HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Carlsbad Blvd Bridge Replacement Encinas Creek; Carlsbad Blvd Bridge Replacement Encinas Creek; 2009-05-14ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 09-08/ SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06
DATE: 5/14/09
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv ofCarlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Ms. Pam Drew. 760-602-4644
PROJECT LOCATION: Encinas Creek Bridge. Citv ofCarlsbad
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv ofCarlsbad. 1635 Faradav Ave..
Carlsbad. CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space & Major Arterial
ZONING: Open Space & Major Arterial
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements)
Agency Permit/Approval Required
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Nationwide Permit 14
City ofCarlsbad Coastal Development Permit
City ofCarlsbad Special Use Permit - Floodplain
City ofCarlsbad Habitat Management Plan Permit
Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Certification (401 Certification)
Califomia Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement
State Department of Parks and Recreation Right-of-Entry Permit
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND .
USES:
Proiect Description
The City of Carlsbad (City) proposes to replace the existing Encinas Creek Bridge located along southbound
Carlsbad Boulevard approximately 0.6 mile south of Palomar Airport Road and 1 mile north of Poinsettia Lane
(Figures 1 and 2). The City has identified the need to remove and replace the bridge due to severe deterioration and
recommendations by the Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project is located at Encinas Creek
along the southem edge of the historic Agua Hedionda Spanish land grant. Carlsbad Boulevard (southbound) is
bounded on the west by the State Beach and Pacific Ocean and on the east by Encinas Creek and the northbound
lanes ofCarlsbad Boulevard. The bridge is located just north of the Carlsbad State Beach Campgrounds.
Rev. 11/17/08
ORANGE
COUNTY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
|Lemori^ [Grove-
"iNationalh^^ >; ^
Reservoir '.'I
^ \\ I\ \ Chula il
\S \\ \Vista W
ij- Otay Reservoir
W / -San Ysidro y.S.A.
r"
e 3.75 7.5
r = 7.5 Miles
15 Miles
Figure 1
Regional Map
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
P:\2007\070S0213.01 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacenieni'J.O Graphics /Non-CAD)\3..> ProJ_Graphics'.figiiresWig 1 rmap.ai (dhrady) S/13.'09
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Riprap would be used to protect the road and bridge from wave action. Existing riprap would be reconfigured and
supplemented with an additional 1,307 cubic yards of 2-ton riprap and 697 cubic yards of one-quarter-ton rock on
the west side of the bridge and roadway. Riprap would be added for approximately 118 feet to the north of the
bridge and approximately 149 feet south of the bridge to stabilize the currently eroding roadway embankment. New
riprap would not extend beyond the limits of the existing riprap. New riprap would be similar in color and shape to
the existing riprap.
The proposed bridge would be made of precast concrete to reduce construction duration and minimize traffic
interruptions. Precast concrete units are constmcted off-site and assembled on-site, thereby significantly reducing
the amount of time the roadway must remain closed.
The constmction of the bridge is expected to take up to 4 months and would be completed prior to the Memorial
Day holiday. A Detour Plan would be implemented and would detour all southbound traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard
at Palomar Airport Road to Avenida Encinas, Poinsettia Lane, and then back to Carlsbad Boulevard. South of
Palomar Airport Road, access would be limited to local residents requiring residential access off of Solamar Drive
and to the contractor. The North Ponto day parking lot just south ofthe bridge would remain open via two-way
traffic on Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard to just north of Island Way. Changeable message signs would be used to
alert traffic of the detour at all major decision points.
During construction, sheet piling would be used on both sides of the bridge in order to control wave action and
specify constmction zones. In addition, safety fencing and/or barricading would be used to help protect the public
while the bridge is being constructed. Temporary fences would also be placed around environmentally sensitive
areas and no equipment would be stored on the beach ovemight. Constmction would occur Monday through Friday
between the hours of 7 a.m. and sunset and on Saturday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and sunset.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
I I Aesthetics
I I Agricultural Resources
I I Air Quality
[X] Biological Resources
^ Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
] Hazards/Hazardous Materials
1X1 Hydrology/Water Quality
I I Land Use and Planning
] Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
I I Noise
I I Population and Housing
I I Public Services
I I Recreation
^ Transportation/Circulation
] Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 11/17/08
S 2.
go
i
rs
O —
5 v;
' IJQ
>, p
•1" f?
SZ
't; ft
38-4"
ALONG SBnd
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
PRECAST CONSPAN BRIDGE AND
WINGWALLS (OR APPROVED EOUIVALENT)
Source: Nolte Engineering 2009
NO SCALE
Figure 5
Proposed Precast Concrete Bridge
Photograph 3. Looking North along the Beach at the Encinas
Creek Bridge Location
•JBIII^IiHi^'
Photograph 4. Looking Northwest at Encinas Creek Bridge
in Distance
Figure 4
Representative Photographs 3 and 4
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
P:\2007\070g0213.01 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement 5.0 Graphics INon-CAD)'.5.4 Proj GraphicsiFigures Pig 4 reppholos lS.ai Idhrady) 3/23/09
Photograph 1. Looking East at Existing Encinas Creek Bridge
Photograph 2. Looking West at Encinas Creek and
Existing Bridge
Figure 3
Representative Photographs 1 and 2
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
P: 2007,07080213.01 Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement .5.0 Graphics INon-C.4D)\5.4 Proj Graphics.Figures Fig 3 rep pholoslS.ai (dbrady) 3/23/09
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Stmctural concrete members of the bridge have exhibited severe deterioration, exposing reinforcing bars that have
become heavily corroded (Figures 3 and 4). For several years now, the bridge has been classified as stmcturally
deficient and is in need of replacement.
Proiect History
The original bridge stmcture was built in 1913, widened in 1924, and then widened again in 1928. At that time, the
structure was designed to carry both northbound and southbound traffic. In 1951, northbound traffic was separated
from the southbound traffic and the function of the bridge was reduced to carry only the southbound traffic lanes, as
is still the case today. The bridge stmcmre is currentiy oversized for the provision of only two lanes of southbound
traffic. The overall existing bridge width from edge of deck to edge of deck is approximately 69 feet and 4 inches,
although the stmcture extends to approximately 90 feet and 3 inches when including the wingwalls. The existing
bridge length measured from paving notch to paving notch along the roadway centerline is approximately 23 feet.
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include open space, residential, and recreational uses. The nearest residence is approximately
325 feet northeast of the Encinas Creek Bridge. Habitat types within the area include beach, open water, disturbed
saU marsh, disturbed coastal and valley freshwater marsh, disturbed southem coastal bluff scmb, and disturbed
habitat. The beach and open water are devoid of any vegetation due to public use and permanent inundation.
Disturbed habitat is the most prevalent vegetation community within the surrounding area. There are limited wildlife
species within the area due to general lack of habitat and the disturbed nature of the habitat that does exist in the
area. Various bird species have been observed both on the eastem and westem sides of the bridge and ground
squirrel burrows were observed east of the bridge.
The Encinas Creek Bridge is a culvert-style concrete bridge spanning the outlet for Encinas Creek. The rest of the
creek has a natural channel bottom and banks, and is approximately 10 feet above mean sea level. The creek is
primarily freshwater but is subject to tidal influence during extreme high tides. The sandy beach immediately west
of the bridge is subject to surf and tides. The project area is subject to the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
(Carlsbad 2004), but the area is not designated as a core habitat area linkage, or special resource area.
The project area is relatively flat with the northbound and southbound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard elevated on top
of manufactured fill. The fill to the west of the bridge is reinforced with large rock (riprap) for protection against the
heavy surf
Proposed Project
The City proposes to install a prefabricated arch concrete bridge stmcture in place of the existing concrete bridge.
Similar to the existing bridge, the new bridge would be a culvert style bridge with a concrete base that would be
covered with sand and cobble over time. The proposed new stmcture would have a length of 38 feet and 4 inches to
accommodate the 100-year storm event. The proposed new stmcture would have a width of 43 feet and 2 inches
from edge of deck to edge of deck, thereby reducing the overall width of the bridge by approximately 26 feet and 2
inches (6 feet 11 inches to the west and 19 feet 3 inches to the east). This proposed reduction in width, as compared
to the existing stmcture, is because the bridge is currently oversized. Maintaining the existing bridge deck width is
not necessary to provide adequate travel lanes for forecasted traffic volumes. In addition, to minimize the
constmction impacts on the west side, the wingwalls would be placed parallel to the roadway. The current centerline
of the roadway would be maintained and the new bridge footprint would fit primarily within the boundaries of the
existing structure. The new roadway profile at the crest of the arch would be approximately 0.5 feet higher than the
existing roadway profile.
The new bridge has been designed to include architectural bridge railing elements similar to those on the existing
structure (Figure 5). The new bridge would have pedestrian sidewalks with anodized aluminum railings. In addition,
the City is proposing the use of colored concrete (color tan: San Diego Mesa Buff) consistent with the Carlsbad
Seawall (south of Tamarack) along the coast within Carlsbad.
Rev. 11/17/08
Source: ESRI StreetMap 2007
2,000 1,000 e Scale: 1 : 24,000; 1 inch = 2000 feet
Figure 2
Project Vicinity
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Initial Smdy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Palh: P:\200rS70802l3.01\GlS^ayoul\culi-fig_site_viciniiy_Sxll.mxd 03/25/09. PJonas
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
DETERMINATION:
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envhonment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requhed.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant mipact(s)" on the envhonment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earher analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an eariier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director's Signature • Date
Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Califomia Envhonmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelmes, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The ELA appears in the followmg pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any
physical, biological, and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with
information to use as the basis for decidmg whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impacf answers that are adequately supported
by an iiiformation source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impacf answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explamed when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impacf applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential hnpact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the mcorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impacf to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impacf is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
• Based on an "EIA-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on
the environment, but a]] potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that eariier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures requhed by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated mto this project, then no additional environmental
docimient is required.
• When "Potentially Significant Impacf is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
ifthe significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mhigated, or a "Statement of Overridmg Considerations" has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the enviroimient.
• If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparmg an EIR if tiiere
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse unpacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer priOr to public review. In tiiis case, die appropriate "Potentially
Significant hnpact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impacf is checked, and including but not lunited to
the followmg chcumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated m an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
measures that reduce tiie adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for the significant adverse hnpact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR;
10 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
(3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through
the EIA-Initial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially
adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions.
Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts that would otherwise be determined
significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
AESTHETICS - Would tiie project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildmgs withm a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existmg visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
a. Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is defined as the view of an area that is visually or
aesthetically pleasing. The proposed project occurs on a roadway along the coast with clear and dhect
views of the ocean. The general public would be prevented temporarily from utilizing the scenic portion
ofCarlsbad Boulevard from Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane. Constmction would last up to 4
months. Upon project completion, no change m viewshed would occur with the bridge replacement. The
bridge railing has been designed to allow continued views of the coast from vehicle traffic on Carlsbad
Boulevard. The proposed project would create a temporary, but not substantial, adverse effect to the
scenic vista, due to restricted use of the viewing area. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas are considered
less than significant.
b. No Impact. The portion of Carlsbad Boulevard impacted by constmction is not officially designated a
State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2007). Therefore, no scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway
would be damaged with the replacement of the bridge. As a result, no impacts would occur.
c. No Impact. The existmg visual character of the area and the quality of the site would be mamtained. The
aesthetic quality of the bridge stmcture would be unproved with project implementation. As a result, no
impacts would occur.
d. No Impact. The project would not involve any nighttime constmction and would not mtroduce any
additional operational light sources or highly reflective surfaces. Therefore, no new source of light or
glare would be created by the replacement of the bridge, and, as a result, no impacts would occur.
11 Rev. 11/17/08
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determming
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the Califomia
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prune Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existmg zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existmg environment,
which, due to theh location or nature, could resuh m
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
• •
• •
• •
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
• M
• K
• - Kl
Analysis
a-c. No Impact. The project is a bridge replacement project and is located on land that is designated Urban
and Built Up land (CDC 2006); therefore, the project would not convert any farmland to a non-
agricultural use and would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. There is no farmland located
adjacent to the project site and the replacement of the existmg bridge would not cause farmland to be
converted to non-agricultural use. As a result, no impacts would occur.
UI. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable ah quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determmations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstmct implementation of the
applicable ah quality plan?
b) Violate any ah quality standard or conttibute
substantially to an existmg or projected ah quality
violation?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
m •
m •
12 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attamment under an applicable federal or state
ambient ah quality standard (mcludmg releasmg
emissions which exceed quanthative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
• •
• ,•
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Kl
No
Impact
•
m •
m •
Analysis
The proposed project is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The boundaries of the SDAB
comcide with those of San Diego Coimty. The SDAB is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Ah Pollution
Confrol Disttict (SDAPCD).
Concenttations of the following ah pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nittogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PMio), particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead are used as indicators of
ambient air quality conditions. These ah pollutants are commonly referred to as "criteria air pollutants"
because the U.S. Envhonmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates them by developing human health-based
and/or envhonmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines) for settmg permissible levels. These air
pollutants are the most prevalent ah pollutants known to be deleterious to human health, and there is
extensive documentation available on health effects of these pollutants.
