greatest hi the vicinity of MSL and decrease seaward. The anticipated increase in
sediment thickness would be similar to that which normally occurs with seasonal
sediment fluctuation. Therefore, significant impacts to coastal geology would not occur
due to sediment transport or increased sediment thickness.
4.1.5.2 Littoral Processes
Littoral processes within the Oceanside Cell dominate a large region of the coast; thus,
any changes to beaches in the vicinity of the Torrey Pines receiver site would be similar
to those affecting the other receiver sites. A sand berm would be expected to form hi the
shallow subtidal area as a result of sediment transported into this zone. Any changes to
breaking waves resulting from the proposed action would be similar to those previously
described for North Carlsbad; therefore, significant impacts to littoral processes would
not occur as a result of the proposed action.
4.1.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
4.1.6.1 Coastal Geology
As an alternative to the proposed Encinitas fill site, approximately 580,245 m3 (758,900
cy) of dredged sediment would be placed at the Buccaneer Beach alternative receiver site,
and approximately 291,375 m3 (381,090 cy) of additional fill would be placed at the
South Carlsbad receiver site. Sediment deposited on the beaches would be spread along
shore and cross shore through natural littoral transport. Shoreline positions at Buccaneer
211603000 4-11
Beach were modeled based on the anticipated sediment movement and were predicted for
periods of 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after sand placement (Figure 4-5).
Similarly, shoreline positions were modeled at South Carlsbad to reflect the additional fill
under the alternative plan (Figure 4-6).
Placement of sediment on the alternative beach sites would widen the existing beach
areas to the north and south of the receiver locations subsequent to pumping operations.
Similar to the proposed receiver sites, most of the beach fill would erode over a 1- to
2-year period, spreading longshore and cross shore. Longshore movement of sediment at
Buccaneer Beach would generally be confined to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) upcoast and
downcoast of the beach fill area. Cross shore movement would generally be confined to
within 350 m (1,150 ft) from the back of the existing beach (FRH 1997). With the
addition of fill at the South Carlsbad site, similar longshore and cross shore movement to
that of the proposed action at South Carlsbad would occur (refer to Section 4.1.2.1).
Seasonal movement similar to that of the other receiver areas would occur.
The beach profile at Buccaneer Beach is similar to North Carlsbad, which is described in
Section 4.1.1.1. An offshore sandbar is located approximately 150 to 200 m (500 to
660 ft) offshore and extends an average distance of 100 m (330 ft) seaward. Subsequent
to fill activities, the average maximum thickness of the sandbar in this area would be 0.5
to 1.5 m (1.6 to 5.0 ft) in the summer and 1.5 to 2.0 m (5.0 to 6.6 ft) in the winter. The
beach profile at South Carlsbad subsequent to the addition of fill alternative would be
similar to that of the proposed action at South Carlsbad, as described in Section 4.1.3.1.
A minor increase in sand thickness would be anticipated to occur at Buccaneer Beach, on
the order of 0.3 m (1.0 ft). Additional fill placed at South Carlsbad would be expected to
increase the sand thickness by 0.2 m (0.6 ft). The increased thickness at these locations
would be greatest in the vicinity of MSL and decrease seaward. The anticipated increase
in sediment thickness would be similar to that which normally occurs with seasonal
sediment fluctuation. Therefore, significant impacts to coastal geology would not occur
due to sediment transport or increased sediment thickness.
4.1.6.2 Littoral Processes
Littoral processes within the Oceanside Cell dominate a large region of the coast; thus,
any changes to beaches in the vicinity of the alternative sites would be similar to those
4-12 211603000
-100
S -150
o>
I -200
(00 -250
£ -300
fc -350
±J
o>£ -400
2
P -450
•500
2000
CREEK
-APPROXIMATE SHORELINE AT
BEACH FILL-
12 MONTHS AFTER PLACEMENT
APPROXIMATE P *E-I
SHORELINE POS
3000 4000 5000
Shoreline Station (m)
6000
—— Pre-FIII
3 months
6 months
12 months
7000 8000
FIGURE
Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, Buccaneer Beach Alternative Site 4-5
BENVIR ASS'MT(ENV)\Envlron AssessmenftRecelver Beach EA\RB-Format.FH5
-BEACH FILL-
- APPROXIMATE SHORELINE AT 12 MONTHS AFTER PLACEMENT
<D
1
•
§o>
APPROXIMATE PRE-FILL—x
SHORELINE POSITION
BATIQUITOS Lft SOON
\--12MONTHS
Pre-Fill
3 months
6 months
12 months
-400
-650
500
Source: Frederic R. Harris, Inc., 1997
1500 2500 3500
Shoreline Station (m)
4500 5500 6500
Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, South Carlsbad Alternative Site
FIGURE
4-6
E:\ENVIRONMENTAL\RECEIVER BEACHVCOREL FILESVRES-SCA.DCR
affecting the proposed receiver sites. A sand berm would be expected to form in the
shallow subtidal area as a result of sediment transported into this zone. Any changes to
breaking waves resulting from the proposed action would be similar to those previously
described for North Carlsbad; therefore, significant impacts to littoral processes would
not occur as a result of the proposed action.
4.2 COASTAL WETLANDS
4.2.1 Approach to Analysis
Impacts to coastal wetlands are based on studies performed as part of the Beach Sand
Transport and Sedimentation Report (FRH 1997). Adverse impacts to coastal wetlands
typically result if long-term closure of any lagoon, river, or creek occurs as a result of a
proposed project. Long-term closure events are defined relative to each coastal wetland
area (i.e., lagoon, river, or creek mouth). For example, "long-term" could mean closure
for a number of days at a river mouth, while closure for several months could be typical
at a lagoon mouth. Consequently, maintenance dredging operations are currently hi place
at a number of coastal wetlands along the San Diego coast to ensure that long-term
closures do not result. Therefore, a significant impact would occur if substantial
sediment accretion directly resulting from the proposed action caused closure of any
lagoon, river, or creek mouth without an identified maintenance dredging program.
4.2.2 North Carlsbad
Coastal wetlands identified in the vicinity of the North Carlsbad receiver site include
San Luis Rey River, Loma Alta Creek, Buena Vista Lagoon, and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. The extent of influence of the North Carlsbad beach fill would not be expected
to reach the San Luis Rey River to the north, or Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south.
Vicinity "boundaries" are based on modeling (FRH 1997). Potential impacts to Loma
Alta Creek and Buena Vista Lagoon are described below.
4.2.2.1 Loma Alta Creek
The North Carlsbad receiver beach is located approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) south of the
Loma Alta Creek ocean outlet. The existing berm elevation adjacent to the creek is
+3.2 m (+10.5 ft) MSL at Buccaneer Beach and +2.3 m (+7.5 ft) MSL at the adjacent
211603000 4-15
residential property to the north. The creek maintains its flow through this berm with a
creek bed elevation of approximately -0.6 to -0.8 m (-2.0 to -2.6 ft) MSL. The MSL
beach width at the creek mouth would not be expected to increase as a result of the
proposed action. The proposed North Carlsbad beach fill would not spread to the creek
mouth beyond what naturally occurs.
The proposed fills would not result in an adverse impact to Loma Alta Creek since the
City of Oceanside currently constructs a sand berm in front of the creek to prevent flow
between Memorial Day and Labor Day. During the wet season, the City of Oceanside
excavates a temporary channel to facilitate stream flow to the ocean. Therefore, as the
City would continue to ensure adequate discharge at the creek mouth, adverse impacts to
Loma Alta Creek would not occur as a result of the proposed action.
4.2.2.2 Buena Vista Lagoon
The north end of the proposed North Carlsbad receiver beach is located directly south of
the Buena Vista Lagoon ocean outlet. Modeling results indicate that sediment from the
North Carlsbad fill site would migrate to the vicinity of the Buena Vista Lagoon outlet
within 12 months of fill placement. Approximately 19 m (62 ft) of shoreline accretion
would be expected to occur hi front of the lagoon. The existing wen- at the lagoon is at an
elevation of +1.82 m (+6.0 ft) MSL, and the fill berm design would be approximately
+2.9 m (9.5 ft). Subsequent to placement, the berm would spread and decrease in
elevation; however, to avoid impeding lagoon discharge to the ocean, a flow path should
be maintained seaward of the weir.
The City of Oceanside Streets Division maintains the ocean outlet at Buena Vista
Lagoon. Excavation of the eastern side of the lagoon occurs 2 to 3 times each year during
the winter months to keep channels open for upstream flow and to ensure that nearby
residential areas are not flooded. Since this lagoon is not open to tidal flows and the City
of Oceanside maintains the existing flow path to the ocean, significant adverse impacts
would not occur with implementation of the proposed action.
4.2.3 South Carlsbad
Coastal wetlands in the vicinity of the South Carlsbad receiver site include Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, Encinas Creek, and Batiquitos Lagoon. The extent of influence of the
4-16 211603000
South Carlsbad beach fill would not be expected to reach the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to
the north or Batiquitos Lagoon to the south. Vicinity "boundaries" are based on
modeling (FRH 1997). Potential impacts to Encinas Creek are described below.
4.2.3.1 Encinas Creek
The proposed South Carlsbad beach fill site is located directly in front of the Encinas
Creek ocean outlet. The existing berm elevation adjacent to the creek is +4 m (+13 ft)
MSL at the back beach. The creek maintains its flow through this beach berm.
Approximately 43 m (140 ft) of sediment accretion is anticipated on the beach adjacent to
the creek outlet within 12 months of the proposed fill.
The proposed beach fill berm would be placed to an elevation of+1.7 m (+5.6 ft) MSL.
The Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project placed dredged material at this same
location, to a berm elevation of+4.5 m (15 ft), approximately 2.8 m (9 ft) higher than the
proposed action. Even with the significantly higher berm, impacts to the creek discharge
did not occur as a result of the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. In addition, the
creek flows through a canyon surrounded by high bluffs, approximately 20 m (65 ft) high.
Considering the elevation of the bluffs on either side of the creek, the berm would be
overtopped and eroded by channel flow before any potential flooding would occur.
Therefore, significant impacts to Encinas Creek would not occur as a result of the
proposed action.
4.2.4 Encinitas
Coastal wetlands identified in the vicinity of the proposed Encinitas beach fill site include
Encinas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. Potential impacts to these wetlands are described
below.
4.2.4.1 Encinas Creek
The proposed Encinitas beach fill site is located approximately 3,300 m (10,800 ft) south
of Encinas Creek. Sand transport modeling indicates that 12 months after sand
placement, approximately 8 m (25 ft) of shoreline accretion would occur in the vicinity of
Encinas Creek from the Encinitas beach fill. This shoreline advance would represent a
7 percent increase of the existing beach width at this location, which would not likely
211603000 4-17
increase the berm height adjacent to the creek outlet. Therefore, significant adverse
impacts to Encinas Creek would not occur as a result of the proposed beach fill at
Encinitas.
4.2.4.2 Batiquitos Lagoon
The north end of the proposed Encinitas beach fill site is located directly south of
Batiquitos Lagoon. Sand transport modeling indicates that approximately 35m(115ft)
of sediment accretion would occur at the lagoon inlet and potentially impact tidal flows
into the lagoon within 12 months of sand placement. The Batiquitos Lagoon
Enhancement Project placed material immediately upcoast and downcoast of the lagoon
inlet jetties, which led to the formation of offshore and internal sandbars at the lagoon
inlet. Placement of the Encinitas beach fill would potentially add to the formation of
sandbars and lead to shoaling and possible lagoon closure.
Batiquitos Lagoon is maintained by the USFWS, the NMFS, the California State Lands
Commission, the CDFG, the Port of Los Angeles, and the City of Carlsbad. A joint
project to improve the lagoon, the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project, was
completed in 1996. The lagoon was dredged and jetties were constructed at the lagoon
inlet in order to maintain tidal flow. Jetties were designed to ensure the lagoon mouth is
kept open so that sand is pushed through the inlet into the ocean and is not allowed to
build up in the lagoon. Currently, maintenance dredging of the Batiquitos Lagoon ocean
inlet is being performed by the CDFG.
To ensure that significant impacts to lagoon inlets would not occur, a monitoring plan
would be established with the approval of ACOE, in consultation with the appropriate
resource agencies. Baseline profiles would be measured prior to sediment discharge and
monitored through June 1, 2001. Areas that would be monitored include lagoon mouths,
entrance channels, lagoon interiors, and adjacent areas. The Navy would provide
mitigation for any increased rate of sand accumulation or lagoon mouth closures resulting
from the proposed action above that which normally occurs, as determined by ACOE in
consultation with appropriate resource agencies. Mitigation measures would consist of
opening closed lagoon inlets, and/or removal of sediment accumulation at the lagoon
mouths resulting from proposed fill activities. Therefore, the proposed action would not
significantly impact Batiquitos Lagoon.
4-18 211603000
The Navy has obtained written assurance from SANDAG and affected municipalities that
implementation of the identified monitoring, documentation, and mitigation would occur,
including any other requirements related to potential effects on ocean inlets. These
assurances have been formalized in a cooperative agreement (CA) between SANDAG
and the Navy covering areas potentially affected by the proposed beach replenishment
operations. Potential effects are assessed through sand transport modeling performed for
the proposed action. Coastal wetland areas subject to the CA include Agua Hedionda,
Batiquitos, San Elijo, San Dieguito, and Los Penasquitos lagoons. Although the potential
effects to each of these lagoons would differ, the Navy has included each of these areas in
the CA as a precautionary measure.
4.2.5 Torrey Pines
Coastal wetlands in the vicinity of the Torrey Pines receiver site include San Dieguito
and Los Penasquitos lagoons. The extent of influence of the Torrey Pines beach fill
would not be expected to reach San Dieguito Lagoon based on vicinity "boundaries"
modeling (FRH 1997). Potential impacts to Los Penasquitos Lagoon are described
below.
4.2.5.1 Los Penasquitos Lagoon
The northern Torrey Pines fill site would be located approximately 500 m (1,640 ft) north
of the Los Penasquitos Lagoon inlet; the southern Torrey Pines fill site would be located
approximately 900 m (2,950 ft) south of the lagoon. Sand transport modeling indicates
that 12 months after sand placement, sediment would migrate to the lagoon inlet and
widen the adjacent beach by approximately 19 m (62 ft). This represents a 13 percent
increase hi the existing beach width, which could increase the potential for lagoon
closure.
The ocean inlet at Los Penasquitos Lagoon was closed 70 percent of the time prior to
1990 (FRH 1997). Over the years, the condition of the lagoon has ranged from complete
inlet closure to periods of open tidal exchange for up to 13 months. Variables that have
influenced the condition of the ocean inlet at Los Penasquitos include an extended
drought from 1945 to 1977, discharge of sewage effluent from 1962 to 1972, efforts to
artificially open the lagoon beginning in 1968, major storm event runoff, and
accumulation of cobbles on the outer beach. Efforts to open the lagoon naturally during
211603000 4-19
the 1970s and 1980s were inadequate. The lagoon inlet would typically close rapidly
after such events, although natural openings due to stormwater runoff led to longer
periods of tidal flushing.
Since 1990, the Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation has funded a sustained, successful
effort to maintain tidal flushing through excavation of the sand and cobble berm blocking
the inlet and main channel. This has allowed the lagoon inlet at Los Penasquitos to
remain open more than 90 percent of the time over the past 7 years. The inlet
maintenance strategy presently includes two excavations per year (typically during May
and October) to sustain tidal flushing. This practice allows the lagoon inlet to remain
open the majority of the year, with closures typically occurring once or twice a year for
periods of 1 to 2 months. The Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation would continue the
maintenance of the lagoon inlet subsequent to implementation of the proposed action.
Therefore, significant impacts to Los Penasquitos Lagoon would not occur as a result of
the proposed action. To ensure that there would be no increase in lagoon mouth closures,
a monitoring plan would be established and mitigation would be assured for
Los Penasquitos Lagoon, as described above in Section 4.2.4.2.
4.2.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
Coastal wetlands in the vicinity of the Buccaneer Beach alternative receiver site include
the San Luis Rey River, Loma Alta Creek, Buena Vista Lagoon, and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. The extent of influence of the Buccaneer Beach alternative fill site would not be
expected to reach Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Vicinity "boundaries" are based on modeling
(FRH 1997). Potential impacts to the San Luis Rey River, Loma Alta Creek, and Buena
Vista Lagoon are described below.
Coastal wetlands in the vicinity of the South Carlsbad alternative fill area include Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, Encinas Creek, and Batiquitos Lagoon. Modeling results indicate that
additional fill at the South Carlsbad receiver site would not affect Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, Encinas Creek, or Batiquitos Lagoon beyond what would occur as a result of the
proposed action. For potential effects to these wetland areas, refer to Section 4.2.3.
4-20 211603000
4.2.6.1 San Luis Rey River
Sand transport modeling results indicate that sand would migrate upcoast from the
Buccaneer Beach alternative fill site to the mouth of the San Luis Rey River within
12 months of sand placement. Transported fill would potentially widen the beach at MSL
in this location up to 14 m (46 ft), which would result in a 23 percent increase in the
length of the river mouth. However, the existing sand berm that crosses the majority of
the river mouth is at a higher elevation than the predicted beach fill accumulation.
Therefore, it is not likely that the beach fill would impact the overall configuration of the
river mouth. Under closed river mouth conditions and during periods of low to moderate
river flow, runoff could pond behind the new sand berm, spread out, and seep through the
berm. During winter periods of moderate to strong stormwater runoff, the sand berm
would be rapidly breached and/or overtopped.
Stormwater discharge from the river is constrained by flow through eight, 91-cm-dia
(36-in-dia) pipes that pass under Pacific Street. The predicted increase in sediment at this
location would not be anticipated to constrain river runoff; therefore, additional
maintenance would not be required upon implementation of proposed replenishment
activities.
The City of Oceanside Streets Division is responsible for maintaining the Pacific Street
stormwater outlet on an as-needed basis for flood control. Therefore, no adverse impacts
would occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
4.2.6.2 Loma Alta Creek
The proposed Buccaneer Beach alternative fill site is located south of the Loma Alta
Creek mouth. Sand transport modeling indicates that the MSL beach width at Loma Alta
Creek would increase 18 to 21 m (60 to 70 ft) within 12 months of sand placement, which
represents a 6 to 7 percent increase in beach width. The existing berm elevation adjacent
to the creek is +3.2 m (+10.5 ft) MSL at Buccaneer Beach and +2.3 m (+7.5 ft) MSL at
the adjacent residential property to the north. The creek maintains its flow through this
berm with a creek bed elevation of approximately -0.6 to -0.8 m (-2.0 to -2.6 ft) MSL.
The elevation of the berm at Loma Alta Creek would not be likely to increase as a result
of fill placement at Buccaneer Beach. Additionally, the proposed fills would not cause an
adverse impact to Loma Alta Creek since the City of Oceanside constructs a sand berm in
211603000 4-21
front of the creek to prevent flow between Memorial Day and Labor Day. During the wet
season, the City of Oceanside excavates a temporary channel to facilitate stream flow to
the ocean. Therefore, as the City would continue to ensure adequate discharge at the
creek mouth, significant impacts to Loma Alta Creek would not occur as a result of
implementation of the Buccaneer Beach alternative.
4.2.6.3 Buena Vista Lagoon
The Buccaneer Beach alternative fill site is located north of the Buena Vista Lagoon
ocean outlet. Modeling results indicate approximately 3 m (10 ft) of beach fill would
accumulate in front of the lagoon within 12 months of sand placement. Accumulation of
this amount of sediment would not be anticipated to create an adverse condition and
would not constitute additional maintenance of the ocean outlet; therefore, significant
impacts to Buena Vista Lagoon would not occur upon implementation of the Buccaneer
Beach alternative.
4.3 WATER RESOURCES
4.3.1 Approach to Analysis
Significance criteria for water resources impacts are based on water quality and use and
associated regulations. An impact to water resources would be significant if it would
(1) adversely affect water quality or endanger public health by creating or worsening
health hazard conditions; (2) threaten or damage unique biological characteristics; or
(3) violate established laws or regulations that have been adopted to protect or manage
water resources.
The following is an analysis of factors that would potentially affect the quality of water
resources within the proposed project area (e.g., chemical properties and turbidity).
Potential impacts to water resources would be similar at each of the proposed receiver
sites due to similar quality of the receiving waters and identical operations proposed at
each of the receiver sites. Therefore, general discussions of chemical properties and
turbidity are included below, relative to all of the proposed replenishment sites.
4-22 211603000
4.3.2 Chemical Properties
Dredged sediment from San Diego Bay was tested for compatibility with sediment found
at the receiver beach site. Grain size and chemical analyses were performed on sediment
samples proposed for dredging from several areas in San Diego Bay. As specified in the
Homeporting EIS, sediment analyses concluded that the proposed beach fill areas are
clean and of compatible gram size with the receiver beaches. Impacts to water quality
would not occur due to physical or chemical characteristics of the dredged sediment.
4.3.3 Turbidity
Turbidity can be caused by the presence of fine silts or clays in the water. Fine-grained
materials (<63 urn) remain suspended in the water column for longer periods of time,
whereas larger grain size material (>63 um) settle out faster. There is a lower percentage
of fine grains in the dredged material than the native beach material. Testing has shown
that the average percentage of fine material in the Oceanside Littoral Cell native
sediments is approximately 3 percent above MSL and 12 percent below MSL. The
higher percentage of fine grains below MSL is attributed to the fact that finer-grained
materials reside at equilibrium below the shorebase (maximum extent of seasonal sand
movement due to littoral transport). The average percentage of fine grains in the dredged
material is approximately 3 percent (FRH 1997). Therefore, the size of the beach fill
material (i.e., 97 percent greater than 63 um) would likely cause less turbidity than occurs
under natural conditions.
As stated in the Homeporting EIS, increased turbidity would occur along shore as a result
of sediment disposal. The proposed action involves pumping a sand/sea water mixture
directly onto the beach from a dredge located offshore, rather than depositing the
sediments in the nearshore environment. Increased turbidity would be caused by return
water from pumping operations, as suspended sediments hi the sand/sea water mixture
would flow into the surf zone subsequent to pumping. However, placement of sediment
on the beach would include construction of longitudinal dikes parallel to the surf line.
Sand would be placed via a single discharge point behind longitudinal dikes. These dikes
would retain return water and allow suspended sediments to settle out, thereby reducing
turbidity hi the return water, and subsequently reducing potential water quality impacts.
211603000 4-23
Sediment pumping operations would occur in short intervals in order for suspended
particles to settle out between pumping periods. The hopper dredge would take
approximately 1 to 2 hours to pump a full load onto the beach, after which it would take
several hours to return to San Diego Bay and reload. A minimum tune interval of 3 to
4 hours is estimated between each load. Due to operational constraints (e.g., distance of
receiver beaches from loading areas, speed of the hopper dredge, and tune to hook
up/unhook pump lines), pumping operations would occur only two to three times daily at
the receiver beach locations. During the reloading period, turbidity in nearshore waters
caused by return water from pumping operations would be able to settle before the next
pumping interval began. Therefore, time intervals between pumping operations would
help reduce potential water quality impacts associated with increased turbidity.
Despite dike construction, large grain size, and the time interval between disposal
periods, short-term increases in turbidity associated with return water from the pumping
operation would still occur in the nearshore environment.
In addition to a Section 404/10 permit, the proposed action must comply with an
RWQCB Certification Order, which also sets conditions on proposed operations. The
RWQCB conditions require that supernatant (water samples) be collected from a loaded
barge three tunes a week and analyzed for polar and nonpolar oil and grease.
Furthermore, weekly monitoring of bacteria contamination 30 m (100 ft) down-current of
the discharge point is required per the Waste Discharge Requirements. These RWQCB
conditions would help verify that no significant impacts to water quality would occur as a
result of the proposed action.
Significant turbidity impacts associated with the longshore transport of fill material
subsequent to placement operations would not occur. Based on available gram size data
(FRH 1997), the percentage of fine grains (<63 urn) in the dredged sediments would be
essentially the same as (or less than) the native littoral sediments. This would be
expected due to the large portion of sediments in the outer San Diego Bay channel that
reside in the littoral cell. As beach fill would be anticipated to have equal or fewer fine
grains than natural beach sediments, the loss of fine grains over time would be no greater
than existing conditions; therefore, significant impacts would not occur upon
implementation of the proposed action.
4-24 211603000
4.4 BIOLOGY
4.4.1 Approach to Analysis
This section addresses potential impacts to biological resources that could result from
implementation of the proposed action. Direct impacts occur when biological resources
are altered, disturbed, destroyed, or removed during the course of project implementation.
Other direct impacts may include the loss of foraging habitat for wildlife species and
habitat disturbance that results in unfavorable substrate conditions (i.e., incompatible
grain size). Indirect impacts occur when project-related activities affect biological
resources later in time or in an area removed in distance. Potential indirect impacts
resulting from project implementation include increased sand transport and silt
deposition, which could potentially result in lagoon inlet closure and increased turbidity
in the longshore environment. Both direct and indirect impacts can be classified as either
temporary or permanent, depending on the duration and significance of the impact.
Temporary impacts are considered short-term when impacts on biological resources are
reversible over a period of time. Long-term impacts result in the irreversible removal,
disturbance, or destruction of biological resources.
4.4.2 North Carlsbad
4.4.2.1 Sand Deposition
Approximately 420,510 m3 (550,027 cy) of sand would be placed within the intertidal
zone at North Carlsbad. The fill area would cover approximately 1.2 km (0.7 mi) of
shoreline and extend offshore about 130 m (426 ft) from the back beach (back of the
existing beach) (Figure 3-1). Sand placement would result in the direct burial and death
of nonmobile epibenthic and benthic invertebrates; however, this would be a short-term
impact as recolonization of the area would occur rapidly. Mobile invertebrates, such as
crustaceans, would be expected to move into the area within days of cessation of sand
placement and other organisms would be expected to recolonize within 6 to 12 months
(Butler Roach 1995). Because the effect would be temporary and would not directly
impact any sensitive species, impacts to intertidal invertebrates would be considered
insignificant.