Criteria ah pollutant concenttations are measured at 10 shes in the SDAB. Both the Califomia Ah Resources
Board (ARB) and EPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to theh attainment stams
for criteria ah pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas with ah quality problems
and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are
nonattamment, attainment, and unclassified.
The SDAB currentiy meets the national standards for all criteria pollutants except for ozone and meets state
standards for all criteria pollutants except ozone, PMjo, and PM2.5. On April 15,2004, EPA issued the initial
designations for the 8-hour ozone standard, and the SDAB is classified as "basic" nonattainment. Basic is the
least severe of the six degrees of ozone nonattainment. SDAPCD submitted an ah quality plan to EPA in
2007; the plan demonsfrated how the 8-hour ozone standard will be attained by 2009. A decision from EPA is
not anticipated imtil the summer or fall of 2009 (SDAPCD 2008). The SDAB is currently classified as a
"serious" ozone nonattainment area imder state standards. For PM2.5, the SDAB is currently classified as a
national attainment area and state nonattainment area. The SDAB is classified a state nonattainment area for
PMio. The SDAB currently falls under a national "mamtenance plan" for CO, following a 1998 redesignation
as a CO attainment area.
For each nonattainment area within Califomia, the Califomia Clean Ah Act (CCAA) has specified ah quality
management sfrategies that must be adopted by the agency responsible for the nonattamment area. Each area
must prepare and adopt an ah quality management plan or regional ah quality sfrategy (RAQS), which lays
out programs for attaining the Califomia Ambient Ah Quality Standards and National Ambient Ah Quality
13 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encmas Creek Bridge Replacement
Standards for all criteria pollutants. At present, no attainment plan for PM2.5 or PMio is requhed by the state
regulations. Accordmgly, the San Diego RAQS was developed by SDAPCD, pursuant to CCAA
requhements and identifies feasible emission conttol measures to provide expeditious progress in San Diego
County toward attaming the state ozone standard. The pollutants addressed are reactive organic gases (ROG)
and nittogen oxides (NOx), precursors to the photochemical formation of ozone. The RAQS confrol measures
focus on emission sources under SDAPCD authority, specifically stationary emission sources and some
areawide sources. However, the emission mventories and einission projections m the RAQS reflect the
hnpact of all emission sources and all confrol measures, mcludmg those under the jurisdiction of ARB (e.g.,
on-road motor vehicles, off-road vehicles and equipment, and consumer products) and EPA (e.g., ahcraft,
ships, frains, and preempted off-road equipment). Thus, while legal autiiority to confrol different pollution
sources is separated, SDAPCD is responsible for reflecting national, state, and local measures m a single plan
to achieve ambient ah quality standards in San Diego County. Achieving ambient ah quality standards
requires a cooperative parmership of govemmental agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. The San
Diego County RAQS for the SDAB was mhially adopted m 1991 and subsequently revised in 1995, then m
1998, again m 2001, and most recently m 2004.
The City's General Plan contams an Open Space and Conservation Element and one of the goals of the
Element is Ah Quality Preservation. TTie objective of the section is to establish the policy dhection for the
City ensuring the City's continued support and coordination with local, state, and federal agencies to hnprove
the ah quality withm the region.
Constmction-related emissions are described as "short-term" or temporary m duration and have the potential
to represent a significant hnpact with respect to ah quality. Constmction-related activhies associated with the
proposed project would prhnarily result in project-generated emissions of criteria ah pollutants (PMio and
PM2.5) and ozone precursors (volatile organic compounds [VOCs] and NOx) from site preparation (e.g., soil
excavation and clearing); off-road equipment, material fransport, and worker commute exhaust emissions;
vehicle fravel on unpaved roads; pavmg; and other activities.
Emissions of fugitive particulate matter dust (e.g., PMio and PM2.5) are associated prhnarily with ground
dismrbance activhies during she preparation (e.g., grading and excavation) and vary as a fimction of such
parameters as soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and vehicle miles
fraveled (VMT) on- and off-she. Exhaust emissions from diesel equipment and worker commute frips also
confribute to short-term increases in total particulate matter emissions, but to a much lesser extent. Emissions
of ozone precursors are primarily associated with off-road (e.g., gas and diesel) constmction equipment
exhaust. Worker commute ttips and other constmction-related activities (e.g., pavmg) also confribute to
short-term increases in such emissions.
The project mvolves the installation of a prefabricated arch concrete bridge stmcture in place of the existmg
concrete culvert bridge. The bridge would be installed over a period of approximately 4 months and would be
completed prior to the 2010 Memorial Day holiday.
Neither the City nor SDAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria ah pollutant emissions.
On federal projects in a basic ozone (8-hoiir) nonattainment area, thresholds for the presumption that a project
would conform to the state implementation plan (SIP) are 100 tons per year for both NOx and VOCs. In
recognition of state designation of serious nonattahiment for ozone and to be conservative, thresholds of 50
tons per year for NOx and VOCs are used for this project. The federal SIP conformity threshold for PMio and
PM2.5 in a federal nonattahiment area is 100 tons per year. Although the SDAB is not a federal nonattainment
area for PMio, it is a state nonattainment area. Therefore, the conservative threshold of 70 tons per year is
used for both pollutants for this project (Federal Register 2006). For CO, as the SDAB is compliant with both
state and federal standards, the conformity threshold of 100 tons per year would be used to determme
significance. These thresholds are used to determine the significance of constmction-related emissions
generated by the proposed project.
Project-generated emissions during constmction were modeled using the URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4
(URBEMIS) computer program (Rimpo and Associates 2008). URBEMIS mcorporates ARB's EMFAC2007
14 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encmas Creek Bridge Replacement
model for on-road vehicle emissions and the OFFROAD2007 model for off-road vehicle emissions. Project-
generated emissions were modeled based on information provided in the project description and default
URBEMIS settings to estimate reasonable worst-case condhions.
Project-generated constmction-related emissions are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Estimated Annual Construction Emissions (Tons/Year)
V(K NO, CO . PM,„ . 1 PM;.5
2010 0.10 0.82 0.40 0.13 0.06
Threshold 50 50 100 70 70
Exceeds threshold? No No No No No
Note: Construction assumptions, including estimated number and type of constmction equipment, construction-related
trips, area of disturbance, etc., are present in the URBEMIS data sheets in Appendix A.
Source: Data modeled by EDAW 2009
a. Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions
Based on the results of modeling conducted, constmction-related activities would not result in criteria
pollutant emissions that exceed the applicable significance thresholds. Compliance with the federal
emissions thresholds for nonattainment areas implies that the project conforms to the SIP. The SIP is
based on the ah quality plans for the different ah basins in the state. Thus, project-generated,
constmction-related emissions would not conflict with or obstmct implementation ofthe applicable ah
quality plan. As a resuh, this impact is considered less than significant.
Operation-Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
Implementation of the proposed project would not resuh m a net increase of long-term operation-related
emissions (e.g., regional VOCs, NOx, or PMio, PM2.5 or local CO) from mobile, stationary, or area
sources. Specifically, the long-term operation ofthe proposed project would not generate any new
vehicular frips and would not result in any associated emissions of criteria ah pollutants or ozone
precursor emissions from VMT. The new bridge would function in the same manner as the replaced one
and is not expected to affect the fraffic pattems after constmction. Furthermore, project implementation
would not result in any area source emissions or the operation of any new stationary emission sources.
Thus, project-generated operation-related emissions would not conflict with or obstmct hnplementation
of the applicable ah quality plan. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in a. above, project implementation would not resuh in
constmction- or operation-related criteria ah pollutant or precursor emissions that exceed applicable
significance thresholds. Thus, project-generated emissions would not violate any ah quality standard or
confribute substantially to an existmg or projected ah quality violation. As a result, this impact is
considered less than significant.
c. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed m a. above, project-generated constmction-related criteria
ah pollutant or precursor emissions would not exceed applicable significance thresholds. In addhion,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in a net increase of long-term operation-related
emissions (e.g., regional VOCs, NOx, or PMio, PM2.5 or local CO) from mobile, stationary, or area
sources. Thus, project-generated emissions would not resuh in a cumulatively considerable net mcrease
of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard. As a result, this hnpact is considered less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
15 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Global climate change is defmed as a change in the clhnate that is atfributed dhectly or mdhectly to
human activity that alters the composhion of the global atmosphere, and is in addition to natural climate
variability observed over comparable time periods. Human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) exceedmg natural ambient concenfrations are responsible for mtensifymg the greenhouse effect
and have led to a frend of unnatural warmmg of Earth's clhnate.
GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants toxic ah
contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concem. Whereas pollutants with localized ah
quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric
lifethnes (1 year to several thousand years). GHGs persist hi the atmosphere long enough to be dispersed
around the globe. Shnilarly, impacts of GHGs are bome globally, as opposed to localized ah quality
effects of criteria air pollutants and hazardous ah pollutants.
Human-related emissions of GHGs confributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to
activhies associated with the indusfrial/manufacturing, utility, fransportation, residential, and agriculmral
sectors. If viewed apart from the GHG emissions produced by activities elsewhere m the world, the mass
of GHG emissions generated by an individual project such as the proposed project would be so mmute
that the concenfration of GHGs m the atmosphere would essentially remain the same.
No ah district or regulatory agency m Califomia has an adopted threshold or methodology for use in
analyzmg clhnate change unpacts from projects that are not industrial or stationary in nature. Smce h is
not possible to determme the mdividual hnpact of a project on climate change, the project-level effects of
the proposed project on clhnate change are considered too speculative for fiulher evaluation (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15145). However, the increasmg concenfration of GHGs m the atmosphere is caused
by the aggregate GHG emissions from a variety of human activities throughout the worid, including
development projects. Therefore, h is appropriate to evaluate a project's confribution to global climate
change in this cumulative, worldwide context.
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions includmg carbon dioxide, methane, and nifrous
oxide (CO2, CH,, and N2O, respectively) primarily associated with the use of off-road (e.g., gasolme and
diesel) constmction equipment at the site, material fransport using diesel tracks, and worker commute
exhaust emissions.
Project-generated emissions from the use of off-road equipment and diesel tracks durmg constraction
were modeled using the URBEMIS computer program (Rimpo and Associates 2008). URBEMIS
incorporates ARB's EMFAC2007 model for on-road vehicle emissions and the OFFROAD2007 model
for off road vehicle emissions. Project-generated emissions were modeled based on mformation provided
in the project description and defauh URBEMIS settings to estimate reasonable worst-case conditions.
Based on the modeling conducted, constmction of the proposed project would generate a fmite quantity
of approxhnately 81 mefric tons of CO2 (MTCO2) over the 4-month constraction period. Constraction
activities confribute GHG emissions to a much lesser extent than tiie long-term operation of a project for
which emissions occur annually over the lifetime of the project. Smce constraction would resuh in a one-
thne, finite quantity of 81 MTCO2, constraction emissions are considered less than cumulatively
considerable.
The long-term operation of the proposed project would not generate any new vehicular trips and would
not resuh in any associated GHG emissions from VMT. The new bridge will function m the same
manner as the replaced one and is not expected to affect the fraffic pattems after constmction.
Furthermore, project implementation would not resuh m any area source emissions or the operation of
any new stationary emission sources, and would not mcrease energy consumption m the region. Thus,
the project would resuh m a less than significant hnpact and would not result m a cumulatively
considerable increase in operational GHG emissions.
.16 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
d. Less Than Significant Impact.
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Short-Term Constraction-Related Emissions
Constraction activhies would result m short-term generation of diesel exhaust emissions from the use of
off-road diesel equipment requhed for demohtion, excavation, and other constraction activhies, in
addition to diesel-fueled on-road haul tmcks used for hauling demolition debris and the prefabricated
bridge stmctures. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM) were identified as
a toxic ah contaminant (TAG) by ARB in 1998. The dose to which the receptors are exposed (a function
of concenfration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e.,
potential exposure to TAG emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Accordmg to the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determme the exposure of
sensitive receptors to TAG emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such
assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activhies associated with the project (Salinas,
pers. comm., 2004).
The duration of mobilized equipment used near sensitive receptors located along the constmction site
would be short (approximately 4 months). The proposed project would represent less than 0.5% of the
70-year exposure period for any nearby sensitive receptor m the area. The ah disfrict does not have any
current guidance on TAG emissions from mobile equipment, or a threshold of sigruficance for exposure
to emissions from this equipment. In addition, diesel PM is highly dispersive and smdies have shown
measured concenfrations of vehicle-related pollutants, including ulfra-fme particles, decrease
dramatically within approxhnately 300 feet ofthe source (Zhu et al. 2002; ARB 2005). Thus, because the
use of mobilized equipment would be temporary in combination with the dispersive properties of diesel
PM and the distance to the closest senshive receptor for each she, constmction-related TAG emissions
would not be anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concenfrations. As a result,
this hnpact is considered less than significant.
Long-Term Operation-Related Emissions
With respect to mobile source TAC emissions, implementation of the proposed project would not result
in a net increase of long-term operation-related emissions. Specifically, the long-term operation of the
proposed project would not resuh in any commute frip TAC emissions from VMT. Furthermore, project
implementation would not result in the operation of any new major stationary emission sources. Thus,
project-generated, operation-related TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concenfrations.
CO "hotspots"
Sensitive receptors along the proposed site mclude residences located to the east of the project site and
recreational uses to west of the site. As discussed in a. above, project implementation would not result in
constraction- or operation-related criteria ah pollutants or precursor emissions that exceed applicable
significance thresholds. In addition, emissions confrol measures recommended in the City's General Plan
would be implemented during constraction.
The project fraffic hnpact analysis indicates that the intersection at Palomar Ahport Road and Avenida
Encinas would operate at level of service (LOS) F m the PM peak hour with the Southbound Carlsbad
Boulevard closure during constmction (LLG 2009). Thus there is the potential for CO "hot spots" at this
intersection per the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (UCD ITS 1997).
Mhigation measures proposed m the fraffic section (TRAFFIC-1) would be hnplemented by the City and
would hnprove the LOS to C. Thus the project would not contribute to a localized CO impact at the
intersection and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concenfrations. Therefore,
impacts are considered less than significant.
17 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
e. Less Than Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous
factors, includmg the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wmd speed and dhection; and the
presence of sensitive receptors. Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can
be unpleasant, leading to considerable disfress and often generating citizen complaints to local
govemments and regulatory agencies.
The proposed project would result in diesel exhaust emissions from on-site constmction equipment
durmg demolition, bridge mstallation, and other constmction activhies. The diesel exhaust emissions
would be mtermittent and temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in
distance. People potentially affected by odors mclude the surroundmg residential and recreational uses.
In addhion, the project would not include the long-term operation of any new sources of odor. Thus, the
proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As a
resuh, this impact is considered less than significant.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would fhe project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special stams
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by Califomia Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other senshive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by Califomia Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildhfe Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (mcludmg but not limhed to marsh,
vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through dhect removal,
filling, hydrological mterraption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery shes?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordmances
protectmg biological resources, such as a free
preservation policy or ordmance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
m •
• •
• •
• DSD
m •
m •
Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encmas Creek Bridge Replacement
Analysis
The City of Carlsbad HMP (City of Carlsbad 2004) designates approximately 6,500 acres of the open space
lands in Carlsbad for preservation based on its value as habitats for endangered aniinals and rare, unique, or
sensitive plant species. The plan identifies how the City can protect and mamtain these lands while still
allowing additional public and private development consistent with the General Plan.
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City's General Plan (City of Carlsbad 1994) identifies
special resource protections, including the statements that the City will protect wildlife habitat through
preservation and enhancement, preserve biodiversity, protect envhonmentally sensitive lands and buffer
areas, preserve sensitive flora and fauna, and preserve conservation areas.
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project mvolves replacement of a bridge in-place. Impacts
to biological resources are primarily limited to dhect and indhect temporary constraction impacts. A
biological resources report was prepared to assess impacts to biological resources with implementation of
the proposed project (EDAW 2009a). Seven vegetation communities occur within the vicinity of the
proposed project, including beach, open water (Encinas Creek and Pacific Ocean), southem coastal salt
marsh, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, disturbed diegan coastal sage scmb, disturbed habhat, and
developed habitat (Figure 4). Of these vegetation communities three occur within the constraction area
including disturbed habitat {Carpobrotus edulis [hottentot fig] and riprap), developed area, and coastal
and valley freshwater marsh. These vegetation communities were evaluated for theh potential to support
special-stams plant and wildlife species.
Special-stams species are those species that are:
listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS);
listed as endangered, threatened, or rare by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (DFG;
2009a);
considered special vascular plants, bryopytes, or lichens (DFG 2009b);
on the Califomia Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California (CNPS 2001,2009);
considered "special animals" (DFG 2009c); or
HMP "covered species" or "narrow endemics" known from the City (City ofCarlsbad 2004).
A total of 23 special-stams plant species were evaluated for theh potential to occur on-site. None of the
23 evaluated special-stams plants are expected to occur on-site; as such, no impacts to special-stams
plant species are anticipated with implementation of the proposed project (EDAW 2009a).
A total of 19 special-stams wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur on-site. Of the
special-stams wildlife species evaluated, four were identified as having a low potential to occur on-site
(light-footed clapper rail, westem snowy plover, Califomia least tem, least Bell's vheo) and one with
moderate potential (gmnion) (EDAW 2009a). See Table 2 below for a description of each of the five
species' habitat requhements and theh probability of occurring on-site.
The light-footed clapper rail {Rallus longirostis levipes) is a year-round resident (nonmigratory). It
inhabhs coastal salt and freshwater marshes containmg cordgrass, cattails or mles, and mshes. Due to the
small size, fragmented nature, and margmal quality ofthe habitat found within the smdy area m addhion
to the intense recreation uses, the light-footed clapper rail is not expected to occur at the smdy area.
19 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encmas Creek Bridge Replacement
Table 2
Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur On-site
Coiniiion Nnme
Scientific Same
Sciisill\c
Species' Habitat Keuiiirenients Probabiliu of Oci-iirrcnrc
Birds-:?: • • • # . •
light-footed clapper
rail
Rallus Iongirostris
levipes
FP
SE
FE
HMP Covered
The light-footed clapper rail is a
year-round resident (nonmigratory)
in southem Califomia. It inhabits
coastal salt and freshwater marshes
containing cordgrass, cattails or
tules. and rushes.
Due to the disturbed nature of the study
area, the low quality of the potential
suitable habitat, and the intense
recreation uses, the light-footed clapper
rail has a low potential to occur at the
study area.
westem snowy
plover
Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus
SSC
FT
HMP Covered
Nests on beaches, dunes, and salt
flats in San Diego County, with the
highest concentrations in two
areas: Camp Pendleton and Silver
Strand. Outside the breeding
season this species is more
widespread but not Common along
the county's coast.
This species is not expected to nest
within the study area due to lack of
suitable habitat and the disturbed nature
ofthe study area, including the intensive
recreational uses occurring within the
narrow beach and the potential for high
tide and storm surges to cover the beach.
However, there is a low potential for
this species to forage during migration
through the study area.
Califomia least tem
Sternula antillarum
browni
FP
SE
FE
HMP Covered
A ground-nesting bird that requires
undisturbed stretches of beach and
coastline. Adults are highly
philopatric to natal colonies and
forage in bays and estuaries near
their colonies.
This species is not expected to nest
within the study area due to lack of
suitable habitat and the disturbed nature
ofthe study area, including the intensive
recreational uses occurring within the
narrow beach and the potential for high
tide and storm surges to cover the beach.
However, there is a low potential for
this species to forage during migration
through the study area.
least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
SE
FE
HMP Covered
Riparian woodland with understory
of dense young willows or mulefat
and willow canopy. Nests often
placed along intemal or extemal
edges of riparian thickets.
This species was documented in 2002
approximately 600 feet upstream of the
study area (east of northbound Carlsbad
Boulevard) within a patch of southem
willow scmb. As no suitable nesting
habitat occurs within or immediately
adjacent to the study area, there is a low
potential that this species will occur.
Fish
Gmnion
Leuresthes tenuis
GAME Use sandy beaches subject to
ocean surf and tides for evening
spawning events. Spawning occurs
between March and September
depending upon the lunar and tidal
cycles, with peak spawning mns
between late March and early June.
There is a moderate potential for
gmnion to use the sandy beach west of
the bridge during spawning events.
Sensitive Status Key
The following codes indicate whether a species has been included on a federal or state (Califomia) list, and/or is covered by the Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as endangered, threatened, rare, candidate, etc. If a species does not appear on any ofthe lists, the
Sensitive Species field is left blank.
DFG: (SSC) listed as Califomia Department of Game Species of Special Concem; (FP) listed as Fully Protected; (GAME) Game
Species
State listed wildlife: (SE) state listed, endangered; (SR) state listed, rare; (ST) state listed, threatened.
Federal candidate and listed wildlife: (FE) federally listed, endangered; (FT) federally listed, threatened; (FC) federally listed,
candidate; (FPE) federally proposed, endangered; (FPT) federally proposed, threatened.
HMP: Covered = species that are covered under the Take Authorization of the HMP; Narrow Endemic = species that have a very narrow
distribution
20 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
The Pacific coast population of westem snowy plover {Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) breeds
prhnarily above the high tide lme on coastal beaches similar to those found within the smdy area. This
species was not Observed during the survey and is not expected to nest or breed in the smdy area because
the beach is narrow along this sfretch of coast. Additionally, due to high recreational use, there is no area
of the beach left undisturbed for any significant amount of time. Given the lack of suitable habhat for
nesting, this species is not expected to nest here. However, there is a very low potential for this species to
migrate through the study area to more optimal nesting sites. This species has historically been reported
to occur both to the north and to the south of the smdy area.
Califomia least tem {Sternula antillarum browni) is one of three least tem subspecies named in North
America. The Califomia least tem breeds on sandy beaches along the coast of Califomia south to Mexico
and winters in Mexico, Cenfral America, and South America. The majority of current Califomia least
tem nesting colonies and the majority of the population are found m southem Califomia, with smaller
populations in the San Francisco Bay and in Baja Califomia. This species nests m sandy areas typically
along beaches but is not expected to nest or breed in the smdy area due to the high recreational use ofthe
beach. However, there is a low potential for this species to occur on-site if migrating through the area.
This species has historically been reported to occur south of the smdy area.
The least Bell's vireo {Vireo bellii pusillus) is a small songbhd inhabitmg riparian vegetation along
meandering rivers of southem Califomia. During breeding season, vheo requhe fahly dense riparian
shmbbery, preferably where flowing water is present, but they also favor dry watercourses in the desert,
bordered by mesquhe and arrowweed. Willow, wild rose, and other dense vegetation are used for
nestmg. Although this species has been known to occur m the vicinity of the smdy area (>600 feet
upsfream, east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard), the smdy area does not support riparian vegetation or
offer suitable habitat for this species.
These four special-stams bhd species have a low potential to occur within the vicinity ofthe project.
However, these species are not anticipated to nest on-site, due to lack of suitable habitat, and have a low
potential for foraging withm the project area. In addition, the proposed project would not result m any
permanent unpacts to suitable habitat for any of these species. Temporary unpacts would be Ihnited to a
very small amount (0.004 acre) of coastal valley freshwater marsh. This fragmented habitat is not
considered suitable for the above-mentioned species. Therefore, nO impacts to special-stams wildlife
species are anticipated with implementation of the proposed project.
In addition to the four special-stams bhds, gmnion {Leuresthes tenuis) have the potential to occur on-she
during the spawning season. Although grunion is not listed as threatened or endangered, h is a game
species regulated by DFG. The sandy beach hnmediately west of the bridge is subject to ocean surf and
tides. This area may provide habitat for grunion, which generally spawn between March and September
depending upon the lunar arid tidal cycles, with peak spawning runs between late March and early June.
As described in the project description, no constmction equipment or debris would be stored on the
beach over night and no work would occur after sunset. Therefore, impacts to grunion are anticipated to
be avoided.
Other species receive federal protection under the Bald Eagle Protection Act (e.g., bald eagle, golden
eagle) and the Migratory Bhd Treaty Act (MBTA). All bhds, except European starlings; English house
sparrows; rock doves (pigeons); and nonmigratory game bhds such as quail, pheasant, and grouse, are
protected under the MBTA. However, these nonmigratory game bhds are protected under Califomia Fish
and Game Code (CFGC) §3503.
Larger raptors such as red-shouldered hawks {Buteo lineatus) nest in mature, large coniferous or
deciduous frees and use twigs or branches as nesting material while smaller raptors such as American
kesfrel {Falco sparverius) and westem screech-owl {Otus kennicottii) may nest in cavities in
anthropogenic stmctures and frees. Due to the lack of suitable nesting sites, raptors are not expected to
nest on-site although there is some potential that they could forage m the study area. The northem harrier
21 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
{Circus cyaneus) was given further consideration due to the 2005 field observation; however, no suitable
nesting habitat for any raptor occurs withm the smdy area and impacts to raptors are not expected.