211603000 4-25
Nonmobile invertebrates in the subtidal area would also be buried by sediments that are
washed offshore from implementation of the proposed project. Since this is a natural
process, most subtidal invertebrates are adapted to shallow burial by sediments. Mobile
invertebrates would move vertically within the sandy substrate or horizontally to deeper
waters to avoid burial; therefore, this impact would be considered insignificant.
No sensitive marine resources are located hi the fill area of the North Carlsbad receiver
beach. Sensitive marine resources are present in the vicinity and include vegetated
subtidal reefs and nearshore reefs with giant kelp. The shallow subtidal reefs provide
habitat for feather boa kelp, surfgrass, and sea fans. The closest reef occurs
approximately 200 m (660 ft) offshore of the back beach, with more extensive scattered
reefs occurring greater than 300 m (990 ft) downcoast of the fill area, towards the mouth
of Agua Hedionda Lagoon (refer to Figure 3-1). No short-term or long-term adverse
impacts to these resources would be expected, as sand placement activities would avoid
areas that contain sensitive marine resources and are designed to mimic the natural beach
slope of the existing beach profile.
Natural sand transport is a function of seasonal cycles that move sand offshore in the
winter and then back onto the beach in the summer. Sand movement would be similar to
natural conditions and would not move farther offshore than 275 m (908 ft) seaward of
the back beach and 2,000 m (6,600 ft) upcoast or downcoast of the beach fill. Sand
transport is expected to mimic the existing natural conditions and the average increase in
sand thickness over a one year period is anticipated to be 0.3 m (10 in) (FRH 1997). The
nearest surfgrass bed is located approximately 175 m (578 ft) offshore of the back beach,
and the nearest kelp bed is found greater than 300 m (990 ft) offshore. The nearest
surfgrass beds may be subject to short-term impacts of increased sand transport.
However, the surfgrass beds are persistent and are adapted to natural seasonal sand
movement, and therefore, sand placement and transport would not be expected to
significantly affect them. Kelp beds are located far enough away from beach
replenishment activities as to not be significantly affected.
Although no significant impacts to sensitive marine resources are anticipated at the
receiver sites, the Navy would prepare and implement a monitoring plan to verify
significant impacts do not occur. The program would include pre-discharge baseline
studies and post discharge monitoring. The monitoring program would be effective from
the date of issuance of an ACOE permit through June 1, 2001 to confirm that sand
4-26 211603000
discharge operations would not result in any long-term net loss of sensitive marine
resources. The monitoring plan, pre-discharge mapping effort, and subsequent
monitoring would be conducted by a biologist familiar with southern California marine
waters and biological habitats. The Navy would submit the monitoring plan to the ACOE
for approval, in consultation with the resource agencies at least 15 working days prior to
initiating onshore discharge at the receiver beaches. The monitoring reports would be
submitted to the ACOE and resource agencies by January 30th of each year.
The Navy would mitigate any significant, long-term adverse impacts to sensitive marine
resources that were documented by the monitoring plan to have resulted from discharge
activities. Mitigation would be the restoration of like habitat at a 1:1 ratio as a first
priority. Consideration would be given to the construction of artificial reefs as mitigation
to offset project impacts at a 1:1 ratio if like habitat restoration efforts were not feasible
as determined by the ACOE, in consultation with the resource agencies. Should the
ACOE and/or the resource agencies require mitigation, total mitigation costs would not
exceed $400,000 to satisfy the requirements of Phase II beach replenishment. Mitigation
costs for Phase I beach replenishment efforts would not exceed $700,000; therefore, total
mitigation costs for beach replenishment operations associated with the CVN
homeporting project would not exceed $1.1 million.
During beach replenishment operations, some sand would move into the surf zone and be
suspended in the water column, causing an increase hi turbidity. Increases in turbidity
could potentially impact sensitive marine resources such as surfgrass and kelp
populations. However, impacts would not be expected to be significant because the sand
proposed for beach replenishment has a smaller percentage of fine material than what is
presently on the beaches, and the area is naturally turbid due to constant wave action
(FRH 1997). In addition, the sand would be placed behind longitudinal dikes so that
most of the material would settle out, thus minunizing turbidity.
Impacts to fishes, birds, and marine mammals resulting from sand deposition would not
be considered significant. These are mobile organisms that can easily leave the area for
similar foraging habitat. Ample foraging habitat is found adjacent to the North Carlsbad
receiver site both onshore and offshore. Onshore habitat, similar to the receiver beach, is
found south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Offshore habitat not affected by pumping
operations would be found north and south of the receiver area, dependent upon the size
of the turbidity plume generated by pumping operations. As turbidity would not be
211603000 4-27
significant as a result of the proposed action, suitable offshore foraging habitat would be
anticipated in the vicinity of the receiver beach during replenishment operations.
Because these organisms can readily move to adjacent areas and the displacement would
be temporary, this impact would be considered insignificant.
California brown pelicans could be impacted in the immediate area of the receiving site
by a temporary reduction in their prey base. However, pelicans, like their fish prey, can
easily forage in adjacent offshore areas. California least terns and western snowy plovers
are not known to nest at the North Carlsbad receiver beach and are not expected to nest in
the area in the future because of human disturbance. Terns and plovers may forage in the
waters offsite, but can forage adjacent to the site if fish vacate the area or an increase in
turbidity limits their foraging ability. Therefore, no significant impacts to sensitive
species would occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
California grunion may spawn on the North Carlsbad receiver beach during the sand
placement period. Replenishment activities could potentially bury their eggs or change
the beach profile resulting hi mortality. The Navy would enter into a contract with a
biologist that has specific knowledge of the California grunion to monitor spawning
activities at the discharge sites during expected grunion runs, as predicted by the CDFG.
If grunion were observed spawning during discharge operations, disposal of sand would
immediately cease in the vicinity of spawning activities and a buffer zone would be
established surrounding the area of spawning. The buffer zone would extend 20 m (65 ft)
shoreward of the highest water mark at the spawning area, and run 30 m (100 ft) upcoast
and 30 m (100 ft) downcoast from the spawning area. A sand dike, parallel to the
shoreline above the 20 m (65 ft) buffer zone, would be constructed along the entire 60 m
(200 ft) lateral extent of the buffer zone to ensure that the discharge water would not enter
the spawning area. The spawning areas would be recorded and mapped, and a written
report would be provided to the ACOE and the resource agencies within 24 hours of the
spawning event. The buffer zone would be in place for a minimum of 14 days (the period
of time for eggs to hatch). This would mitigate impacts to the grunion and would allow
sand replenishment activities to continue hi areas not affected by spawning.
4.4.2.2 Barge Placement and Anchoring
The proposed beach replenishment operations at the North Carlsbad receiver site would
be expected to occur from October to mid-November 1997. The hopper dredge would
4-28 211603000
not be in place for the entire duration as it would travel from San Diego Bay to North
Carlsbad on a daily basis. Anchor lines for the mono buoy and pump lines to shore,
however, would be permanently placed for the duration of the project. Pump lines and
anchor points would be surveyed at least 30 days prior to the start of operations and
placed to minimize impacts of sensitive marine resources (e.g., vegetated reefs).
Therefore, pump lines and anchor points would not result in significant impacts to these
sensitive resources. The dredge would not negatively impact fish or invertebrate
communities in the area and may actually attract fish to the area by providing spatial
relief. Furthermore, the dredge would not significantly disturb birds or marine mammals
as it would not be a permanent feature and could be easily avoided.
4.4.2.3 Coastal Wetlands
No significant impacts to wetland organisms would be anticipated to occur as a result of
sand placement at the North Carlsbad receiver beach. As discussed in Section 4.2,
SANDAG is responsible for insuring that the local jurisdictions monitor lagoon inlets and
river/creek outlets located in the vicinity of the North Carlsbad receiver site. Any
measures needed to ensure inlet/outlet stability would be implemented by the local
jurisdictions. For further discussion of potential impacts to Buena Vista and Agua
Hedionda Lagoons, refer to Section 4.2.1.
4.4.3 South Carlsbad
4.43.1 Sand Deposition
Approximately 420,510 m3 (550,027 cy) of sand would be placed within the intertidal
zone at South Carlsbad. The fill area would cover approximately 2.2 km (1.4 mi) of
shoreline and extend offshore about 130 m (426 ft) from the back beach (Figure 3-2).
Potential impacts due to sand placement at South Carlsbad are similar to those described
for the North Carlsbad site. Nonmobile and epibenthic invertebrates present could be
buried by sediment deposition, although this impact would not be considered significant
as the populations would be expected to recover quickly and burial would affect only a
limited area.
No sensitive marine resources are located in the fill area of the South Carlsbad receiver
beach. However, marine resources are present in the vicinity and include vegetated
211603000 4-29
subtidal reefs and nearshore reefs with giant kelp (refer to Figure 3-2). The subtidal reefs
provide habitat for feather boa kelp, surfgrass, and sea fans. The closest reefs occur
approximately 200 m (660 ft) from the back beach. No short-term or long-term
significant impacts to these resources would be expected, as sand placement activities
would avoid areas that contain sensitive marine resources and are designed to mimic the
natural beach slope of the existing beach profile.
Natural sand transport is a function of seasonal cycles that move sand offshore in the
winter and then back onto the beach in the summer. Sand movement would be similar to
natural conditions and would not move farther offshore than 300 m (990 ft) seaward of
the back beach and 3,000 m (9,900 ft) upcoast or downcoast of the beach fill (FRH 1997).
The average increase in sand thickness is anticipated to be 0.2 m (6.5 in) (FRH 1997).
The nearest vegetated subtidal reefs are located approximately 200 m (660 ft) from the
back beach. Short- or long-term significant impacts are not expected because these
sensitive marine resources have adapted to natural seasonal sand movement. Therefore,
sand placement and transport would not significantly affect either of these sensitive
marine resources. Although significant impacts to sensitive marine resources would not
occur, a monitoring program has been established and is similar to the program described
for North Carlsbad.
During beach replenishment operations, some sand would move into the surf zone and be
suspended in the water column causing an increase in turbidity. Increases in turbidity
could potentially impact sensitive marine resources such as surfgrass and kelp
populations. However, impacts would not be significant because the sand being used for
beach replenishment has a smaller percentage of fine material than what is presently on
the beaches and the area is naturally turbid due to constant wave action (FRH 1997). In
addition, the sand would be placed behind longitudinal dikes so that most of the material
would settle out, thus minimizing turbidity.
Impacts to fishes, birds, and marine mammals resulting from sand deposition would not
be significant as these are mobile organisms that can easily leave the area for similar
foraging habitat.
California grunion may spawn on the South Carlsbad receiver beach during the sand
placement period. If grunion were observed spawning, measures to avoid impacts as
described for North Carlsbad would be taken.
4-30 211603000
Sensitive avian species in the South Carlsbad area include the California least tern and the
Western snowy plover. The tern utilizes offshore waters for foraging activities in the
vicinity of the receiver sites and the plover utilizes sandy intertidal habitat for foraging.
Replenishment operations could affect the intertidal zone in the receiver areas by causing
short-term increases in turbidity in longshore waters, thereby causing a reduction in the
forage base. However, these birds are mobile and would be able to move to adjacent
beach areas or non-impacted waters for foraging activities. Therefore, no significant
impacts to sensitive species would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed
action.
4.4.3.2 Barge Placement and Anchoring
The proposed beach replenishment operations at the South Carlsbad receiver site are
expected to occur from mid-November 1997 to January 1998. Placement and operation
of the hopper dredge, mono buoy, and pump lines would be the same as those described
for North Carlsbad receiving site. The pump lines would not negatively impact fish or
invertebrate communities in the area and may actually attract fish to the area by providing
spatial relief. The dredge would not significantly disturb birds or marine mammals as it
would not be a permanent feature and could be easily avoided.
4.4.3.3 Coastal Wetlands
No significant impacts to wetland organisms would be anticipated as a result of sand
placement at the South Carlsbad receiver beaches. As discussed in Section 4.2, local
jurisdictions are responsible for monitoring lagoon inlets and river/creek outlets located
in the vicinity of the South Carlsbad receiver areas. Any measures needed to ensure
inlet/outlet stability would be implemented by the local jurisdictions. For further
discussion of potential impacts to Encinas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon, refer to
Section 4.2.3.
211603000 4-31
4.4.4 Encinitas
4.4.4.1 Sand Deposition
Sensitive marine resources at the Encinitas fill area include rocky intertidal reefs,
intertidal/shallow subtidal vegetated reefs (including feather boa kelp, surfgrass, and sea
fans), and nearshore reefs with giant kelp (refer to Figure 3-3). Approximately
871,620m3 (1,140,079 cy) of sand would be placed within the intertidal zone at
Encinitas. The fill area would cover approximately 4.4 km (2.7 mi) of shoreline and
extend about 130 m (426 ft) from the back beach (Figure 3-3). Sand placement at
Encinitas would result hi the direct burial of approximately 243,010 m2 (290,666 yd2) of
rocky intertidal habitat and vegetated subtidal reefs. Burial would occur on the order of
2 to 3 m (6.6 to 10 ft) throughout this area. Due to direct burial and potential long-term
impacts to marine resources at the Encinitas receiver beach, this site has been rejected for
onshore beach replenishment.