In addition to raptors, there are many special-stams passerine and nonpasserme landbhds that are known
to occur m the vicinity of the study area. Habitat, nesting, and foragmg requirements for these species are
wide ranging; therefore, outlining generic habitat requhements for this grouping is difficult. These
species typically use most habitat types and are known to nest on the ground; m shrabs and frees; on
buildmgs; under bridges; and withm cavities, crevices, and man-made stractures. Many of these species
migrate long distances, and all species, except starlmgs, English house sparrows, and rock doves
(pigeons), are protected under the federal MBTA and CFGC. The nestmg period for passermes and
nonpasserine land bhds occurs between Febmary 1 and August 31. Nesting bhds are not expected to
occur within the Encinas Creek Bridge dhect hnpact limits, because the bridge stmcture has a low
elevation and is located on an active recreational beach. Due to the limhed suitability of nestmg habitat
on-site and dhectly adjacent to the site, nesting migratory species are not expected to occur within the
project impact footprint. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive natural communities are those that
are considered rare in the region, support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory
protection (i.e.. Clean Water Act [CWA] §404 and/or CFGC §§1600 et seq.) regulated by the Califomia
Coastal Commission (CCC) pursuant to the Califomia Coastal Act and federal Coastal Zone
Management Act; or considered sensitive under the City's HMP (1999). In addition, the CNDDB has
designated a number of communities as rare; these communities are given the highest mventory priority
(Holland 1986; DFG 2003).
The project is subject to the City's HMP (1999). The project site is not designated by the HMP as a Core,
Linkage, or Special Resource Area. The project site falls withm Local Facility Management Zone 22 and
the HMP vegetation map designates the smdy area as "disturbed" vegetation. In addition, the project site
is not considered an Existing or Proposed Hardline Conservation Area or Proposed Standards Area as
defmed by the HMP.
Three vegetation communities would be impacted as a resuh of the proposed constraction gradmg
activities. Temporary hnpacts include: 0.255 acre of disturbed habitat (0.074 acre of Carpobrotus edulis
[hottentot fig] and 0.181 acre of riprap/disturbed), 0.161 acre of developed area, and 0.004 acre of coastal
and valley freshwater marsh. In addition, 0.016 acre of disturbed habitat would be permanently hnpacted
by constmction. Of the land cover types above, coastal and valley freshwater marsh is considered a
sensitive natural vegetation community by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DEG, CCC, and the City.
Unavoidable, temporary impacts to coastal and valley freshwater marsh are considered a significant
impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure BlO-1 below, requiring preparation ofa
revegetation/planting plan, revegetation of all temporary disturbance areas with native seed mix, and
monitormg for 24 months, would reduce impacts to 0.004 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh to
less than significant.
Disturbed habitat is considered a sensitive habitat within the City of Carlsbad HMP (2004). Impacts to
disturbed habitat consisting of hottentot fig and riprap would be prhnarily temporary in nature. Riprap
placement would occur in-place and would not resuh m a change m habitat type. Therefore hnpacts to
disturbed habitat in the form of riprap are considered less than significant. In addhion, 0.016 acre of
disturbed habitat would be permanently impacted by constmction. However, the proposed project would
resuh in an overall permanent decrease in impervious area through reduction of the bridge width by 26
feet. This represents an increase in earthen area of 0.032 acre. Approxhnately 0.02 acre of this area has
been identified as being able to sustain vegetation (riparian or upland) based on grade. The remammg
area would consist of beach and open water. Therefore, there is a marginal increase in vegetated area
with project hnplementation. Disturbed habitat in the form of hottentot fig would requhe mitigation, per
the City's HMP, unless mitigated on-site. Impacts to disturbed habitat would be mhigated per mitigation
measure BIO-1 requirmg revegetation of all temporary disturbance areas with native seed. With
22 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, temporary and permanent impacts to disturbed habitat in
the form of hottentot fig are considered less than significant.
The project would result m no long-term impacts to senshive vegetation communities or riparian
habitats, as the proposed bridge can be replaced in-place, resulting in an overall reduction of impervious
surface area. Riprap is proposed to be supplemented in place and would not extend farther down the
beach or to the north and south than the existing riprap sections. This includes repositioning the riprap to
better protect the roadway from erosion and replacing the existing concrete debris that is currently acting
as riprap with clean rock. Therefore, no impacts associated with riprap installation are anticipated.
However, placement of the riprap would require close monitoring to ensure that no beach is lost with
riprap placement, as this is considered a sensitive vegetation commimity under the City's HMP. Loss of
beach from placement of riprap would be considered a significant impact. With implementation of
mhigation measure BlO-2 below, requhmg monitoring of riprap placement and that riprap not be
extended beyond the existing footprint, impacts associated with potential loss of beach are considered
less than significant.
The project has been designed to minimize hnpacts to senshive vegetation communities, through
resfrictive temporary work areas. Impacts to sensitive natural resources, exceeding those detailed above,
have the potential to occur without proper confractor education. Impacts to adjacent resources are
considered potentially significant. However, with implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 below,
requiring confractor education and identification of "no constraction zones" on plans, potential impacts
are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1. All temporary impact areas shall be replanted with native species prior to completion ofthe
constraction. Prior to constraction, a revegetation/planting plan shall be prepared and approved by the
City ofCarlsbad Planning Department to identify appropriate native species and success criteria. Newly
seeded areas shall be monitored for erosion monthly (or more frequently as needed) for a period of 24
months post-constraction or until vegetation has become established. In addition, all revegetated areas
shall be weeded quarterly for the period of 24 months to prevent invasive plant species from dominating
the revegetated areas. Mitigation for impacts to habitats shall occur on-site withm or adjacent to the
temporary work area and shall be completed at the ratios described in Table 3.
Tables
Mitigation Ratios
'. . Vegetation Community (Holland
,, Classification as modified by "Oberbauer)
f.' ,, Project Impado
Mitiyatiun
Ratios'
Mitl<>atlun
.\iTcage
Required
'. . Vegetation Community (Holland
,, Classification as modified by "Oberbauer)
Pernianenl
Imparts
rvni|i(ir:ir\
Impacts
Mitiyatiun
Ratios'
Mitl<>atlun
.\iTcage
Required
Beach (64400) 0.0 0.067 1:1 0.67
Open Water (64100) 0.0 0.016 1:1 0.016
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410) 0.0 0.004 1:1
(no net loss) 0.004
Disftirbed Habitat (11300) 0.016 0.255 0.1:1 0.271
' Mitigation ratios are only for temporary impacts to beach, open water, and coastal and valley freshwater marsh.
The mitigation ratio for disturbed habitat is for both temporary and pennanent impacts.
BIO-2. Riprap placement shall be limited to areas where riprap already exists. New riprap shall not be
placed onto the beach and shall not extend westerly beyond the existing riprap area.
BIO-3. The confractor(s) shall be informed, prior to the bridge replacement, about the biological
consfraints ofthe project. The constmction Ihnhs shall be clearly marked on project maps provided to the
confractor(s) and areas outside ofthe constmction Ihnits shall be designated as "no constmction" zones.
23 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
. Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
c. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted m
the project area to determme the jurisdiction of Encinas Creek (EDAW 2009a). The results of this
delineation indicate that Enemas Creek is considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and waters ofthe
state (EDAW 2009a). Enemas Creek is perermial and supports jurisdictional wetlands that are confmed
to the width ofthe Ordmary High Water Mark and the southem terrace. No permanent hnpacts to
jurisdictional waters are anticipated with project implementation. Up to 0.038 acre of temporary impacts to
jurisdictional waters (in tiie form of wetlands [0.004 acre] and nonwetiand waters [0.034 acre]) would
potentially occur as a resuh of the proposed project. Temporary hnpacts to 0.038 acre of jurisdictional
waters is considered significant. Because hnpacts are temporary m nature and affect such a small area,
impacts should be mitigable on-site through revegetation of the temporarily hnpacted vegetated
communities. The proposed project would result m an overall permanent decrease in hnpervious area
through reduction of the bridge width by 26 feet. This represents an hicrease m earthen area of 0.032
acre. Approxhnately 0.02 acre of this area has been identified as bemg able to sustain vegetation
(riparian or upland) based on grade. The remainmg'area would consist of beach and open water. With
mcorporation of mitigation measure BIO-4 below, requhmg recontourmg and revegetation of
jurisdictional areas, resuhing in no net loss of wetlands, impacts to jurisdictional waters are considered
less than significant.
In addition, impacts to jurisdictional waters from erosion and sedimentation from constraction activities
are considered potentially significant. Impacts to jurisdictional waters and receivmg waters from erosion
are further discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this report. With hnplementation of
mitigation measure HYDRO-1, requhmg development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), water quality hnpacts to jurisdictional features on-site are considered less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-4. Mhigation for temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters (including wetiands) shall be detailed in
the revegetation/planting plan as described hi mitigation measure BIO-1 and shall mclude at a mmimum
1:1 in-place restoration after constraction to reestablish jurisdictional areas to condhions and functions at
least equal to the existing quality of the jurisdictional areas impacted. Any temporary work areas shall be
decompacted and recontoured to original grade and preactivity condition.
HYDRO-1. The City shall prepare and implement a SWPPP, consistent with the State Water Resources
Confrol Board (SWRCB) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Consttuction
Activity (99-08 DWQ) or most current permit at the time of constmction commencement. The SWPPP
shall contam a she map(s) that shows tiie consttoiction site perimeter, existmg and proposed buildings,
lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after
consttuction, and dramage pattems across tiie project. The SWPPP must list best management practices
(BMPs) the confractor will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs.
Addhionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitormg program, and a chemical monitormg program
for "nonvisible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs.
BMPs shall mclude, but are not limhed to:
• Spoils, frash, or any debris remammg at the site after project completion shall be removed and
disposed of at an approved disposal facility.
• No equipment refueling areas shall be located at the constraction she outside of designated areas.
Fueling of constmction equipment shall take place on existmg paved roads and not within or
adjacent to any dramages, wedands, or native habitats.
• "Fuelmg zones" shall be designated on constmction maps and qualified biologists shall flag the
limits oftiie "fueling zones." These "fiielhig zones" shall be located at least 50 feet from all drainage
features and wetlands.
24 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
• All stockpiled soil should be stored in 55-gallon drums within the roadway (nonwetland areas).
• Stockphes shall not remain on-site for more than 1 week.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. As is the case in many areas throughout southem Califomia, habitat
fragmentation within the Encinas Creek watershed is a serious issue, as most ofthe westem and eastem
portions of the watershed are urbanized. However, there is a relatively intact mosaic of namral and
disturbed habitats withm the cenfral part of the watershed. The smdy area.has Ihnited connectivity to
undeveloped inland areas due to the extensive surrounding residential and indusfrial development.
Additionally, two major roads limh connectivity to and within the smdy area. Carlsbad Boulevard
northbound extends along the enthe east side of the smdy area, and to the west Carlsbad Boulevard
southbound bisects the study area (both roads are two-lane major thoroughfares). The shoreline provides
far-reachmg unmtermpted connectivity for several miles to the north and south.
The proposed project footprmt is smaller than the existing bridge and would replace the current bridge
footprmt resuhing m no loss to movement corridors and no addhional habitat fragmentation m the smdy
area. In addhion, the smaller footprint coupled with the wider.channel may acmally facilitate a more
functional interaction between the Pacific Ocean and Encinas Creek thereby increasmg the potential for
use by aquatic wildlife. Impacts to the beach would be Ihnited to the area immediately adjacent to the
bridge and would not create any breaks in beach connectivity.
Temporary impacts to the connectivity between Encinas Creek and the Pacific Ocean would occur as a
result of constmction as creek diversion would be necessary. If possible, the creek would be dammed for
the duration of constraction and the water allowed to accumulate and subsequently flood the adjacent
southem terrace. Creek water would be diverted around the bridge wifh a pump system during and
followmg significant ram events. Followmg constraction, the dam would be removed and flow between
the water bodies would be restored. No sensitive species are expected to utilize the channel as a
movement corridor; as such, impacts would be less than significant.
e-f. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is subject to City permitting requhements,
mcludmg a Coastal Development Permit, HMP permit, and Land Use permit. These permits would
contain conditions that ensure the project's consistency with applicable local ordinances and policies.
Furthermore, the proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize biological resource and
coastal impacts where feasible. Mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts are consistent with the
requirements of the City of Carlsbad HMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any
policies or ordinances affecting biological resources and would not conflict with the City's HMP.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a)
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change m the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
• •
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
m •
• •
25 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encmas Creek Bridge Replacement
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Dhectly or indhectly desfroy a unique pale r~1 r~~| fn
r»nf Alr»nrir*Ql ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remams, mcludmg those interred I I [NT] | | | 1
outside of formal cemeteries? — — —
Analysis
The City ofCarlsbad General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element identifies Historic and Cultural
Preservation goals, including protectmg, preservmg, recognizmg, and enhancing the City's existing and
contmumg heritage. Objectives mclude promotmg the use of historic resources for the education, pleasure,
and welfare ofthe people of Carisbad. The General Plan prohibhs the alteration of properties of state or
national significance unless reviewed under the requirements of CEQA. A Cultural Resource Letter Report
has been prepared to evaluate the potential hnpacts to cultural resources (EDAW 2009b).
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The Calfrans Local Bridge Inventoiy mcludes a list of local bridges that
have been evaluated by Calfrans for historical significance, mcluding eligibility for the Califomia
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under CEQA. The existmg bridge at Encmas Creek is mcluded
on the Calfrans Local Bridge Inventory and is listed as Category 5, which means that while the
constmction date ofthe bridge suggests that h is has potential for historical significance, the poor
condition and lack of integrity of the bridge mdicate that h is not eligible for listmg in the CRHR. The
bridge is not eligible for listmg; therefore, tiie project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance ofa historical resource and impacts are considered less than significant.
b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A records search was conducted at the South
Coastal Information Center, located at San Diego State University on August 20,2007, and the San
Diego Museum of Man on Febmary 26, 2009. The records and literattire search results mdicated that 23
cultural resources have been previously recorded withm a 1-mile radius of the project area. All ofthe
previously identified resources are prehistoric sites consisting of campsites and shell scatters. There are
also three isolated prehistoric tools. One site CA-SDI-17,408 (SDI-W-111) is located just north ofthe
Enemas Creek Bridge. On March 3, 2009, an archaeological site visit for the Encmas Creek Bridge
Replacement project was conducted (EDAW 2009b). The site was not detected or relocated during the
she check and the area is heavily disturbed by previous constraction of the Encmas Creek Bridge and
Carlsbad Boulevard.
The project mvolves replacement ofa bridge m-place and Ihnited excavation into native soils. Given the
results ofthe records search, there is a potential for archeological resources to be present within any
undisturbed areas adjacent to the existing bridge stracture. With implementation of mitigation measure
CULT-1 below, requiring monitormg during constraction gradmg activities and appropriate data
recovery if requhed, hnpacts to archeological resources would be less tiian significant.
Mitigation Measure
CULT-1. The City ofCarlsbad shall retam a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to
perform constraction monitoring during all ground-disturbmg activities, tii the event that cultural
resources are discovered during constraction activities, work shall be halted in that area and redirected
until the resources are evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate data recovery actions are
implemented.
26 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encmas Creek Bridge Replacement
Less Than Significant Impact. The replacement of the Encinas Creek Bridge would involve limited
excavation of native soils. The bridge is proposed to be replaced in-place. Limited shallow grading
would occur around the bridge replacement area. Therefore, the likelihood of encoimtering any
paleontological resources is low and impacts are considered less than significant.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project involves replacement of an
existing bridge and would not involve significant excavation into undisturbed soils. Potential to
encounter human remains is low. However, because there are known prehistoric sites located in the
proximity of the bridge, there is the potential to encounter previously undiscovered human remains.
Mitigation measure CULT-2 below would reduce any potential impacts to human remains to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure
CULT-2. In the event of discovery of any human remains, there shall be no further excavation or
dismrbance of the site and the County Coroner shall be contacted. If the Coroner determines that the
remains may be those ofa Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be
contacted and Native American consultation shall be undertaken to determine appropriate steps to be
taken.
I
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or stmctures to potential substantial
adverse effects, mcludmg the risk of loss, injury or
death mvolving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Sfrong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related groimd failure, mcluding
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Resuh m substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
No
Impact
• • Kl •
•
•
•
•
27 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, F"] KTI r~~|
or that would become unstable as a result ofthe
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d)
e)
Be located on expansive soils, as defmed m Section I I I I [\7] I I
1802.3.2 ofthe Califomia Buildmg Code (2007), '—' '—' 1^ l_l
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Have soils mcapable of adequately supportmg the I [ I I j I
use of septic tanks or ahemative wastewater disposal — —
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Analysis '
a. Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map (Division
of Mines and Geological Special Publication 42, 2007) and the City of Carlsbad General Plan (City of
Carisbad 1994), there are no knovm active or potentially active fauhs located withm city limits.
Accordmg to the Draft Foundation Report (GeoLogic Associates 2009), the closest knovm active fault is
the Rose Canyon fault zone located 4.1 miles offshore.
The current bridge is exhibiting severe deterioration, exposmg remforcing bars that have become
corroded. The bridge is classified as stmcturally deficient and is currently bemg inspected quarterly.
Therefore, the replacement of the bridge would reduce hazardous risks to people. The Draft Foundations
Report (GeoLogic Associates 2009) recommends adhering to the Caltrans Design Guidelmes and design
parameters ofthe Stractural Engineering Association of Califomia.
The City's General Plan (City of Carlsbad 1994) notes that no Special Study zones, as requhed by the
Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Act (as ofthe latest update of the Act in 1990), have been delineated
withm tiie City by tiie State Geologist. According to the Draft Foundation Report dated Febmary 2009,
the project is m a gently sloping area with slight topographic relief and tiie potential for landslides or
instability is low.
Therefore, with proper bridge design the proposed project would not expose people or stractures to risk
of loss, injury, or death from earthquake, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides. As a result,
impacts would be less than significant.
b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project would mvolve gradmg around the
existmg bridge stracture and would cause soils to be exposed. Vegetation removal in the constraction
area would also result in soil exposure. For these reasons, the project could resuh in increased soil
erosion and/or the loss of topsoil. With the implementation of mhigation measure BlO-1 and mitigation
measure HYDRO-1, erosion potential would be reduced to less than significant.
c-d. Less Than Significant Impact. The replacement of the bridge would not be located on an unstable
geologic unit or expansive soils. The Draft Foundation Report (GeoLogic Associates 2009) indicates that
the general she vicmity is underlain by Tertiary Marine sediments capped by Quaternary Marine and
Non-Marine sedhnents deposited on wave-cut terraces. In the immediate vicmity of the site, the creek
has scoured tiie terrace materials away and deposited alluvium, which presently underiies the site. The
28 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
site is underlain by artificial fill, alluvium, and the Mid-Eocene Santiago formation, and the site can be
characterized as competent soil. Fill soils have a very low potential for expansion. Alluvial soils are more
fine-grained with expansion potential from very low to moderate. These site soils are considered
corrosive, and the remforced concrete would require corrosion confrol in accordance with Calfrans
Bridge Design Specifications. The existing alluvial soils would support the anticipated bridge loads.
The Draft Foundations Report states that the alluvial soils at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to
theh high density or fme-gramed nature. The potential for large-scale liquefaction at this site during the
life of the project is very low (GeoLogic Associates 2009).
Lateral spreading was evaluated by the use of SHAKE2000, and the results of these calculations mdicate
that dynamic lateral spreadmg would likely be in the '/4-hich to '/2-inch range, and this magnimde is
within the range of normal static settlement and is not considered significant (GeoLogic Associates
2009).
Since no active faults are known to fransect the site, ground surface rapture as a result of movement
along known faults is considered unlikely. Current seismic standards for design and constraction are
intended to reduce the potential for major stractural damage during a seismic event. Therefore, geologic
hnpacts are considered less than significant.
No Impact. The project is not located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or altemative wastewater disposal systems. No septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems
are proposed with the bridge replacement project. Therefore, no impact would resuh.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
envhonment through the routine fransport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
envhonment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the envhonment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
withm one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact* Impact
• •
• •
• m
• • • M
• s
d) Be located on a site which is mcluded on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a resuh,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
• • • Kl
29 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
e) For a project within an ahport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ahsfrip,
would the project resuh in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impah implementation ofor physically mterfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of
loss, mjury or death involving wildland fhes,
mcluding where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• • • K
• •
• •
• •
• S
• m
• Kl
Analysis
a.-b. No Impact. The proposed project mvolves replacement of an existing bridge. Standard constmction
materials would be used for bridge replacement. Any hazardous materials stored on-site would be
•properly contamed per appropriate stormwater BMPs. Disposal of bridge materials would occur off-site
in a proper disposal facility. In Febmary 2009, the existing bridge was tested for asbestos (JMR
Envhonmental Services 2009). The bulk samples were collected from the Encinas Creek Bridge and
were in accordance with the EPA/600/R-93/116 Test Metiiod for the determmation of asbestos in bulk
building materials. No asbestos were detected in the samples. The project would not, therefore, create a
significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and would
not release hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, no impact would result.
c. No Impact. The proposed project is not located withm within one-quarter mile of an existing or a
proposed school. Therefore, there would be no hnpact to schools due to hazardous materials.
d. No Impact. According to the EPA List of Hazardous Waste and Substances She from the Department of
Toxic Substances Confrol Envhostor database (EPA 2009), the proposed project is not located on or near
a hazardous waste site. Durmg database searches, one leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site was
identified (ENCINA WPCF T0607300568) at 6200 Avenida Encmas. This site is listed as a LUST
cleanup site. The cleanup stams of the she is listed as complete, meanmg it is not likely that hazardous
waste would be encountered from the site, and the case is closed. Therefore, no hnpact would result.
e-f. No Impact. Accordmg to geographic mformation system (GIS) mappmg, the project is approximately 3
miles from the McClellan Palomar Airport. The bridge replacement project mvolves no tall stmctures
that would interfere with ah ttavel or airport operations and would not cause a safety hazard. Therefore,
no impact would resuh.
g. No Impact. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety Element's goals and objectives mclude the
mamtenance of close coordination between planned improvements to the chculation system within
Carlsbad and the location of fire stations to ensure adequate levels of service and response thnes to all
30 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encmas Creek Bridge Replacement
areas of the community, and to maintain an initial emergency fravel response time of five (5) minutes.
The City ofCarlsbad Emergency Plan applies to exfraordinary emergencies that pose a threat to life and
property and the overall well-being of the community. Traffic would be rerouted as described in the
Project Description of this Initial Smdy. The City of Carlsbad has coordinated with the Carlsbad police
and fire departments on the fraffic detour plans and would coordmate further with the departments m
advance of road closure to ensure adequate emergency response times are maintained and the emergency
service providers are aware of all fraffic detours. It can be assumed that response times may be altered by
the fraffic detour plan. However, with proper coordination, hnpacts would be less than significant.
h. No Impact. The proposed project is on the coast and the risk of wildland fhes is low; therefore, no
impact would result.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requhements?
b) Substantially deplete groimdwater supplies or
mterfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering ofthe local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permhs
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a sfream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a sfream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a marmer, which would resuh in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater dramage systems or provide substantial
addhional sources of polluted runoff?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
•
•
•
•
K
K
K
K
• •
• Kl
• •
• •
• •
31 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing withm a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area stmctures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death mvolvmg flooding, mcluding
flooding as a resuh of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
1) Increase pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, pefroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demandmg substances and frash)
mto receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or followmg constmction?
n) Increase any pollutant to an aheady impahed water
' body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kl
•
• •
•
• m
• •
• • • X
• X • •
n X • •
• •
• K
o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated nmoff?
p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habhat?
q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
• • • X
• X • •
• X • •
32 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Analysis
a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is directly adjacent to
the Pacific Ocean and spans Enemas Creek. The bridge replacement project has the potential to
significantly impact water quality or violate a water quality standard through bridge demolition and
constmction activities. Potential pollutants may include concrete, sediment, fuel, and other constraction
debris. With hnplementation of mhigation measure HYDRO-1 below, requhing preparation of a SWPPP
for constmction activities, impacts to water quality from constmction would be less than significant.
It is anticipated that groundwater would be encountered at a depth of 9 feet below the existmg ground
surface of the bridge deck, which is an approximate groundwater elevation of +6 feet mean sea level
(GeoLogic Associates 2009). Groundwater is anticipated to be encountered during excavation, especially
during high tides or after periods of precipitation. The depths to groundwater observed represent
temporary groundwater levels prior to backfilling and are not considered the static groundwater table
(GeoLogic Associates 2009). The groundwater levels are expected to vary daily and seasonally
(GeoLogic Associates 2009). It is likely that groundwater dewatering practices would be requhed durmg
constraction. Any dewatering of groimdwater to Enemas Creek or the Pacific Ocean would requhe
obtaming Waste Discharge Requhements (WDRs) from the Regional Water Quality Confrol Board
(RWQCB) (Order No. R9-2008-0002). RWQCB WDRs are designed to ensure tiiat exfracted
groundwater meets discharge specifications for pollutant concenfrations. Furthermore, BMPs would be
implemented as a part of mhigation measure HYDRO-1, which would reduce any potential water quality
impacts from groundwater dewatermg to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
HYDRO-1. The City shall prepare and implement a SWPPP, consistent with the State Water Resources
Confrol Board (SWRCB) General Permh for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Constmction
Activity (99-08 DWQ) or most current permit at the tune of constmction commencement. The SWPPP
shall contain a site map(s) that shows the constraction site perimeter, existmg and proposed buildings,
lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after
constraction, and drainage pattems across the project. The SWPPP must list BMPs the confractor will
' use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must
contain a visual monitormg program, and a chemical monitoring program for "nonvisible" pollutants to
be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs.
BMPs shall include, but are not limited to:
• Spoils, frash, or any debris remammg at the site after project completion shall be removed and
disposed of at an approved disposal facility.
• No equipment refiieling areas shall be located at the constraction site outside of designated areas.
Fueling of constraction equipment shall take place on existing paved roads and not within or
adjacent to any dramages, wetiands, or native habitats.
• "Fueling zones" shall be designated on constraction maps and qualified biologists shall flag the
limits of the "fiieling zones." These "fueling zones" shall be located at least 50 feet from all drainage
features and wetlands.
• All stockpiled soil should be stored m 55-gallon drums within the roadway (nonwetland areas).