Sand placement at the Encinitas site would be required to avoid direct burial of sensitive
marine resources and would be subject to the same mitigation measures as identified for
North Carlsbad (in Section 4.4.2.1). Implementation of the proposed action at this site
would greatly increase the project mitigation cost due to potential long-term impacts to
sensitive marine resources.
Natural sand transport is a function of seasonal cycles that move sand offshore in the
winter and then back onto the beach in the summer. Modeling indicates sand movement
would be similar to natural conditions and would not move farther offshore than 400 m
(1,312 ft) seaward of the back beach and 4,500 m (14,850 ft) upcoast or downcoast of the
beach fill (FRH 1997). However, surfgrass habitats and vegetated reefs are located hi the
fill footprint and directly offshore for approximately 300 m (990 ft) from the back beach.
Also, because the nearest high relief vegetative reef is found approximately 125 m (413
ft) from the back beach (approximately 25 m [75 ft] from the offshore edge of the fill
area), sand placement and transport would cause short-term adverse impacts to both of
these sensitive marine resources.
During beach replenishment operations, some sand will move into the surf zone and be
suspended in the water column, causing an increase in turbidity. Increases in turbidity
could potentially impact sensitive marine resources such as surfgrass and kelp
4-32 211603000
populations. However, impacts would not be significant because the sand that would be
used for beach replenishment has a smaller percentage of fine material than what is
presently on the beaches and the area is naturally turbid due to constant wave action
(FRH 1997). In addition, the sand would be placed behind longitudinal dikes so that
most of the material would settle out, thus minimizing turbidity.
Nonmobile epibenthic and benthic invertebrates present on the hard substrates could be
buried by sediment deposition. However, this impact would not be significant as
populations are expected to recover quickly.
Impacts to fishes, birds, and marine mammals resulting from sand deposition would not
be considered significant as these are mobile organisms that can easily leave the area for
similar foraging habitat.
Due to the lack of available sand, California grunion are not expected to spawn on the
Encinitas receiver beaches during sand placement. However, if grunion were observed
spawning, measures to avoid impact as described for North Carlsbad would be taken.
4.4.4.2 Barge Placement and Anchoring
The proposed beach replenishment operations at the Encinitas receiver site would be
expected to occur from January to mid-April 1998. Placement and operation of the
hopper dredge, mono buoy, and pump lines would be the same as those described for
North Carlsbad receiving site. The dredge would not negatively impact fish or
invertebrate communities in the area and might actually attract fish to the area by
providing spatial relief. The dredge would not significantly disturb birds or marine
mammals as it would not be a permanent feature and could be easily avoided.
Extensive kelp beds are located directly offshore of the Encinitas receiver site. Portions
of the kelp beds could be distressed by placement of sinker lines. If the equipment were
moored or placed directly on the kelp plants, the plants could be crushed or damaged.
The kelp beds would be surveyed at least 30 days prior to pumping operations. As shown
in Figure 3-3, the mono buoy and sinker line would be placed to minimize impacts to the
kelp bed areas. Therefore, significant impacts to existing kelp beds would not be
anticipated to occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
211603000 4-33
4.4.4.3 Coastal Wetlands
Significant impacts to wetland organisms would not be anticipated to occur as a result of
sand placement at the Encinitas receiver beach. As discussed in Section 4.2, local
jurisdictions are responsible for monitoring lagoon inlets and river/creek outlets located
in the vicinity of the Encinitas receiver area. Any measures needed to ensure inlet/outlet
stability would be implemented by the local jurisdictions. For further discussion of
potential impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon, refer to Section 4.2.4.2.
4.4.5 Torrey Pines
4.4.5.1 Sand Deposition
Approximately 496,970 m3 (650,037 cy) of sand would be placed within the intertidal
zone at the two Torrey Pines receiver beaches. The fill area would cover approximately
0.9 km (0.5 mi) of shoreline at North Torrey Pines and 0.7 km (0.4 mi) of shoreline at
South Torrey Pines. The fill would extend offshore about 130 m (426 ft) from the back
beach (Figure 3-4). Potential impacts at Torrey Pines would be similar to those described
for North Carlsbad receiver site. Nonmobile epibenthic and benthic invertebrates present
on the sandy substrates could be buried by sediment deposition. However, this impact
would not be significant as the populations would be expected to recover quickly and
burial would affect only a limited area. Impacts to fish, birds, and marine mammals
resulting from sand deposition would not be considered significant as these are mobile
organisms that can easily leave the area for similar foraging habitat. California grunion
might spawn on the north Torrey Pines receiver beach during the sand placement period,
and if grunion were observed spawning, measures to avoid impact as described for North
Carlsbad would be taken.
No sensitive marine resources are located in the vicinity of the north Torrey Pines fill
area. However, sensitive marine resources are located in the vicinity of the southern
Torrey Pines fill area and include vegetated shallow subtidal reefs and nearshore reefs
with giant kelp (refer to Figure 3-4). The shallow subtidal reefs provide habitat for
feather boa kelp, surfgrass, and sea fans. The closest reefs occur approximately 265 m
(870 ft) offshore of the back beach; therefore, no short- or long-term significant impacts
would occur to these resources as sand placement activities are designed to avoid areas
4-34 211603000
that contain sensitive marine resources and to mimic the natural beach slope of the
existing beach profile.
Natural sand transport is a function of seasonal cycles that move sand offshore in the
whiter and then back onto the beach hi the summer. Sand movement would be similar to
natural conditions and would not move sand farther offshore more than 350 m (1,148 ft)
seaward of the back beach and 3,000 m (9,900 ft) upcoast or downcoast of the beach fill
(FRH 1997). The nearest surfgrass bed is located approximately 300 m (990 ft) offshore
of the back beach, and the nearest kelp bed is found approximately 500 m (1,650 ft)
offshore. Surfgrass and kelp beds in these areas are persistent and are adapted to natural
seasonal sand movement, and therefore, sand placement and transport would not
significantly affect either of these sensitive marine resources. Although no significant
impacts to sensitive marine resources would occur, a monitoring program has been
established and is similar to the program described for North Carlsbad.
During beach replenishment operations, some sand would move into the surf zone and be
suspended in the water column, causing an increase hi turbidity. Increases hi turbidity
could potentially impact sensitive marine resources such as surfgrass and kelp
populations. However, impacts would not be significant because the sand that would be
used for beach replenishment has a smaller percentage of fine material than what is
presently on the beaches and the area is naturally turbid due to constant wave action
(FRH 1997). In addition, the sand would be placed behind longitudinal dikes so that
most of the material would settle out, thus minimizing turbidity.
Sensitive avian species hi the Torrey Pines area include the California least tem and the
Western snowy plover. The tem utilizes offshore waters for foraging activities hi the
vicinity of the receiver sites and the plover utilizes sandy intertidal habitat for foraging.
Replenishment operations could affect the intertidal zone hi the receiver areas by causing
short-term increases hi turbidity hi nearshore waters, thereby causing a reduction in the
forage base. However, these birds are mobile and would be able to move to adjacent
beach areas or non-impacted waters for foraging activities. Therefore, no significant
impacts to sensitive species would occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
211603000 4-35
4.4.5.2 Barge Placement and Anchoring
The proposed beach replenishment operations at the Torrey Pines receiver site would be
expected to occur from mid-April to June 1998. Placement and operation of the hopper
dredge, mono buoy, and pump lines would be the same as those described for the North
Carlsbad receiving site. The dredge would not negatively impact fish or invertebrate
communities in the area and might actually attract fish to the area by providing spatial
relief. The dredge would also not significantly disturb birds or marine mammals as it
would not be a permanent feature and could be easily avoided.
4.4.5.3 Coastal Wetlands
No significant impacts to wetland organisms would be anticipated to occur as a result of
sand placement at the Torrey Pines receiver beaches. As discussed in Section 4.2, local
jurisdictions are responsible for monitoring lagoon inlets and river/creek outlets located
in the vicinity of the Torrey Pines receiver areas. Any measures necessary to ensure
inlet/outlet stability would be implemented by the local jurisdictions. For further
discussion of potential impacts to Los Penasquitos Lagoon, refer to Section 4.2.5.
4.4.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
4.4.6.1 Sand Deposition
If the Encinitas site is excluded from the beach replenishment plan, the beach fill
intended for Encinitas would be redistributed to Buccaneer Beach in South Oceanside and
the South Carlsbad receiver beach. Approximately 580,245 m3 (758,960 cy) of sand
would be placed at Buccaneer Beach (refer to Figure 3-1), and an additional 291,375 m3
(381,119 cy) of sand would be placed at South Carlsbad (refer to Figure 3-2), bringing
the total at South Carlsbad to approximately 711,885 m3 (931,115 cy). The fill area at
Buccaneer Beach would cover approximately 1.4 km (0.9 mi) of shoreline, while the
South Carlsbad additional fill would extend approximately 600 m (1,968 ft) beyond the
proposed fill area. In both cases, the offshore extent of the fill would be about 130 m
(426 ft) from the back beach.
The placement of sand at the Buccaneer Beach receiver area could result in the burial and
death of nonmobile epibenthic and benthic invertebrates. However, this would be a
4-36 211603000
temporary impact as recolonization of the area would occur rapidly. Mobile
invertebrates, such as crustaceans, would be expected to move into the area within days
of cessation of sand placement and other organisms would be expected to recolonize
within 6 to 12 months (Butler Roach 1995). Because the effect would be temporary and
would not directly impact any sensitive species, impacts to invertebrates would be
considered insignificant.
Nonmobile invertebrates in the subtidal area could also be buried by sediments that are
washed offshore from implementation of the proposed project. Since this is a natural
process, most subtidal invertebrates are adapted to shallow burial by sediments. Mobile
invertebrates would move vertically within the sandy substrate or horizontally to deeper
waters to avoid burial; therefore, this impact would be considered insignificant.
No subtidal rocky reef, kelp bed, or surfgrass habitats are located in the vicinity of the
Buccaneer Beach receiver area (refer to Figure 3-1). Therefore, no impacts to these
sensitive marine resources would occur due to sediment placement or transport.
Potential impacts due to placement of additional sand at the South Carlsbad alternative
receiver beach would be similar to those described for the proposed action at South
Carlsbad (see Section 4.4.2.1). Sand movement would be similar to natural conditions
and would not move farther offshore than 400 m (1,320 ft) seaward of the back beach and
3,000 m (9,900 ft) upcoast or downcoast of the beach fill (FRH 1997). No surfgrass
habitat is present; however, a vegetated reef with feather boa kelp is located
approximately 60 m (198 ft) offshore of the additional fill area (approximately 175 m
[578 ft] from the back beach). Sand placement as a result of project implementation
would not directly affect this sensitive marine resource. Sand transport after placement
would also not significantly affect this resource, as kelp beds are persistent and are
adapted to natural seasonal sand movement. Although significant impacts to sensitive
marine resources would not occur, a monitoring program has been established and is
similar to the program described for North Carlsbad.
Impacts to fishes, birds, and marine mammals resulting from sand deposition would not
be considered significant as these are mobile organisms that can easily leave the area for
similar foraging habitat.
211603000 4-37
Due to the lack of available sand, California grunion would not be expected to spawn on
the Buccaneer Beach receiver beaches during sand placement. However, if grunion were
observed spawning, measures to avoid impact as described for North Carlsbad would be
taken.
Sensitive avian species in the Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad area include the
California least tern and the western snowy plover. The tem utilizes offshore waters for
foraging activities in the vicinity of the receiver sites and the plover utilizes sandy
intertidal habitat for foraging. Replenishment operations could affect the intertidal zone
in the receiver areas by causing short-term increases in turbidity in longshore waters,
thereby causing a reduction in the forage base. However, these birds are mobile and
would be able to move to adjacent beach areas or non-impacted waters for foraging
activities. Therefore, no significant impacts to sensitive species would occur upon
implementation of the proposed action.
4.4.6.2 Barge Placement and Anchoring
Should the alternative plan be implemented, sand placement operations would be
expected to occur at Buccaneer Beach from mid-July to October 1997; at North Carlsbad
from November 1997 to January 1998; at South Carlsbad from January to April 1998;
and at Torrey Pines from April to June 1998. Operations for the South Carlsbad and
Torrey Pines receiver sites are the same as previously described. Placement and
operation of the hopper dredge, mono buoy, and pump lines for Buccaneer Beach would
be the same as those described for the North Carlsbad receiving site. The dredge would
not negatively impact fish or invertebrate communities in the area and might actually
attract fish to the area by providing spatial relief. Furthermore, the dredge would not
significantly disturb birds or marine mammals as it would not be a permanent feature and
could be easily avoided.
4.4.63 Coastal Wetlands
No significant impacts to wetland organisms would be anticipated as a result of sand
placement at the Buccaneer Beach receiver site. As discussed in Section 4.2, local
jurisdictions are responsible for monitoring lagoon inlets and river/creek outlets located
in the vicinity of the Buccaneer Beach receiver areas. Any measures needed to ensure
4-38 211603000
inlet/outlet stability would be implemented by the local jurisdictions. For further
discussion of potential impacts to Buena Vista Lagoon, refer to Section 4.2.6.