• Stockpiles shall not remain on-she for more than 1 week.
b. No Impact. The replacement of the bridge would not utilize groundwater resources and would therefore
not deplete groundwater supplies. Therefore, no hnpact would result.
c-d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would requhe the
temporary diversion of Encmas Creek by the means of a bypass pump and fransfer pipe system. BMPs,
33 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
as identified m mitigation measure HYDRO-1, would be mstalled at the pipe outlet on the sand to
prevent erosion. Once constraction commences, sfream flows would retum to pre-constraction
condhions. The project would not permanently aher the course of Encinas Creek, or hicrease the flow
rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff. Furthermore, the ultimate footprint of the bridge would be
reduced with constraction, thereby reducmg the amoimt of impervious surface on the project site.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measure HYDRO-1, impacts to water quality from
alteration of sfream courses or velocities are considered less than significant.
e. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project proposes replacement ofa bridge
m-place. The new bridge would be reduced m size by 26 feet and is not being replaced to hicrease
capacity ofthe roadway. Therefore, ranoff volume post-constraction is not anticipated to increase but
rather decrease through reduction of overall hnpervious surfaces. In addition, the bridge replacement
project would not infroduce any new operational pollutants that could contaminate stormwater nmoff
Project constmction would comply with mitigation measure HYDRO-1, as discussed above. Therefore,
no impacts from increased runoff or a new source of polluted runoff is anticipated at project completion
and, with implementation of mitigation measure HYDRO-1, potential hnpacts during constraction are
reduced to less than sigruficant.
f. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is a bridge replacement
project; therefore, with hnplementation of the BMPs as outlmed m mhigation measure HYDRO-1, the
proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts to water quality are
considered less than significant.
g-h. No Impact. The proposed project mvolves the replacement of an existmg bridge and does not involve
the constmction of any housmg; tiierefore, it does not place housing withm the 100-year flood hazard
area. Accordmg to the Enemas Creek Bridge Hydraulic Evaluation (Nolte Associates 2009), the 100-year
peak discharge at the Enemas Creek crossing is 2,000 cubic feet per second. Hydraulic analysis has been
completed to ensure the bridge design would accommodate the 100-year storm. The bridge has been
sufficiently designed so that h would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, no hnpact would
result.
i. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project proposes to temporarily dam
Enemas Creek durmg bridge constraction and divert water as necessary, via a pumping mechanism,
around the bridge to the beach. The creek would be temporarily dammed via sheet pilmgs and would
only be pumped durmg rain events or other increased creek flows. Encmas Creek is primarily fed via
urban runoff, and volume of water flucmates heavily with ram events. No stractures occur tn the area;
however, there is the potential for impacts to recreational beach users and constraction workers ifthe
temporary dam fails during, or immediately following, a high ram event. With implementation of
mitigation measure HYDRO-2 below, requhmg frequent monitoring of water diversion mechanisms to
ensure proper function and efficiency, the potential hnpacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
HYDRO-2. The confractor shall monitor the constraction she during all storm events to ensure that
water dammmg does not reach volumes that could cause a risk to constraction workers or recreational
beach users from dam failure and subsequent floodmg. Diversion mechanisms shall be of adequate
capacity to pump water durmg storm events, and back-up diversion pumping shall be readily available m
the event of equipment malfunction.
j. No Impact. The City of Carlsbad General Plan (City of Carlsbad 1994) Safety Element notes that tiie
beach areas are susceptible to the seismic hazard of tsunami (tidal waves), and the lagoon areas are
susceptible to the seismic hazard of seiche (raising and lowermg of water surface). The Draft Foundation
Report (GeoLogic Associates 2009), states that southem Califomia is oriented obliquely with the major
orighiathig tsunami zones, and h has a relatively wide and ragged Continental Shelf that acts as a
34 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
diffuser and reflector of tsunami wave energy. This, along with the geologic and seismic conditions,
minimizes the likelihood of a large tsunami at the site. Therefore, no impact would result.
k-m. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As described in a. above,
constraction of the bridge replacement project has the potential to impact surface water quality. In
addition, grading activities would resuh in exposed soils and increase erosion potential in areas cleared
of vegetation. With hnplementation of mitigation measure HYDRO-1, which requires preparation and
implementation ofa SWPPP, and mitigation measure BIO-1, which requhes revegetation of all bare
ground areas (post-constraction), impacts to water quality or increased erosion are considered less than
significant.
n. No Impact. The project area is in the Carlsbad Watershed and Encinas Hydrologic Area 904.4. The
beach area in the vicinity ofthe project and Encinas Creek are not listed on the 2006 CWA Section
303(d) List (SWRCB 2006) as impahed water bodies. The project would not hicrease any pollutant to an
impahed water body. Therefore, no impact would resuh.
0. No Impact. The new bridge would be approximately 26 feet narrower than the existing bridge. The
project would reduce hnpervious surfaces and associated nmoff. Therefore, no hnpact would result.
p. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Per Section IV. Biological Resources,
temporary impacts to 0.038 acre of jurisdictional waters (0.004 acre of wetlands and 0.034 acre of
nonwetland waters) would occur as a resuh of the proposed project, including diversion of Encinas
Creek. Temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters would be considered significant. However, with
hnplementation of mitigation measures ITVTDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 as described above and BIO-4 below,
impacts would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
BIO-4. Mitigation for temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters (including wetlands) shall be detailed in
the revegetation/plantmg plan as described m mhigation measure BlO-1 and shall include at a mmimum
1:1 m-place restoration after constmction to reestablish jurisdictional areas to conditions and functions at
least equal to the existing quality of the jurisdictional areas impacted. Any temporary work areas shall be
decompacted and recontoured to original grade and preactivity condition.
q. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Existmg beneficial uses of mland surface
waters of the Canyon de las Encinas are noncontact recreational water use, freshwater habitats, and
wildlife habhats supporting terrestrial ecosystems. Existmg beneficial uses of groundwater for Encinas
Creek include municipal and domestic supply uses. Existmg beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean include
both contact and noncontact recreational use; esmarine habitat; wildlife habitat; marine habitat; habitat
necessary for the survival and maintenance for a species established by law as rare, threatened, or
endangered; and navigation (RWQCB 1994). With hnplementation of BMPs as requhed under
mitigation measure HYDRO-1, the proposed project would not result in the exceedance of applicable
surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses, and any
potential impacts, as described above, would be less than significant.
35 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? |^ |^ ^
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or I I I I I I K7
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the —
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoidmg or
mitigating an envhonmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation r~~| pH FH y7
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Analysis
a. No Impact. The replacement of the existing bridge would not physically divide a commimity. The City
of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Map (City of Carlsbad 2009) designates the area as Open Space, and
the bridge is a part of Carlsbad Boulevard, which has a General Plan designation of Major Arterial Sfreet.
The portion of the sfreet containing the project area (between Island Way and Solamar Drive) does not
cross mto any residential or commercial areas. Therefore, no hnpacts would resuh.
b. No Impact. As the project consists of replacing an aheady existing bridge, it does not conflict with any
land use plans, policies, or regulations, or conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural
community conservation plans. The project area is on land designated by the City of Carlsbad General
Plan (City of Carlsbad 1994) as Open Space and Major Arterial Sfreet. The Open Space and
Conservation Element of the Plan divides Open Space mto five categories. The proposed project area
falls mto Category 1: Open Space for the Preservation of Natural Resources. This category discusses the
protection of beaches, bluffs, and banks, includmg coastal beaches, coastal bluffs and cliffs, lagoon
beaches, lakeshores, the banks of rivers and sfreams, and watershed lands. The General Plan also
discusses the Local Coastal Plan, and recognizes that one-third ofthe City is located in the coastal zone.
All development withm the coastal zone, mcludhig the proposed project, requhes a Coastal Development
Permit. The project is consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, no hnpact
would resuh.
c. No Impact. The project is subject to tiie City's HMP for Natural Communhies m the City of Carisbad
(Carlsbad 2004). The smdy area is not designated by the HMP as a Core, Linkage, or Special Resource
Area. The smdy area falls withm Local Facility Management Zone 22 and the HMP vegetation map
designates the smdy area as "disturbed" vegetation. In addition, the smdy area is not considered an
Existing or Proposed Hardlme Conservation Area or Proposed Standards Area as defmed by the HMP.
The HMP designates 6,500 acres of Open Space land for preservation. The HMP also mcludes mitigation
ratios for hnpacts to habitats, species proposed for coverage, and habitat types withm Carlsbad. As
discussed in the biological resources section of this document, hnpacts to biological resources would be
mhigated consistent with the HMP. The proposed project would not conflict with the HMP. Therefore,
no impacts would result.
36 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encmas Creek Bridge Replacement
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• • • Kl
• • • m
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Resuh m the loss of availability of a known mmeral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
b) Resuh in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? .
Analysis
a. No Impact. The proposed project would temporarily affect beach quality sand, a valuable natural
resource; however, the proposed project would not result in the loss of beach sand or another known
mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result.
b. No Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad does not have any economically
significant mmeral resources. Mineral resources are considered a Category 5 citywide priority for future
open space plaiming. This is the lowest priority given to open space plannmg actions. The proposed
project is a bridge replacement project; therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur.
37 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
XI. NOISE - Would the project result m:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
m excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordmance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundboume vibration or groundboume noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels m the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an ahport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use ahport, would
the project expose people residmg or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airsfrip,
would the project expose people residmg or workmg
m the project area to excessive noise levels?
Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
• •
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Kl •
• • • K
•
•
•
• S
S •
• Kl
• • • m
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would replace an existmg stmcturally deficient
bridge with a new bridge providmg the same capacity (two lanes for southbound fraffic). Operation of
the bridge would not change fraffic chculation or the fraffic noise generated.
The goal of the City of Carisbad General Plan Noise Element (City ofCarlsbad 1994) is to achieve and
maintam an envhonment that is free from objectionable, excessive, or harmful noise. The Noise Element
establishes an exterior noise guidelme of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) for residential uses. The Noise Element's goal for chculation is to design and manage all
roadways to maintain acceptable noise levels.
Carlsbad's Municipal Code for Noise (Noise Ordmance) limits the hours of constmction to Monday -
Friday from 7 a.m. to sunset and Saturday from 8 a.m. to sunset; no constraction is allowed on Sundays
or holidays, unless granted by permh from the City. Hauling of materials is prohibited on Saturdays,
Sundays, and holidays. The consfruction of the proposed project would occur in accordance with these
limits.
The Noise Ordinance does not establish quantified constmction noise limits; however, the County of San
Diego sets a consttuction noise Ihnh of 75 dBA averaged over 1 hour. This threshold is assumed as the
constraction noise Ihnh for the purpose of this analysis. Project constraction would mvolve typical
38 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
constmction equipment and vehicles to demohsh and remove the existing bridge, excavate soil, and
establish a foundation for the mstallation of the prefabricated bridge. Pavement breaking and metal pile
driving for foundation would generate short-term, maximum noise levels. An average hourly noise level
of 85-90 dBA at 50 feet can be assumed from the constmction activity, based on mdustry standards.
Noise attenuates with distance at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doublmg of distance. The nearest
noise sensitive receptor (residence) is approximately 325 feet northeast of the project site. The
constraction noise would attenuate by approxhnately 22 dBA over this distance, assummg no barriers
(e.g., topography or stractures). Therefore, the constraction noise would be below the constmction noise
limh of 75 dBA, assumed for this project. In addhion, the project site is shielded from the residences by
the higher elevation of the northbound segment of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard, which would further
reduce the project constraction noise levels observed at the residences. Constraction haul routes for
constraction materials, equipment, and vehicles are anticipated during the hours allowed by the Noise
Ordinance along Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road to access Interstate 5 (1-5). Constraction
stagmg areas are anticipated along the closed segment of southboimd Carlsbad Boulevard. The resulting
constraction noise may be audible to the residential receptors but would be temporary and would not
create a significant noise impact.
The closure of this segment of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard during project constmction (up to
4 months) would requhe southboimd fraffic to be diverted onto a nearby southbound route to the nearest
access interchange south ofthe constraction site. The project fraffic report identified a detour route for
southbound fraffic off Carlsbad Boulevard, east onto Palomar Airport Road, south to Avenida Encmas,
and west on Pomsettia Lane, more than doubling the existmg average daily vehicle frips on these
roadways, some of which are two-lane and/or secondary roadways (See Section XV.
Transportation/Traffic). Therefore, there would be a temporary, moderate- term (4-month) hicrease in
ambient noise levels at residences along the detour route durmg the constmction period.
Based on acoustical science, the doublmg of a noise source, such as doubling fraffic volumes, does not
double noise levels, but mcreases net fraffic noise levels by 3 dBA, which can barely be perceived by a
healthy human ear. An mcrease of 5 dBA is readily perceptible. The detour traffic would increase
average daily vehicle frips on Avenida Enemas from 3,550 to 9,250 daily vehicles and 3,000 to 8,400
vehicles on Poinsettia Lane. However, the majority of these daily frips occur durmg peak AM and PM
fraffic periods, which occur within the City Noise Ordmance's period of allowable constraction noise,
which includes detoured fraffic noise. Therefore, the noise concem is the constraction-related detoured
fraffic after this period during the evening and night hours when ambient noise levels are typically lower.
However, the proposed detour route is bounded by a major raihoad lme (carrying substantial regional
and local passenger, and freight fraffic) and 1-5 (withm 300 to 1,000 feet). Therefore, daytime and
nighttime ambient noise levels are anticipated to be somewhat elevated from these sources, which is
documented by the houses facing away from Avenida Encinas with an existing noise wall. This would
reduce the effects of the diverted fraffic noise increases on the residences.
In addition, 1-5 provides an adjacent altemative detour route of greater speed and capacity, which
mcludes an mterchange at Poinsettia Lane to access Carlsbad Boulevard and resumes southbound fravel
on it. Therefore, traffic along the detour route would potentially be less than doubled, and the resultmg
increased noise level at the adjacent residences not perceivable, and thus not resuh in a significant noise
impact.
In addition to human noise sensitive receptors (i.e., residences), other animal species can be considered
senshive to noise, particularly some bhd species, especially during breeding season. Bhd species listed
as threatened or endangered are particularly afforded analysis and protection when located m proximity
to noise sources. USFWS provides a noise limit as a guideline for noise impact assessment. Please refer
to Section IV. Biological Resources, for a discussion of potential impacts to nestmg bhds.
Operational noise levels of fraffic on the replacement bridge would be the same as currently generated,
since the roadway capacity of the bridge has not been changed, and the project would not generate or
atfract new or addhional vehicle trips.
39 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
The proposed project would not expose people to or generate noise levels in exceedance of a standard
established by the City's General Plan or Noise Ordmance, or an applicable agency. Therefore, impacts
are considered less than significant.
b. No Impact. The proposed project is approximately 325 feet from the nearest stracture (a residence);
therefore, temporary vibrations from bridge demohtion and installation would be too far away to expose
people to excessive groundbome vibration or noise. Therefore, no impact would result.
c. No Impact. The proposed project mvolves the replacement of an existing bridge, without increasmg
roadway capacity or generatmg or atfractmg new or addhional vehicle frips. The proposed project would
not create a substantially permanent hicrease in ambient noise, as operational noise levels are expected to
remain the same. Therefore, no hnpact would resuh.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate a temporary increase in ambient
noise levels m the vicmity of the project constiuction and along the fraffic detour route. However, due to
sufficient distance of receptors from the constraction area, and the elevated ambient noise envhonment
ofthe fraffic detour route, the temporary noise hicrease would not be considered substantial. Therefore,
impacts are considered less than significant.
e-f. No Impact. The proposed project is located approxhnately 3 miles from McClellan Palomar Airport and
therefore would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The
project is not located in the vicmity of a private ahsfrip. Therefore, no hnpact would resuh.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIL POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a)
Induce substantial grovrth m an area either dhectly I I I I I I [\7
(for example, by proposmg new homes and — —
busmesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastmcture)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housmg, I I I I I I [\7
necessitatmg the constraction of replacement housmg — — ^—^
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating I I I I I I [\7
the constmction of replacement housmg elsewhere? — —
Analysis
a. No Impact. The project involves the replacement of an existmg bridge, and design does not mvolve
increased fraffic capacity. The project would not dhectly or mdhectly induce growth. Therefore, no
impact would result.
b-c. No Impact. The project would not cause the displacement of any people or homes or requhe replacement
housing. Therefore, no impact would result.
40 . Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Xin. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project resuh in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered govemment facilities, a need for
new or physically altered govemment facilities, the
constmction of which could cause significant
envhonmental hnpacts, in order to mamtain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fhe protection? • • • X
ii) Police protection? • • • X
iii) Schools? • • • X
iv) Parks? • • • • X
v) Other public facihties? • • • X
Analysis
i-iL No Impact. The Carlsbad City Engineer has authorized the closing of the southboimd lanes of
Carlsbad Boulevard begiiming after Labor Day for a period of tune necessary to complete constmction.
The City's Traffic Engineer has approved a detour plan, which would allow two-way fraffic on the
northbound section ofCarlsbad Boulevard between Solamar Drive on the north and Island Way on the
south. Two-way fraffic would also be allowed on southbound Carlsbad Boulevard just south of the
bridge to allow for access to the North Ponto beach access parking lot. The Fhe Department and the
Police Department would be notified of and approve all detour routes prior to the start of consfruction.
This detour plan would allow for acceptable service ratios for emergency and public services. Therefore,
no hnpact would result.
iii. No Impact. The proposed project is a bridge replacement project and would not result in population
growth.- The proposed project would not resuh in substantial adverse physical hnpacts to, or requhe the
altermg of any schools to accommodate additional smdents. Constraction of the proposed project would
not hnpact emergency response times to schools, as there are no-schools located withm the project area.
Therefore, no impact would result.
iv. No Impact. The public beach area serves as a recreational park area, and the proposed project would
not result in any adverse impacts to the beach area. The North Ponto parking lot located north of
Pomsettia Lane, and the pubhc beach areas, would remain open durmg constraction of the proposed
project. The public would have continued access to these areas for recreation purposes. In addition, no
constraction would occur during the peak recreational season (summer) between Memorial Day and
Labor Day. Therefore, no hnpact would resuh.
v. No Impact. Beach access would be maintained during constmction and the beach would remain open
to the public for recreational use. The North Ponto parking lot located north of Poinsettia Lane would
remain open for use during constmction. The proposed project would not cause an adverse impact to any
additional public services or public facilities. Therefore, no hnpact would resuh.
41 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
XIV. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existmg
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
requhe the constmction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the envhonment?
• • • S
• • • M
Analysis
a-b. No Impact. The City of Carlsbad has included, in the proposed constmction detour plan, access to the
Nortii Ponto parking lot via two-way fraffic on southbound Carlsbad Boulevard for the purpose of
maintahiing beach access durmg constmction. In addition, consttuction would occur outside of the peak
recreational season, as described in the project description. Therefore, while constraction activities may
deter some recreational use of the beach at the bridge location, and increase beach use at other adjacent
areas, h would not result m substantial deterioration of otiier beach facihties. As the project mvolves the
replacement of an existing bridge, h would not increase the use of any park or recreational facility (i.e.,
public beach) in the long term and would not mclude the constraction or expansion of recreational
facilities. Therefore, no hnpact would result.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an mcrease in fraffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing fraffic load and capacity ofthe
sfreet system (i.e., result m a substantial hicrease m
either the number of vehicle frips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
mtersections)?
b) Exceed, either mdividually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result m a change in ah fraffic pattems, mcluding
either an increase m fraffic levels or a change m
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Kl • •
Kl • •
• • • Kl
42 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
mcompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated'
Kl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
No
Impact
•
e) Result m madequate emergency access? • • Kl •
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? • • •
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting ahemative fransportation (e.g., bus tum-• • •
outs, bicycle racks)?
Analysis
a-b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As a part of the proposed project, the City of
Carlsbad has identified a Detour Plan, which would be implemented during constmction and would
detour all southbound fraffic on Carlsbad Boulevard at Palomar Airport Road to Avenida Encinas,
Pomsettia Lane, and then back to Carlsbad Boulevard. South of Palomar Ahport Road, access would be
limited to local residents requhing residential access off of Solamar Drive and to the confractor. The City
of Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan notes that a fraffic impact is considered significant ifthe
addition of the project fraffic causes the intersection or sfreet segment service to decrease to worse than
LOS D during the peak hour (LLG 2009).
A Traffic Impact Analysis was performed by LLG in March 2009 to evaluate the fraffic impacts of the
proposed project. Traffic on all major roadways within the project area and detour route was evaluated.
Table 4 shows existing fraffic volumes and anticipated fraffic volumes with the closure of Carlsbad
Boulevard.
Table 4
Traffic Volumes
Major Roadway
r.\islln<> 1 raffle \ olumes
(.\nr)
Existing Traffic Volumes with
' SB Carlsbad Bivd; closure (ADT)
Palomar Airport Road 4,300 WB 4,800 EB 2,100 WB
(northwestbound)
9,400 EB
(southeastbound)
Avenida Encinas 3,750 NB 3,550 SB 3,750 NB 9,250 SB
Carlsbad Boulevard (between
Solamar Drive and Island Way) 5,700 NB 7,250 SB 5,700 NB OSB
Carlsbad Boulevard (between
Island Way and Poinsettia Lane) 5,700 NB 6,800 SB 6,300 NB 500 SB
Poinsettia Lane 3,000 WB 3,000 EB 8,400 WB 3,000 EB
ADT=Average Daily Trips
NB=northbound, SB=southbound, WB=westbound, EB=eastbound
The report states that the closure of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard, with implementation of the detour
plan, is expected to resuh m increased fraffic volumes on Palomar Airport Road, on Avenida Encinas
between Palomar Ahport Road and Pomsettia Lane, and on Poinsettia Lane between Carlsbad Boulevard
and Avenida Encinas. The forecast volumes would remain within the capacities of these roadways.
Intersections were also analyzed, and with hnplementation of the detour plan while southbound Carlsbad
Boulevard is closed, all intersections are calculated to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better except
the Palomar Airport Road/Avenida Encmas intersection, which would degrade from LOS C to LOS E
43 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
during the peak PM hour. Implementation of mhigation measure TRAFFIC-1, described below, durmg
the bridge replacement would allow the mtersection to operate at LOS C. Traffic volumes would also
increase at the Palomar Ahport Road/Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad Boulevard/Poinsettia Lane, and
Poinsettia Lane/Avenida Encinas mtersections. With the closure of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard, all
sfreet segments (Palomar Ahport Road, Pomsettia Lane, Carlsbad Boulevard, and Avenida Encinas) are
calculated to operate at LOS A.
Therefore, with implementation of mhigation measure TRAFFIC-1 all stteet segments and mtersections
would operate at LOS C or above. The hnpacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure
TRAFFlC-1. At the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encinas, the City of Carlsbad
shall implement the following improvements:
• Provide dual westbound left-mm lanes
• Provide northbound right-tum overlap phasing
• Prohibh westbound to eastbound U-tums on Palomar Airport Road
• Modify signal timhig as appropriate due to modified lane designations.
c. No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. It would not resuh in a
change of ah fraffic pattems or resuh m substantial safety risks. Therefore, no impact would result.
d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. All project circulation unprovements would
be designed and constmcted to City and Calfrans standards and, therefore, would not result m design
hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zonmg. According to the
Traffic Impact Analysis, bike fraffic would be rerouted via Cannon Road to Avenida Encinas to reduce
bike fraffic on Palomar Airport Road. However, minhnal bike fraffic can be anticipated to continue on
Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard, where cyclists will fravel with detoured vehicle fraffic to Avenida
Encmas via Palomar Airport Road. Palomar Airport Road is narrow at the approach to Avenida Encinas.
In addition, along Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Enemas there are no designated bike lanes.
Therefore, there is a potential for a temporary significant impact to bike fraffic with project
implementation. With the rerouting of the majority of bike fraffic to Cannon Road and implementation of
mitigation measure TRAFFIC-2, requhing "share the road" signage, the awareness of motorists would be
enhanced and bicycle safety durmg constraction would be increased. Therefore, hnpacts are considered
less than significant with mitigation mcorporated.
Mitigation Measure
TRAFFIC-2. To enhance the awareness of bicyclists to motorists, "Share the Road" signs would be
posted on Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encinas.
e. ' Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency
requhements of the Fhe Department and Police Department. During constmction, all emergency
providers would be given notice of the fraffic detours. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety
Element objectives mclude mamtammg an inhial emergency fravel response time of 5 minutes, and
mamtaming close coordmation between planned unprovements to the chculation system with the City of
Carlsbad and the location of fire stations to ensure adequate levels of service and response thnes to all
areas ofthe community. The fraffic detour plan has been reviewed by both the Fhe and Police
Departments. Emergency response thnes have the potential to differ from existing with the
implementation ofthe fraffic detour plan. However, with advance coordination with the Fhe and Police
Departments, adequate emergency access would be mamtained. Therefore, impacts are considered less
than significant.