4.5 LAND USE AND RECREATION
4.5.1 Approach to Analysis
The significance of potential land use impacts associated with implementation of the
proposed action is based on the level of land use sensitivity in areas that would be
affected by the proposed action. In general, land use and recreational impacts would be
significant if they would (1) be inconsistent or noncompliant with applicable land use
patterns or policies; (2) preclude the viability of existing land use activities; (3) preclude
continued use or occupation of an area; (4) be incompatible with adjacent or vicinity land
use to the extent that public health or safety is threatened; or (5) impact the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities.
4.5.2 North Carlsbad
Implementation of the proposed action would not change existing uses at the North
Carlsbad site. Furthermore, the proposed action would not conflict with the goals and
policies contained in the Carlsbad General Plan and the LCP.
Recreational activities most likely to be disturbed by beach replenishment activities
would include surfing, swimming, diving, surf fishing, sport fishing, sailing, and other
beach uses such as picnicking and sun bathing. Because of public safety concerns
associated with heavy equipment operations on the beach, replenishment operations
would require that the receiver beach site and offshore area be closed temporarily to the
public. Closure and restricted access to the area would result in a redistribution of beach
activities to surrounding areas. This would be a temporary localized effect and would not
result in a permanent significant condition. Without beach replenishment, beach use
would decline as beach conditions continue to deteriorate (e.g., erosion). Upon
completion of beach replenishment operations, recreational activities would resume and
would be enhanced. Therefore, the proposed action would result in a beneficial impact
by ensuring long-term recreational uses.
211603000 4-39
As discussed in the Homeporting EIS, changes to wave action and consequently to
surfing conditions could occur if dredged material were placed in the longshore area.
With the movement of beach sand through littoral processes, offshore bars could develop
over tune, thereby affecting beach breaks dependent on the formation of sandbars.
However, as changes in the formation of offshore sandbars is a naturally occurring event,
this effect would not be considered a significant impact. No reef surf breaks are located
in the vicinity of the North Carlsbad receiver site; therefore, no impacts to reef breaks
would occur.
4.5.3 South Carlsbad
Land use impacts to the South Carlsbad receiver area would be similar to those for the
North Carlsbad site. Beach replenishment at South Carlsbad would not conflict with the
goals and policies contained in the Carlsbad General Plan or the San Diego Coastal State
Park System General Plan. Closure of the South Carlsbad receiver beach would be a
temporary localized effect and would not result in a permanent significant condition.
As with the North Carlsbad replenishment effort, the proposed action would cause a
redistribution of recreational beach activities to surrounding areas. Potential impacts to
recreational users at the State Beach Campground could occur due to restricted access to
the State Beach adjacent to the campground. However, replenishment efforts would not
cause the closure of the entire beach area below the campground; the proposed operations
would occur only on the northern portion of the State Beach (refer to Figure 1-3). Thus,
campground visitors would maintain State Beach access adjacent to the southern portion
of the campground. As direct beach access from South Carlsbad State Beach
Campground would be maintained during proposed operations, significant impacts to
recreational users would not occur as a result of implementation of the proposed action.
Similar to the North Carlsbad replenishment site, beach surf breaks located along the
South Carlsbad site could be affected by the formation of offshore sandbars associated
with transported beach fill from the proposed action. However, this effect would be
considered insignificant as the formation of offshore sand bars is a naturally occurring
event. No reef surf breaks are identified in the vicinity of the South Carlsbad site;
therefore, no impacts to reef breaks would occur.
4-40 211603000
4.5.4 Encinitas
Land use impacts to the Encinitas receiver area would be similar to those for the Carlsbad
sites. Beach replenishment at Encinitas would not change any existing uses at the site,
nor conflict with the goals and policies contained hi the Encinitas General Plan and LCP.
As with the Carlsbad sites, the proposed action would cause a redistribution of
recreational beach activities to surrounding areas. This would be a temporary localized
effect and would not result in a permanent significant condition. Upon completion of
beach replenishment operations, recreational activities would resume and would be
enhanced. The proposed action would therefore result in a beneficial impact by ensuring
long-term recreational uses.
Surf breaks hi the vicinity of the Encinitas receiver site could be affected by the
formation or alteration of offshore sandbars associated with transported beach fill.
Popular surf breaks in the area include "Tomato Patch," "Grandview," "Beacon's," and
"Stone Steps." These are all beach surf breaks that are influenced by subtidal rocky reefs,
which could potentially be impacted by sediment accretion at the reefs. Sediment
accumulation in the vicinity of the Encinitas receiver site is expected within 450 m
(1,500 ft) of the existing beach. Due to the proximity of subtidal reefs to the proposed
beach fill, potentially adverse impacts to surf breaks hi front of the site could occur as a
result of the proposed action. Popular reef-supported surf breaks south of the proposed
Encinitas receiver site (e.g., "Boneyards" and "Swami's") would not be affected by
transported beach fill from the proposed action.
4.5.5 Torrey Pines
Land use impacts to the Torrey Pines receiver sites would be similar to those for the other
proposed receiver sites. Beach replenishment at Torrey Pines would not conflict with the
goals and policies contained in the City of San Diego General Plan, the Del Mar General
Plan, or the San Diego Coastal State Park System General Plan. Closure of the Torrey
Pines receiver sites would be a temporary localized effect and would not result hi a
permanent significant condition.
As with the other receiver areas, the proposed action would cause a redistribution of
recreational beach activities to surrounding areas. Potential impacts to recreational users
211603000 4-41
at Torrey Pines State Reserve could occur due to restricted access to the State Beach
adjacent to the Reserve. However, replenishment efforts would not cause the closure of
the entire beach area below the Reserve. Proposed operations would occur north of the
Beach Trail access to the State Beach (refer to Figure 1-5). Hikers and other recreational
visitors would have access to the State Beach during proposed replenishment operations.
Therefore, as direct beach access from Torrey Pines State Reserve would be maintained
during proposed operations, significant impacts to recreational users would not occur
upon implementation of the proposed action.
Two popular reef surf breaks are located north of the northern Torrey Pines fill site,
"8th Street" and "South Del Mar." Sand transport modeling indicates that sediment
accretion could occur at the base of these reefs within 12 months of sand placement,
which could adversely affect the surf breaks at these locations. However, sediment
movement through these reefs occurs on a seasonal basis. Therefore, sediment
transported from the North Torrey Pines fill site would not be anticipated to significantly
impact these reef surf breaks.
Adverse effects to beach surf breaks occurring along the Torrey Pines receiver sites
would not be anticipated to occur. The proposed action would create changing surf
conditions from the formation and alteration of offshore sandbars; however, as this is a
naturally occurring event, it would not be considered significant.
4.5.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
Land use impacts to the Buccaneer Beach alternative receiver area would be similar to
those for the proposed receiver sites. Beach replenishment at Buccaneer Beach in South
Oceanside would not change any existing uses at the site, nor conflict with goals and
policies contained in the Oceanside General Plan and LCP. Closure of the alternative
receiver beach would be a temporary localized effect and would not result in a permanent
significant condition. Impacts to surf breaks would be similar to those at the North
Carlsbad receiver site.
For land use impacts associated with additional fill at the South Carlsbad receiver site,
refer to Section 4.5.2.
4-42 211603000
4.6 SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
4.6.1 Approach to Analysis
For this analysis, determination of significance of potential safety and environmental
health impacts is based on the level of safety precautions that would be implemented
during replenishment activities. An impact to safety and environmental health would be
significant if it would (1) create a health hazard or potential health hazard or (2) expose
people to potential health hazards.
In addition to evaluating these concerns, this analysis also assesses safety concerns
associated with the development of a scarp as a result of beach replenishment. A scarp is
defined as the cut in the beach berm face caused by wave action. Scarp height is a
function of the breaking wave height and the elevation of the existing beach berm.
Scarps develop naturally along the beach profile and vary in height due to significant
changes in the beach profile (i.e., a drastic drop in elevation).
4.6.2 Proposed Beach Receiver Sites
The following analysis is applicable to the proposed North Carlsbad, South Carlsbad,
Encinitas, and Torrey Pines receiver sites, as well as the Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad
alternative sites.
Implementation of the proposed action would create an unsafe situation on receiver
beaches during sand placement, due to the amount of heavy equipment used to grade and
dress the beaches. During discharge operations, the receiver areas would be closed to
ensure public safety. The closure would affect the existing beach and offshore areas
between the hopper dredge and the receiver beach. A buffer zone of 30 m (100 ft) would
be provided between the operation area and any open public beach areas. The Navy
would provide all necessary safety measures in the vicinity of the receiver beaches,
including fencing, barricades, and flagmen, as necessary. Additionally, an approximate
150 m by 150 m (500 ft by 500 ft) buffer area would be maintained around the hopper
dredge offshore waters, to allow proper anchoring and pump line operation. To ensure
that no vessels would enter the offshore restricted zone, the anchoring area would be
included in the Notice to Mariners, which is overseen by the U.S. Coast Guard.
211603000 4-43
Significant impacts to public safety would not occur upon implementation of the
proposed action.
As stated above, a scarp is defined as the cut in the beach berm face caused by wave
action. Large scarps may result in safety hazards due to significant changes in the beach
profile (i.e., a drastic drop in elevation). Because scarps are a function of beach berm
height, placement of fill on the receiver beaches would not increase scarp height,
provided fill is placed to the height of the existing beach berm (FRH 1997). The
proposed action specifies that beach fill would not be placed above the height of the
existing beach berm. Therefore, safety impacts due to increased scarp heights would not
occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
4.7 AESTHETICS
4.7.1 Approach to Analysis
Determination of the significance of potential impacts to visual resources in a certain area
is based primarily on the level of visual sensitivity. Visual sensitivity is defined as the
degree of public interest in a visual resource and concern over adverse changes in the
quality of that resource. In general, an impact to a visual resource would be significant if
implementation of the proposed action would (1) result in a substantial alteration to an
existing visual setting or (2) create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view.
San Diego's coastal beaches are one of the region's greatest visual resources. For this
reason, the coastal areas of San Diego County are considered a highly sensitive visual
resource. Coastal beaches offer scenic high quality views that are considered a trademark
of the southern California area. Any construction or operation that would cause
permanent degradation of existing views along coastal beaches would be considered
significant. Potential impacts to visual resources would be similar at each of the
proposed receiver sites due to their similar coastal locations. Therefore, the following
discussion is relative to all of the proposed receiver sites.
4.7.2 Proposed Beach Receiver Sites
The proposed action would alter existing views along the receiver beaches during
proposed beach replenishment operations. Proposed operations include a hopper dredge
4-44 211603000
anchored offshore, beach grading equipment, and several construction personnel
operating the pump line and associated equipment. Pumping and construction operations
would degrade existing coastal views in each area on a temporary basis during the
scheduled operating time. However, the receiver beaches would be enhanced subsequent
to beach replenishment operations. Sand replenishment would widen existing beaches,
thereby eliminating views of eroded beach areas. No long-term adverse visual impacts
would occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
Beach fill material associated with disposal operations could be darker in color than
existing beach sand due to organic materials in the sediment; however, fill material would
be washed and reworked by waves, bleached under exposure to the sun, and mixed with
existing sand. Any discoloration of the sediment would be short term (ACOE 1984); no
permanent adverse visual conditions would result from discoloration of fill materials at
the receiver beaches.
4.8 STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES
4.8.1 Approach to Analysis
Analysis of impacts conducted for this EA includes the identification of structures and
utilities that could be affected by implementation of the proposed action. Impacts to
structures and utilities would be significant if they would (1) result in the need for new
systems or (2) result in substantial alterations to existing systems. Because an increase in
service demand would not occur with the proposed action, this analysis focuses on
displacement or disruption of structures and utilities. Information contained in this
section is derived from the Beach Sand Transport and Sedimentation Report (FRH 1997).
4.8.2 North Carlsbad
A tabular summary of potential impacts to structures and utilities at the proposed North
Carlsbad beach receiver site is depicted in Section 3.8 (refer to Figure 3-12).
4.8.2.1 Access Stairs
As discussed in Section 3.8, public access stairs are located off of Ocean Ave. In
addition, several private residential properties have private stairways for beach access,
211603000 4-45
several of which reach the beach surface. All other stairways end approximately 1 m
(3 ft) above the beach surface. Although implementation of the proposed action would
raise the beach surface and cover the bottom portion of all stairways with sand, beach
access would not be restricted. Therefore, adverse impacts to access stairs would not
occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
4.8.2.2 Storm Drains
A drainage outlet structure is located adjacent to the bottom of the public access stairway
off of Ocean Avenue, with two storm drain outlets located approximately 1.2 m (4 ft)
above the existing beach surface at the base of the stairs. The top of the proposed sand
fill would lie approximately 2.9 m (6 ft) above the existing surface. Potential impacts
could occur if beach replenishment activities blocked the opening of the drains and
interrupted service. However, implementation of the proposed action would require
storm drain discharge flow paths to remain unobstructed; therefore, significant impacts to
storm drains would not occur.
4.8.23 Sea Walls
Several properties along this stretch of beach have sea walls. Although weep holes would
be covered upon implementation of the proposed project, the majority of sea wall tops
would not be covered. Several properties have terraced sea walls and landscaping; the
lower terraces of which would be covered by the sand fill. As additional sand fill would
stabilize the shoreline and protect against erosion, implementation of the proposed action
would not significantly impact sea walls in the vicinity of the North Carlsbad receiver
site.
4.8.3 South Carlsbad
A tabular summary of potential impacts to structures at the proposed South Carlsbad
receiver site is depicted in Section 3.8 (refer to Figure 3-13).
4.8.3.1 Access Stairs
Four sets of public access stairways are located within the vicinity of the proposed
receiver site, stairway base elevations ranging from 1.5 m to 2.6 m (5 ft to 9 ft). In
4-46 211603000
addition, five lifeguard towers are located onsite with base elevations ranging from 1.7 m
to 3.6 m (6 ft to 12 ft). The proposed action would cover the bottom portion of the
stairways and lifeguard towers with fill, which would tend to stabilize the stairways and
structures. As beach access would not be affected by implementation of the proposed
action, no impacts to stairways or structures would occur.
4.8.4 Encinitas
A tabular summary of potential impacts to structures at the proposed Encinitas receiver
site is depicted in Section 3.8 (refer to Figure 3-14).
4.8.4.1 Access Stairs
Public and private access stairways are located within the vicinity of the proposed
receiver site, stairway base elevations ranging from 0.5 m to 3.5 m (1.6 to 11.5 ft). The
proposed action would cover the bottom portion of the stairways with fill, which would
tend to stabilize the stairways and structures. As beach access would not be affected by
implementation of the proposed action, no impacts to access stairways would occur.
4.8.4.2 Storm Drains
Storm drain pipes are located at the end of B Street at Moonlight State Beach and include
one 91-cm-dia (36-in-dia) and four 152-cm-dia (60-in-dia) pipes. The City of Encinitas
has excavated a few meters around the outlets to expose the pipes and allow proper
drainage flow. The invert elevations of these storm drain outlets are approximately
+1.5 m (+5 ft) MSL, which is 0.2 m (0.6 ft) below the top of the proposed beach fill.
Low drainage flow typically seeps under any sand or cobble that has accrued over the
outlet at these locations. During heavy drainage discharge, the flow creates its own path
to the ocean. According to the City of Encinitas, this process is acceptable and would
continue at these locations subsequent to sand placement (FRH 1997). Therefore,
adverse impacts to storm drain outlets in the vicinity of the Encinitas receiver beach
would not occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
211603000 4-47
4.8.43 Sea Walls
Elevations of the lowest exposed vertical portions of sea walls in the vicinity of the
receiver site range from 0 to 2 m (0 to 6.6 ft). Portions of the sea walls would be covered
by the proposed fill. However, as additional sand fill would stabilize the shoreline and
protect against erosion, no adverse conditions would occur upon implementation of the
proposed action.
4.8.5 Torrey Pines
As structures or utilities do not exist within the vicinity of the proposed project site, no
impacts would occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
4.8.6 Buccaneer Beach/South Carlsbad Alternative
No structures or utilities are identified in the vicinity of the South Carlsbad receiver area;
therefore, no impacts would occur. A tabular summary of potential impacts at the
Buccaneer Beach alternative receiver beach is depicted in Section 3.8 (refer to
Figure 3-15).
4.8.6.1 Access Stairs
A public access stairway is located at Whaley Street hi the vicinity of the Buccaneer
Beach alternative site. The bottom of the stairway is located approximately 2.0 m (6.6 ft)
above MSL. The bottom of the stairway would be covered by approximately 0.9 m (3 ft)
of proposed beach fill. As public access to the beach via this stairway would not be
affected, significant impacts would not occur upon implementation of the proposed
action.
4.9 NOISE
4.9.1 Approach to Analysis
Significance criteria to determine noise impacts are based on whether any of the
following conditions apply:
4-48 211603000
1. The proposed action creates a projected sound level in excess of set construction
noise zoning standards; or,
2. The proposed action's operational schedule is in violation of local construction
noise standards; or,
3. Site-specific noise levels (e.g., on the beach) created by the proposed action are in
excess of current ambient levels.
4. The proposed action complies with local noise ordinances.
Table 4-1 identifies predicted sound levels at each receptor and indicates the presence of
possible noise impacts based upon the above criteria: C = construction noise level
violation; 0 = construction noise ordinance violation; and A = levels generated are hi
excess of existing ambient levels. Impact assessment is based upon sound level data of
similar equipment (Ogden 1997), and known distances from individual noise sources to
their respective receptor points (i.e., residential and/or inhabited structures).
4.9.2 North Carlsbad
Onshore beach replenishment activities would use an offshore hopper dredge as the
sediment transport vessel. The sand would be mixed with sea water to form a slurry,
which would be pumped through a nozzle onto the receiver beach. The sand would then
be moved and leveled out using small diesel dozers. In addition, diesel trucks could be
required to move sand from one point to another. Any final grooming of the beach would
be completed using a cattail assembly behind the dozers, as described above. Operation
of the slurry pump onboard the hopper dredge would be inaudible at any of the sensitive
receptors examined.
Based on the noise analysis conducted for the Homeporting EIS, the diesel dozers would
exceed ambient noise levels (50 to 70 dBA) within a certain distance from the receptor, as
indicated in Table 4-1. At night, noise from implementation of the proposed action
would be more audible and possibly intrusive to nearby sensitive receptors as ambient
noise levels are typically lower (at or less than the Lmin values shown hi Section 3.9).
Operation of the dozers and cattail 24 hours a day would exceed the City's construction
noise ordinance from both operational (time usage) and sound exposure considerations
(see Section 3.9). However, the City of Carlsbad has indicated that the proposed North
Carlsbad receiver site is held under private property ownership with easements granted to
the State Lands Commission below the established high tide line for public access.
211603000 4-49
Table 4-1
EXPECTED NOISE IMPACTS DUE TO REPLENISHMENT ACTIVITIES
Beach Site/Equipment
North Carlsbad
Slurry Pump
Diesel Dozer/Cattail
South Carlsbad
Slurry Pump
Diesel Dozer/Cattail
Encinitas
Slurry Pump
Diesel Dozer/Cattail
Torrey Pines
Slurry Pump
Diesel Dozer/Cattail
Buccaneer Beach
Slurry Pump
Diesel Dozer/Cattail
Source
Level @
50 Feet
70dBA
SOdBA
70dBA
SOdBA
70dBA
80dBA
70dBA
SOdBA
70dBA
SOdBA
Slant
Distance
to Nearest
Receptors
1600.0 ft
51.0ft
1601.0ft
78.1ft
1601.0ft
78.1ft
1602.0ft
125.0 ft
1600.0ft
51.0ft
Attenuation
Due to Topographic
Slant Attenuation
Distance
30.1 dB
0.2 dB
30.1 dB
3.9 dB
30.1 dB
3.9 dB
30.1 dB
8.0 dB
30.1 dB
0.2 dB
4.9 dB
5.7 dB
4.9 dB
15.1 dB
4.9 dB
15.1 dB
5.4 dB
12.9 dB
4.9 dB
5.7 dB
Notes:
1 . Source levels based upon best available data (Ogden 1995, 1997).
2. Slant distance attenuation is based upon the attenuation due to the
Level @
Nearest
Receptors
35dBA
74dBA
35dBA
61dBA
35dBA
61dBA
35dBA
59dBA
35dBA
74dBA
Impact
and
Type
-
C,A
-
C
o
c,o
-
C
o
0,A
closest calculated slant
4.
5.
range from the receptor to the source (i.e., (DH2 + DV2)1/2>, DH = minimum horizontal
distance, DV = minimum vertical distance) plus the Fresnel (barrier) attenuation due to
intervening topography. This is calculated as a point source at a rate of 6 dB/DD. Reference
distance taken at 50 feet from source.
Topographic attenuation is calculated as being the Fresnel (diffractive barrier) attenuation due
to intervening topography. Source modeled as an elevated point source (at 5 feet) at
250 hertz. Receptor setback from topography was 10 feet. Minimum allowable attenuation
level set at 3.OdB.
Level at nearest receptors is equal to source level minus the slant and topographic attenuation.
Values rounded to nearest decibel.
Impact Classification: C = construction noise level violation, O = construction noise
ordinance violation, and A = levels generated are in excess of existing ambient levels. A
dashed (-) entry indicates the absence of a noise violation based upon the analysis.
All sound levels given in dBA. All distances given in feet.
4-50 21J603000
Therefore, the City of Carlsbad, through the City's Municipal Code, has no jurisdiction
over the North Carlsbad receiver site. The North Carlsbad site would fall under the
jurisdiction of the State of California.
Since the State currently has no mechanism for issuance of a noise variance, and since the
noise would be of a short duration, the State of California (Dupree 1997) has deemed that
operations due to beach replenishment would have an adverse but insignificant impact.
The California Department of Health Services has requested that all available feasible
engineering controls be employed to minimize beach construction noise levels, especially
during evening and nighttime hours.
4.9.3 South Carlsbad
Operations at the South Carlsbad receiver site were found to produce noise levels in
excess of the established limits set by the State of California. This is especially true for
nighttime activities associated with operation of the dozers and cattail 24 hours a day.
Since the State currently has no mechanism for issuance of a noise variance, and since the
noise would be of a short duration, the State of California (Dupree 1997) has deemed that
operations due to beach replenishment would have an adverse but insignificant impact.
The California Department of Health Services has requested that all available feasible
engineering controls be employed to minimize beach construction noise levels, especially
during evening and nighttime hours.
4.9.4 Encinitas
Operations at the Encinitas receiver site would be identical to the above sites. Both
construction noise levels and operational noise impacts would be expected, due to
nighttime activities associated with project operations. However, the proposed operations
are considered exempt from the City's Noise Abatement Ordinance. The exemption was
granted under Municipal Code Section 9.32.417(c), "Federal or State preempted
activities." Therefore, the Navy can conclude that noise impacts would not be significant
at the Encinitas receiver site.
211603000 4-51
4.9.5 Torrey Pines
Operations at the northern Torrey Pines receiver site were found to produce noise levels
in excess of the established limits set by the City of Del Mar. A variance to the local
noise ordinance would be required in order to operate at night. The proposed action was
able to qualify for and has obtained a variation to Chapter 9.20 of the Del Mar Municipal
Code (Resolution 97-22, May 19, 1997), which brings it into compliance with the City's
noise regulations. Therefore, the Navy is able to conclude that noise impacts would not
be significant.
There were no identified sensitive receptors at the southern Torrey Pines receiver site,
therefore, no significant impacts would be expected to occur upon implementation of the
proposed action.
4.9.6 Buccaneer Beach(City of Oceanside)/South Carlsbad Alternative
Operations at the Buccaneer Beach Alternative receiver site would be identical to the
above sites. Both construction noise level and operational noise impacts would be
expected to occur due to nighttime implementation of project construction activities. A
variance to the local noise ordinance would be required in order to operate at night. The
proposed action was able to qualify for and has obtained a variation to Chapter 38 of the
City of Oceanside's Noise Ordinance (Resolution R97-081, May 21,1997), which brings
it into compliance with the City's ordinance. Therefore, the Navy is able to conclude that
noise impacts would not be significant should the Buccaneer Beach alternative site
receive fill.
Noise impacts at the South Carlsbad alternative receiver beach are described hi
Section 4.9.3.
4-52 211603000
SECTION 5
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
5.1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
NEPA requires an analysis of incremental effects of an action that are cumulatively
considered when viewed in connection with closely related present, planned, or
reasonably foreseeable future actions. In general, the effects of a particular action or
group of actions would be considered cumulative impacts under the following conditions:
• effects of several actions occur in a common location;
• effects are not localized (i.e., can contribute to effects of an action hi a
different location);
effects on a particular resource are similar hi nature (i.e., affects the same
specific element of a resource); and
• effects are long term (short-term impacts tend to dissipate over time and cease
to contribute to cumulative impacts).
Cumulative projects consist of other beach replenishment or beach nourishment projects
that are ongoing or are planned to occur in northern San Diego County from Oceanside
south to Torrey Pines State Beach (Figure 5-1). Cumulative projects are identified
below:
A. Oceanside Harbor
Dredging at Oceanside Harbor has been ongoing. The harbor is typically dredged
semiannually for maintenance purposes. In 1996, approximately 110,000 m3
(140,000 cy) of dredged material was placed hi the nearshore zone hi Oceanside. In
1997, approximately 175,000 m3 (225,000 cy) is expected to be placed on beaches in
Oceanside.
B. Marine Corps Santa Margarita Desiltation
The U.S. Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton dredges areas of the Santa Margarita
River to maintain the river channel and remove built-up sediment. Approximately
30,000 m3 (40,000 cy) of sediment was placed hi the nearshore zone hi South
Oceanside. This project was completed in 1994. Additional maintenance dredging of
the Santa Margarita River channel is planned hi 1997-98.
211603000 5-1
o/
/CAMP
PENDLETON
FALLBROOK
WARNER, SPRINGS
Lake
Henshaw
-w £\\ OGE ANSIDE
.1 3t\V —V.STA
, CARLSBAD
SAN
MARCOS
Lake)Hodges
IA BEACH Os)
& Wohlford
.ESCONDIDO
Lake
Sutherland
SANTAYSABEL
IRANCHO
T BERNARDO
RAMONA
_ San Vicente
"POWAY \Reseivoir
SANTEE/
rELC]jkJON
|54l
. ElCapten' Reservoir
ALPINE
*—+•Loveland Reservoir
Barren Lake
LEGEND
COMPLETED PROJECTS
ONGOING/PERIODIC PROJECT
1,000's OF CUBIC YDS.OF SAND IMPERIAL BEACH f
SOURCE: San Diego AssocJafon of Govemments
DIEGO
CHL\A VISTA.
4YSIDRO
^^
V
TIJUANA
JAMUL
.DULZURA
FIGURE
Cumulative Projects 5-1
BENVIR ASS'MT(ENV)\Environ AssessmentXReceiver Beach EA\SD County Map
C. Oceanside Beach Nourishment
The City of Oceanside and the La Paz County Landfill in Arizona have developed a
program to trade desert sand from the landfill for trash from the City of Oceanside.
Trucks will haul trash from Oceanside to La Paz, and return with sand.
Approximately 8,000 m3 (10,500 cy) will be deposited as beach nourishment on
various Oceanside city beaches.
D. Agua Hedionda Lagoon
A phased maintenance dredging project began in Agua Hedionda Lagoon in 1995.
Phases II and III were completed in 1996, which resulted in the placement of over
150,000m3 (193,000 cy) of dredged material on beaches north of the inlet jetty and
south of the outlet jetty in Carlsbad.
E. Batiquitos Lagoon
Efforts to restore Batiquitos Lagoon have resulted in dredging of approximately
1,375,000 m3 (1,800,000 cy) of sediment from the lagoon. A beach replenishment
project completed in 1996 placed sediments dredged from the lagoon on beaches in
north Carlsbad, south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and in south Carlsbad, north of
Batiquitos Lagoon. To maintain areas of the lagoon, an ongoing dredging project is
planned.
F. Moonlight Beach
The Moonlight State Beach project is an ongoing beach replenishment plan that
places approximately 770 m3 (1,000 cy) of sediment on the beach in Encinitas on a
yearly basis.
G. San Elijo Lagoon Mouth Opening
The San Elijo Lagoon Mouth Opening project is an annual maintenance dredging
project. In 1996, approximately 4,500 m3 (6,000 cy) of sand and cobble was placed
on the beach 300 yards south of the lagoon mouth in Encinitas. In 1997, another
4,500 m3 (6,000 cy) of sand and cobble is expected to be placed on the beach south of
the lagoon.
211603000 5-3
H. Lomas Santa Fe Drive Grade Separation
The Lomas Santa Fe Drive Grade Separation project is expected to begin in early
1997 and conclude in 1998. The project is expected to result in the placement of
33,000 m3 (40,000 cy) of sand at Fletcher Cove in Solana Beach.
None of these beach fills (A through H) would have significant cumulative impact
with this study's beach fills. Even the largest of the three projects, 33,000 m3 from
the Loma Santa Fe grade separation, is less than a 10 percent to the Solana Beach
fills; or in other words, about 150m (500 ft) of additional beach fill length. This
addition does not significantly affect the extent of sand movement.
I. U.S. Navy Homeporting
The Navy plans to place approximately 5.4 million m3 (7 million cy) of dredged
sediment on several beaches in northern San Diego County as part of the CVN
homeporting project in San Diego Bay. In addition to the four receiver beaches
(North and South Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Torrey Pines) identified in the proposed
action, the Navy plans to place sediment on beaches hi South Oceanside and Solana
Beach. The South Oceanside and Solana Beach sites were analyzed as part of a
previous Phase I Environmental Assessment (U.S. Navy 1997).
Although the model results (FRH 1997) indicate that the Homeporting beach fill at
South Carlsbad, Solona Beach, and Torrey Pines would not cause cumulative effects
due to their distance separation and shoreline configuration, placement of the three
beach fills at South Oceanside (Phase I site), Buccaneer Beach (Alternative Phase II
site), and North Carlsbad (Phase II site) would result in interactive effects due to
multiple beach fills. The model results indicate that:
a longshore spread of beach fill sand would occur during the simulation period
(Figure 5-2). The shoreline position changes at the San Luis Rey River, Loma
Alta Creek and Buena Vista Lagoon inlets include the widening of the
existing natural berm and beach. No buildup of sediment beyond the natural
berm height would be anticipated to result at the San Luis Rey River and
Loma Alta Creek inlets. Continued maintenance of the Buena Vista Lagoon
weir would be required.
5-4 211603000
SOUTH OCEANSIDE-
BEACH FILL BUCCANEER-
BEACH FILL -NORTH CARLSBAD
BEACH FILL
-APPROXIMATE SHORELINE AT 12 MONTHS AFTER PLACEMENT
nnFA jsinp HAHHOR s IIITH .IPTTV
Pre-Fill
3 months
6 months
12 months
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Shoreline Station (m)
7000 8000 9000 10000
FIGURE
Cumulative Mean Sea Level Shoreline Response, South Oceanside to North Carlsbad 5-2
BENVIR ASS'MT(ENV)\Envlron Assessment\Recelver Beach EA\RB-Format.FH5
• Cumulative impacts to surfing would not be expected to vary from those
discussed earlier for individual beach fills.
• Scarping would not be anticipated to increase due to cumulative impacts since
beach fills are not being placed on top of one another with resulting higher
berms.
Cumulative impacts due to turbidity would not increase above those discussed
earlier for individual beach fills.
• Cumulative impacts to coastal wetlands would not be expected beyond those
discussed for the individual beach fills.
Recreation and shoreline protection would be significantly improved in the
area from Wisconsin Street to Buena Vista Lagoon.
5.2 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
5.2.1 Geology and Soils
Because the Oceanside littoral cell has been eroding and a reduction of natural sources for
beach replenishment is occurring, implementation of the proposed action would be a
beneficial impact and would cumulatively contribute to the reduction of erosion at the
identified beach sites. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action would be a
cumulatively beneficial impact to geology and soils.
Figure 5-2 illustrates the predicted cumulative mean sea level shoreline responses to the
three beach fills at South Oceanside, Buccaneer Beach, and North Carlsbad. Results of
the modeling (FRH 1997) indicate a longshore spread of beach fill sand during the
12-month simulation period. Table 5-1 shows the results for the three beach fills
modeled independently compared to the cumulative effects of the three beach fills
modeled together. These results indicate that, in general, there would be a net shoreline
accretion north of Oak Avenue due to simultaneous beach fill construction and no net
shoreline change south of Oak Avenue or at Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet. The
cumulative shoreline position changes at the San Luis Rey River, Loma Alta Creek, and
5-6 211603000
Table 5-1
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
TO INDIVIDUAL BEACH FILLS
Shoreline Location
San Luis Rey River
Wisconsin Avenue
Loma Alta Creek
Buena Vista Lagoon
Oak Avenue
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon
Individual
12
South
Oceanside
+10
+19
+12
0
0
0
Shoreline Position in
Months (m)
Buccaneer
Beach
+14
-2
+18
+3
0
0
North
Carlsbad
0
0
0
+19
0
0
Cumulative
Shoreline
Position
(m)
+15
+29
+34
+29
+1
0
Effect in 12
Change
from
Max. (m)
+1
+10
+16
+10
+1
0
Months
Percent
Change
(%)
+2
+22
+5
+17
+1
0
Notes:
1. "+" indicates accretion of shoreline position
2. Shoreline position represent Mean Sea Level (MSL) Shoreline
3. Cumulative impacts based on continuous beach fill operations from north to south
4. % indicates the increase of beach width from width surveyed in March 1996
211603000 5-7
Buena Vista Lagoon inlets represent a widening of the existing natural berm and beach of
approximately 2 percent, 5 percent; and 17 percent, respectively.
Because the net cumulative shoreline change at the San Luis Rey River inlet would only
be about 1 m (3 ft), no buildup of sediment beyond the natural berm height is anticipated.
No additional impacts are expected beyond those discussed for the South Oceanside
Beach fill (Phase IEA; U.S. Navy 1997)
The modeling results indicate that the MSL beach width at Loma Alta Creek would
increase approximately 34 m (112 ft) due to cumulative impacts; which is approximately
16 m (57 ft) more than any individual beach fill alone. However, none of the fills are
anticipated to cause any adverse impacts to the Loma Alta Creek inlet since the City of
Oceanside currently builds a sand berm in front of the creek preventing flow through the
inlet between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Also, during the rainy season, the city
excavates a temporary channel to facilitate stream flow to the ocean.
The modeling results for Buena Vista Lagoon indicate that the MSL beach width would
increase approximately 29 m (95 ft) due to cumulative impacts; which is approximately
10 m (33 ft) more than any individual beach fill alone. The existing weir at the outlet to
the lagoon is at an elevation of +1.82 m (6 ft) MSL and the fill berm elevation would
range from +1.7 to +2.9 m (+5.6 to +9.5 ft). Since this is the same berm elevation
predicted for individual beach fill, no additional cumulative impacts would be
anticipated. Continued maintenance of the flow path seaward of the weir would be
required.
5.2.2 Coastal Wetlands
Dredge and discharge operations associated with the proposed action together with
cumulative projects in the area are being implemented for the purpose of beach
enhancement and replenishment. No cumulative impacts to coastal wetlands are expected
beyond those discussed for the individual sites. Furthermore, inlet maintenance programs
are currently in place at the San Luis Rey River, Loma Alta Creek, Buena Vista Lagoon,
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Encinas Creek, Batiquitos Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, San
Dieguito Lagoon, and Los Penasquitos Lagoon. Table 5-2 depicts inlet maintenance
responsibilities. These programs ensure that no significant impacts occur to the value and
function of coastal wetlands. No additional impacts would be expected beyond those
5-8 211603000
Table 5-2
INLET MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
Lagoon / Inlet
Inlet Maintenance
Responsibility
San Luis Rey River
Loma Alta Creek
Buena Vista Lagoon
Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Encinas Creek
Batiquitos Lagoon
San Elijo Lagoon
San Dieguito Lagoon
Los Penasquitos Lagoon
City ofOceanside
City ofOceanside
City ofOceanside / City of Carlsbad
San Diego Gas & Electric
City of Carlsbad / California State
Department of Parks and Recreation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / National
Marine Fisheries Service / California State
Lands Commission / California Department
of Fish and Game / Port of Los Angeles /
City of Carlsbad
California Department of Fish
and Game / San Diego County
Department of Parks
and Recreation / California State
Department of Parks and Recreation
City of Del Mar/22nd Agricultural District
Los Penasquitos
Lagoon Foundation / California
Department of Fish and Game / California
State Department of Parks and Recreation
Source: San Diego Association of Governments 1997
211603000 5-9
discussed for the individual beach fills. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts
would occur to coastal wetlands as a result of implementation of the proposed action.
5.2.3 Water Resources
The proposed action would be implemented in accordance with permit specifications as
provided by the ACOE, EPA, and the RWQCB. Permit specifications include measures
intended to reduce water quality/hydrological impacts anticipated in beach replenishment
projects. All identified cumulative projects are required to comply with such guidelines.
Therefore, an increase in turbidity anticipated with the proposed action would not be
expected to degrade water quality in the nearshore environment on a cumulative level.
5.2.4 Biology
Implementation of the proposed action would be expected to cause short-term cumulative
impacts to nonsensitive species (mobile and nonmobile invertebrates) that inhabit the
intertidal and surf zone of the sandy beaches where onshore beach replenishment
activities would occur. However, upon completion of replenishment activities,
nonsensitive species would repopulate in the affected areas. No cumulative impacts
would be expected to occur to sensitive habitats (reefs) or species (grunion, surfgrass, or
giant kelp). Strict engineering controls would ensure that beach replenishment is limited
to areas that would not impact sensitive habitats and species. No impacts to grunion
would be anticipated to occur, due to implementation of a monitoring program that would
halt replenishment activities if grunion were observed spawning. Therefore, no
cumulative impacts would be expected to occur to biological resources.
5.2.5 Land Use and Recreation
Beach replenishment activities would be compatible with existing coastal land uses.
Additionally, no inconsistencies with federal, state, or local land use plans were
identified. Therefore, no cumulative land use impacts would occur.
Recreational activities would be temporarily redistributed to other local beach areas upon
implementation of the proposed project. However, beach areas in the vicinity of the
receiver sites have no maximum capacity and, therefore, are capable of accommodating
additional recreational users. Because these measures would only be implemented on a
5-10 211603000
short-term basis, no cumulative recreational impacts would occur. Scarping is not
expected to increase since beach fills are not being placed on tap of one another with
resulting higher berms.
5.2.6 Safety and Environmental Health
Safety measures associated with the proposed action include onshore and offshore closure
to public access, safety buffer zones, onshore barricades, and safety personnel as
necessary. Because these safety measures would only be utilized on a short-term basis
for the length of beach replenishment activities, no cumulative impacts to safety and
environmental health would occur.
5.2.7 Aesthetics
Cumulative visual impacts are dependent on the scenic quality of the region and the type
of proposed project. The coastal region of San Diego County is considered to be highly
scenic. Sand placement activities along the proposed receiver beach sites would result in
short-term visual impacts that would cease at the end of construction activities. The
proposed action would be considered to have long-term beneficial visual impacts, as
beach replenishment would widen San Diego beaches currently affected by erosion and
improve coastal views. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action would have
cumulative beneficial visual impacts along the coast.
5.2.8 Structures and Utilities
Regional demand for existing utility services such as water, sewer, gas and electric, solid
waste and wastewater would not be cumulatively increased. Short-term cumulative
interruption of services would be avoided by project-by-project monitoring efforts. It is
not anticipated that any long-term cumulative disruption impacts would occur.
5.2.9 Noise
Construction activities associated with the proposed action would likely generate a
change to noise levels in the vicinity of the receiver beaches for the duration of the
project. Noise changes at the receiver beaches would not contribute to cumulative noise
impacts due to the distance between the proposed receiver beaches. In addition, beach
211603000 5-11
replenishment activities would not likely occur concurrently with other projects similar in
nature. Increases in noise levels would only be short term and would return to existing
levels upon completion of beach replenishment activities. Therefore, no cumulative noise
impacts would occur upon implementation of the proposed action.
5-12 211603000
SECTION 6
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are
typically used on a long-term or permanent basis; however, some are considered
short-term resources that cannot be recovered and are thus also considered irretrievable.
These resources may include the use of nonrenewable resources such as fuel, wood, or
other natural or cultural resources. Human labor is also considered a nonretrievable
resource because labor used for the proposed action would not be used for other purposes.
The unavoidable destruction of natural resources that limit the range of potential uses of
that particular environment would also be considered an irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of resources.
The proposed beach replenishment activities at North Carlsbad, South Carlsbad,
Encinitas, and Torrey Pines would result in the placement of approximately 2,209,610 m3
(2,850,400 cy) of dredged beach-compatible fill material. The dredged material has
already been committed as part of the Homeporting project; thus, the need for a disposal
site (or sites) is eminent. The proposed action would result in the consumptive use of
nonrenewable energy sources and labor required to operate barges, trucks, pumping
equipment, and grading equipment. These commitments of resources could have
otherwise been applied to projects other than the proposed action. However, the
proposed action would not result in the use of a substantial amount of resources and
would be short-term in nature. Additionally, no natural resources would be permanently
destroyed and beach replenishment would be considered a beneficial use of the dredged
material.
211603000 6-1
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
6-2 211603000
SECTION 7
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF THE
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The objective of the proposed action is to provide a beneficial use for the disposal of
dredged materials, replenish sand at receiver beaches to widen existing beaches and
reduce erosion potential, and increase recreational opportunities at the four receiver beach
sites for long-term use. Disposal of beach-compatible dredged material on the receiver
beaches is considered a beneficial use of dredged materials, and would support
SANDAG's Shoreline Preservation Strategy; policies contained in the Carlsbad,
Encinitas, and San Diego Coastal State Park System General Plans; and the project
objectives. The proposed action would help to preserve the long-term use of the receiver
beaches as recreational resources. Implementation of the proposed action would not
result in any environmental impacts that would significantly narrow the range of
beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks to health, safety, or the general
welfare of the public communities surrounding the receiver beaches. Rather, the project
would provide for future beneficial beach resources (e.g., recreation activities).
211603000 7-1
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
7-2 211603000
SECTION 8
LIST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Assessment was prepared for, and under the direction of, the U.S.
Department of the Navy, by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. and
Frederic R. Harris, Inc. Members of the professional staff are listed below.
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc.
Project Management
Paul Amberg, Project Manager
B.A. Environmental Studies
Technical Analysts
John Conley
B.A. Geography
Howard Cumberland
M.S. Biology
Lawrence Honma
B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology
M.S. Marine Sciences
Karen Ames
B.S. Public and Environmental Affairs
Sandy Fleming
B.A. Political Science
Rick Tavares
M.S. Mechanical Engineering
M.S. Structural Engineering
211603000 8-1
Geographic Information Systems
Pat Atchison, GIS Manager
M.A. Geography
Andrew Hanes
B.S. Geography
Jay Tessier
B.S. Geology
U.S. Navy, Southwest Division
Patrick McCay
Environmental Planner
Mitchell Perdue
Soils Conservationist
8-2 211603000
SECTION 9
LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Gail C. Kobetich, Field Supervisor
Doreen Stadtlander, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
National Marine Fisheries Service
Robert Hoffman, Fisheries Biologist
California Coastal Commission
Sherilyn Sarb, Supervisor of Permits
San Diego Association of Governments
Steve Sachs, Senior Regional Planner
California State Department of Parks and Recreation
Ed Navarro, District Supervisor
Dennis Stoufer, Lifeguard Supervisor II
CityofOceanside
Ray Duncan, Lifeguard Manager
City of Encinitas
Chris Miller, Planning Technician
Tom Buckner, Lifeguard Supervisor
211603000 9-1
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
9-2 211603000
SECTION 10
REFERENCES
Barilotti, D.C. 1983. Measurements needed to determine the ecologically important
effects of discharged wastes in kelp bed habitats. In: W. Bascom (ed.). The
Effects of Waste Disposal on Kelp Communities. Southern California Coastal
Waters Research Project, Long Beach, CA. pp. 163-180.
Barnard, J.L. 1963. Relationship of Benthic Amphipoa to Invertebrate Communities of
Inshore Sublittoral Sands of Southern California. Pacific Naturalist 3:439-467.
Butler Roach Group. 1995. Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Marine Biota from the
Beach Replenishment Component of the Proposed Lomas Santa Fe Drive Grade
Separation Project. Prepared by MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. April.
Bradshaw, J., B. Browning, K. Smith, J. Speth, and E. Fullerton. 1976. The Natural
Resources for Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Technical Report prepared for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Portland, Oregon) by University of San Diego (San
Diego, California). 109pp.
California Chamber of Commerce. 1995. California Environmental Compliance
Handbook.
California Coastal Commission. 1995. Coastal Consistency Determination for the
Development of Facilities in San Diego to Support the Homeporting of One
NIMITZ Class Aircraft Carrier. May.
California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1984. San Diego Coastal State Park
System General Plan. Volume 3: South Carlsbad State Beach. July 1984.
California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1984. San Diego Coastal State Park
System General Plan. Volume 8: Torrey Pines State Beach and State Reserve.
July 1984.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1995. Waste Discharge
Requirements for the U.S. Navy Dredge and Fill Activities, Homeporting Project,
San Diego County. Order No. 95-118. December.
Carlsbad Opportunistic Sand Project. 1995. Opportunistic Beach Fill Practice to Reduce
Impacts. Prepared by Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers. March.
City of Carlsbad. 1996. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. Revised 1996.
City of Carlsbad. 1994. Carlsbad General Plan. Adopted September 6,1994.
2J1603000 10-1
City of Del Mar. 1985. City of Del Mar Land Use Element.
City of Encinitas. 1989. City of Encinitas General Plan. Adopted March 29, 1989.
City of Oceanside. 1986. Land Use Element. Adopted September, updated January
1989.
City of Oceanside. 1985. Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 10 July.
City of Oceanside. 1974. Oceanside General Plan. Resolution No. 74-226.
27 November.
City of San Diego. 1989. City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. Updated
June 1989.
County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation. 1995. San Elijo Lagoon Area
Enhancement Plan Draft. August.
Cross, J.N. and L.G. Allen. 1990. Fishes of the Southern California Bight. In Dailey,
M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson. Ecology of the Southern California Bight:
A Synthesis and Interpretation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service.
Devinny, J.S. and L.A. Volse. 1978. Effects of sediments on the development of
Macrocystis pyrifera gametophytes. Marine Biology 48:343-348.
Duncan, Ray. 1997. Lifeguard Manager, City of Oceanside. Personal communication,
11 March.
Dupree, Russ. 1997. State of California Office of Noise Control. Personal
Communication with Ogden. April 15.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Environmental Assessment for
Relocation of the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance
Center/Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Detachment Located at the
Marine Corps Ah- Station Kaneohe, Hawaii, to NCCOSC RTD&E, San Diego,
California, U.S. Department of the Navy. November 1992.
Frederic R. Harris, Inc. (FRH). 1997. Beach Sand Transport and Sedimentation Report,
Phase I and II. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Navy, Southwest Division.
Frederic R. Harris, Inc. (FRH). 1996. Kelp Bed Locations Along the San Diego County
Coast. Prepared by H. Elwany, L. H. Dean, K. Zabloudil, B. Van Wagenen, and
R. Flick. 10 September.
10-2 211603000
Gerard, V.A. 1984. The light environment in a giant kelp forest: Influence of
Macrocystsis pyrifera on spatial and temporal variability. Marine Biology
(Berlin) 84:189-195.
Kobetich, Gail C. 1997. Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter to
Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 5 March.
La Paz County Landfill. 1996. Oceanside Beach Nourishment Demonstration Project.
Prepared by H. Elwany, J. Nichols, W. Gayman, and R. Flick. 7 July.
Lobban, C.S., P.J. Harrison, and M.J. Duncan. 1985. The physiological ecology of
seaweeds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 242pp.
MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1993. San Dieguito Lagoon Restoration Project Regional
Coastal Lagoon Resources Summary. Draft Technical Memorandum. Prepared
for Southern California Edison. July.
Moffat and Nichols, Engineers. 1983. Experimental Sand Bypass System at Oceanside
Harbor, California. Phase I Report: Data Collection and Analysis.
Morin, J.G., J.E. Kastendiek, A. Harrington, and N. Davis. 1985. Organization and
patterns of interactions in a subtidal sand community on an exposed coast.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 27:163-185.
Morin, J.G., J.E. Kastendiek, A. Harrington, and N.° Davis. 1988. Organisms of a
subtidal sand community in Southern California. Bulletins Southern California
Academy of Sciences 87:1 -11.
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. 1997. Construction Reference Noise
Level Database.
Roswall, Rick. 1997. Lifeguard Services. City of Solana Beach. Personal
communication, 11 March.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1996. Year End Report to
Shoreline Erosion Committee on Opportunistic Sand Projects. 26 November.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1993. Shoreline Preservation
Strategy for the San Diego Region. July.
Sterrett, E.H. and R.E. Flick. 1994. Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San
Diego Region, Vol. II. California Department of Boating and Waterways.
Sacramento, CA.
211603000 10-3
Stoufer, Dennis. 1997. Lifeguard Supervisor II, California State Department of Parks
and Recreation. Personal communication, 12 March.
Straughan, D. 1982. Inventory of the natural resources of sandy beaches in Southern
California. Allan Hancock Foundation, Los Angeles, CA. 447pp.
Thompson, B., J. Dixon, S. Schroeter, D.J. Reish. 1990. Chapter 8 Benthic
Invertebrates. In: Dailey, M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson (eds.). 1990.
Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation. U.S.
Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service and Ocean Studies
Institute.
Thompson, B., J. Dixon, S. Schroeter, and D.J. Reish. 1993. Ecology of the Southern
California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation. Chapter 8, Benthic
Invertebrates. University of California Press.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Los Angeles District. 1997. Public Notice of
Permit Modification for Department of the Army Permit No. 94-20861-DZ.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Los Angeles District. 1996a. Department of the
Army Permit No. 94-20861-DZ.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Los Angeles District. 1996b. Environmental
Evaluation for the Encinitas Shoreline, San Diego County, California. March.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Los Angeles District. 1994. Final
Environmental Assessment for Oceanside Harbor Maintenance Dredging, San
Diego County, California. August.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 1991. Coast of California Storm and Tidal
Waves Study.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Waterways Experiment Station. 1984. Shore
Protection Manual.
U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Division. 1997a. Environmental Assessment for Beach Replenishment at South
Oceanside and Cardiff/Solana Beach, California. Prepared by Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. April.
U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Division. 1997b. Kelp Mapping. Performed by Natural Resources Branch.
10-4 211603000
U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Division. 1996. Distribution of Resuspended Sediment from Dredging of the
Navigation Channel - San Diego Bay. August.
U.S. Department of the Navy. 1995a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Development of Facilities in San Diego/Coronado to Support the Homecoming of
One NIMITZ Class Aircraft Carrier. Volumes 1-3. Prepared by Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. November.
U.S. Department of the Navy. 1995b. Record of Decision for the Development of
Facilities in San Diego/Coronado, California to Support the Homeporting of One
NIMTZ-Class Aircraft Carrier.
U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Division. 1995c. Sediment Characterization Report of NIMITZ Class Aircraft
Carrier Homeporting Facilities, Naval Air Station North Island. Prepared by
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc.
211603000 10-5
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
10-6 211603000