44 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
f. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is not
requesting a parkmg variance. Parking is not allowed on the bridge deck and replacement ofthe bridge
would not eliminate availability of parking post-constraction. Temporary closure ofthe roadside parking
area dhectiy south of Palomar Airport Road and north of Solomar Drive would occur durmg
constraction, as there will be no access to Carlsbad Boulevard. However, the North Ponto parking lot
would remain open durmg constmction, via a special access plan. Work would be conducted durmg the
non-peak recreational season. However, the loss of 34 parking spaces along the coast for a period of 4
months is considered potentially sigiuficant. Additional parkmg capacity is available during the non-peak
season withm the dht parking area at the tum-around chcle at Palomar Airport Road. With the
hnplementation of mhigation measure TRAFFIC-3, signage would be added to dhect drivers to this
temporary parkmg area. With implementation of mhigation measure TRAFFIC-3, impacts are considered
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
TRAFFIC-3. The loss of approximately 34 parkmg spaces at the roadside parkmg area north of Solomar
Drive would be mitigated by installing temporary recreational parking signs at the dirt lot near the tum-
around chcle at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road to allow for temporary
parking durmg constmction. This lot currently operates as an undesignated parkmg area for recreational
beach users and can accommodate the addhional temporary parking durmg the nonpeak season.
g. No Impact. The project involves the replacement ofa bridge in-place and altemative means of
fransportation would continue to have access across the new bridge. The new bridge has been designed to
continue to accommodate bicycle fraffic. Therefore, no impact would result.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater freatment requhements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Confrol Board?
b) Requhe or resuh m the consttuction of" new water or
wastewater freatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the consttuction of which would
cause significant envhonmental effects?
c) Requhe or result in the constmction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the constmction of which could cause
significant envhonmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
• •
• •
• •
• •
No
Impact
• K
• Kl
• K
• .K
45 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater Pn FH ^
freatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand m addition to the
provider's existmg commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted I I I I I I [\7
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local stamtes and I I I I I 1 1^
regulations related to solid waste? —
Analysis
a. No Impact. The project does not propose any new development requhmg wastewater freatment and
would not impact utilhies and service systems of exceed wastewater freatment requirements. Therefore,
no impact would resuh.
b. No Impact. The project does not propose any new development and therefore would not impact utilities
and service systems. The proposed project would not create demands for new local or regional water or
wastewater freatment. The project would not involve the need for additional freatment or distribution
systems. Therefore, no impact would result.
c. No Impact. The proposed project would not necessitate new storm water drainage improvements and
would not involve the need for addhional storm drainage. Therefore, no hnpact would resuh.
d. No Impact. No new demands on local or regional water supplies would be created with the proposed
project. The project would not requhe the need for new local or regional water supplies. Small quantities
of water may be requhed during consttuction to aid m dust suppression. Therefore, no hnpact would
result.
e. No Impact. No new or mcreased demands for wastewater freatment wOuld be created with the proposed
project. The project would not mvolve the need for increasing the capacity of wastewater treatment
facilities. Therefore, no impact would result.
f. No Impact. The project would likely be served by the Mhamar landfill and the project conttactor would
arrange for all disposal of solid waste m appropriate facihties. Therefore, no impact would result.
g. No Impact. The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste and would properly dispose of solid waste materials. Therefore, no impact would result.
46 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the envhonment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or anhnal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of an endangered, rare or
threatened, species, or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of Califomia history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term envhonmental goals to the disadvantage of
long-term envhonmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are mdividually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula-
tively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed m
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
d) Does the project have envhonmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
bemgs, either directly or indhectly?
• Kl • •
• • • Kl
• • • Kl
• K • •
Analysis
a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As evaluated m Sections FV and V of this
Initial Smdy, with the incorporation of the mhigation measures described, the proposed project would
not substantially degrade the quality ofthe environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to
elhninate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare, or threatened species; or elhninate important examples of the major periods of
Califomia history or pre-history. Constmction of the proposed project has the potential to result in
impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality, and
Transportation/Traffic. Mitigation measures designed to minimize adverse temporary, constmction-
related hnpacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality,
and Transportation/Traffic are listed herein. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet this
Mandatory Finding of Significance.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1. All temporary impact areas shall be replanted with native species prior to completion of the
constraction. Prior to constraction, a revegetation/plantmg plan shall be prepared and approved by the
City of Carisbad Planning Department to identify appropriate native species and success criteria. Newly
seeded areas shall be monitored for erosion monthly (or more frequently as needed) for a period of 24
47 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
months post-constraction or until vegetation has become established. In addhion, all revegetated areas
shall be weeded quarterly for the period of 24 months to prevent invasive plant species from dominating
the revegetated areas. Mitigation for impacts to habitats shall occur on-site withm or adjacent to the
temporary work area and shall be completed at the ratios described in Table 5.
Table 5
Mitigation Ratios
\'eaetation Community (Holland
C'lassiflcation as modified hv Oberbauer)
"''Project Imparts
Mitigation
Ratios'
Mitigation
.Acreage
Required
\'eaetation Community (Holland
C'lassiflcation as modified hv Oberbauer)
Permanent
linpart.s
leniporary
Impacts
Mitigation
Ratios'
Mitigation
.Acreage
Required
Beach (64400) 0.0 0.067 1:1 0.67
Open Water (64100) 0.0 0.016 1:1 0.016
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410) 0.0 0.004 1:1
(no net loss) 0.004
Disturbed Habitat (11300) 0.016 0.255 0.1:1 0.271
Mitigation ratios are only for temporary impacts to beach, open water, and coastal and valley freshwater marsh.
The mitigation ratio for disturbed habitat is for both temporary and permanent impacts.
BIO-2. Riprap placement shall be limited to areas where riprap aheady exists. New riprap shall not be
placed onto the beach and shall not extend westerly beyond the existmg riprap area. If gradmg or riprap
placement should result m the permanent loss of beach, the project will be required to compensate for the
permanent loss of beach habitat at a 3:1 mhigation ratio as requhed by the City ofCarlsbad HMP.
BIO-3. The contractor(s) shall be mformed, prior to the bridge replacement, about the biological
consfraints of the project. The constraction limits shall be clearly marked on project maps provided to the
confractor(s) and areas outside ofthe constraction Ihnits shall be designated as "no constraction" zones.
BIO-4. Mhigation for temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters (includmg wetlands) shall be detailed in
the revegetation/planting plan as described in mitigation measure BIO-1 and shall include at a minimum
1:1 in-place restoration after constmction to reestablish jurisdictional areas to condhions and functions at
least equal to the existmg quality of the jurisdictional areas impacted. Any temporary work areas shall be
decompacted and recontoured to original grade and preactivity condhion.
HYDRO-1. The City shall prepare and hnplement a SWPPP, consistent with the SWRCB General
Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Constraction Activity (99-08 DWQ) or most
current permh at the time of constraction commencement. The SWPPP shall contain a site map(s) that
shows the constmction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildmgs, lots, roadways, storm water
collection and discharge pomts, general topography both before and after constraction, and drainage
pattems across the project. The SWPPP must list BMPs the confractor will use to protect storm water
runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contam a visual monitormg
program, and a chemical moiutormg program for "nonvisible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a
failure of BMPs.
BMPs shall include, but are not Ihnited to:
• Spoils, frash, or any debris remaining at the site after project completion shall be removed and
disposed of at an approved disposal facility.
• No equipment refuelmg areas shall be located at the constiuction site outside of designated areas.
Fueling of constraction equipment shall take place on existing paved roads and not withm or
adjacent to any dramages, wetiands, or native habitats.
48 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
• "Fuelmg zones" shall be designated on constmction maps and qualified biologists shall flag the
Ihnits of the "fuelmg zones." These "fueling zones" shall be located at least 50 feet from all drainage
features and wetlands.
• All stockpiled soil should be stored in 55-gallon drums withm the roadway (nonwetland areas).
• Stockpiles shall not remain on-site for more than 1 week.
b. No Impact. The proposed project involves replacement of a bridge in-place. Mitigation measures
designed to reduce air quality impacts durmg the constraction phase would not jeopardize or conflict
with long-term goals for the SDAB, which is nonattahiment for ozone and PMio. The project was
designed to minhnize biological resources hnpacts. Unavoidable impacts are mitigated consistent the
City of Carlsbad HMP. Any potentially significant cultural resource impacts are mitigated through
monitoring and catalogmg of resources. Water quality impacts from constmction would be reduced to
less than significant via hnplementation ofa SWPPP. Temporary fraffic hnpacts at the hitersection of
Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encmas would be mhigated via resfripmg and signal timmg for the
duration of constmction. The project would not result m any long-term envhonmental impacts.
Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet this Mandatory Findmg of Significance.
c. No Impact. No reasonable foreseeable future projects are known that would combine with the project to
result in a cumulatively significant hnpact. In addition, implementation of the proposed project is not
expected to cumulatively confribute to impacts from potential projects that have not been identified
during this analysis. Per the instmctions for evaluating envhonmental impacts in this smdy, the potential
for adverse cumulative effects was considered m the response to each question of this form. Specifically,
the cumulative effects of GHG emissions were evaluated in Section III. Air Quality. In addition to
project-specific impacts, this evaluation considered the project's potential for incremental effects that are
cumulatively considerable. As a result of this evaluation, there is no substantial evidence that there are
cumulative effects associated with the project. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet
this Mandatory Fmdhig of Significance.
d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. In the evaluation of environmental impacts m
this Initial Smdy, the potential for adverse impacts to humans, either directly or indhectiy, was
considered m responses to questions m Sections I. Aesthetics, Iff. Ah Quality, VI. Geology and Soils,
Vll. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality, IX. Land Use and Planning,
XI. Noise, XII. Population and Housing, XIII. Public Services, XIV. Recreation, XV. Transportation/
Traffic, and XVI. UtUities and Service Systems. As a resuh of this evaluation, there is no evidence that
the constmction or operations of the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse effect on
humans, either dhectly or mdhectiy. The proposed project would replace an existmg, deteriorating
bridge, which has been deemed stmcturally deficient. The project footprint would be smaller than the
existing footprint. The new bridge would make conditions for humans safer. Mitigation measures
designed to reduce constraction related impacts to Transportation/Traffic (both vehicular and bicycle
fraffic) would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, this project has been determined
not to meet this Mandatory Fmding of Sigiuficance.
Mitigation Measure
TRAFFIC-1. At the intersection of Palomar Ahport Road and Avenida Enemas, the City of Carlsbad
shall implement the following improvements:
• Provide dual westbound left-tum lanes
Provide northbound right-tum overlap phasmg
Prohibh westbound to eastbound U-tums on Palomar Airport Road
Modify signal timmg as appropriate due to modified lane designations.
49 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
c. No Impact. The proposed project does not mclude any aviation components. It would not resuh in a
change of air fraffic pattems or resuh m substantial safety risks. Therefore, no hnpact would resuh.
d. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. All project chculation unprovements would
be designed and constmcted to City and Calfrans standards and, therefore, would not result m design
hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zonmg. According to the
Traffic Impact Analysis, bike fraffic would be rerouted via Cannon Road to Avenida Encmas to reduce
bike fraffic on Palomar Airport Road. However, mmimal bike fraffic can be anticipated to contmue on
Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard, where cyclists will fravel with detoured vehicle fraffic to Avenida
Enemas via Palomar Airport Road. Palomar Airport Road is narrow at the approach to Avenida Enemas.
In addhion, along Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encmas there are no designated bike lanes.
Therefore, there is a potential for a temporary significant hnpact to bike fraffic with project
implementation. With the reroutmg of the majority of bike fraffic to Cannon Road and implementation of
mitigation measure TRAFFIC-2, requhmg "share the road" signage, the awareness of motorists would be
enhanced and bicycle safety during constraction would be mcreased. Therefore, impacts are considered
less than significant with mitigation mcorporated.
Mitigation Measure
TRArFIC-2. To enhance the awareness of bicyclists to motorists, "Share the Road" signs would be
posted on Palomar Ahport Road and Avenida Enemas.
e. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency
requhements ofthe Fhe Department and Police Department. During consttuction, all emergency
providers would be given notice of the fraffic detours. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety
Element objectives include maintammg an initial emergency fravel response thne of 5 mmutes, and
maintammg close coordmation between planned unprovements to the chculation system with the City of
Carlsbad and the location of fue stations to ensure adequate levels of service and response times to all
areas ofthe community. The fraffic detour plan has been reviewed by both the Fhe and Police
Departments. Emergency response thnes have the potential to differ from existing with the
implementation ofthe fraffic detour plan. However, with advance coordination with the Fhe and Police
Departments, adequate emergency access would be mamtained. Therefore, impacts are considered less
than significant.
f. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mhigation Incorporated. The proposed project is not
requesting a parkmg variance. Parking is not allowed on tiie bridge deck and replacement ofthe bridge
would not elimmate availability of parkmg post-constraction. Temporary closure of the roadside parking
area dhectly south of Palomar Airport Road and north of Solomar Drive would occur during
constmction, as there will be no access to Carlsbad Boulevard. However, the North Ponto parking lot
would remam open durmg constmction, via a special access plan. Work would be conducted durmg the
non-peak recreational season. However, the loss of 34 parkmg spaces along the coast for a period of 4
months is considered potentially significant. Additional parking capacity is available durmg the non-peak
season withm the dirt parkmg area at the tum-around chcle at Palomar Airport Road. With the
implementation of mitigation measure TRAFFIC-3, signage would be added to dhect drivers to tiiis
temporary parking area. With implementation of mhigation measure TRAFFIC-3, hnpacts are considered
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
TRAFFIC-3. The loss of approximately 34 parking spaces at the roadside parking area north of Solomar
Drive would be mitigated by mstalling temporary recreational parking signs at the dirt lot near the tum-
around chcle at the hitersection of Carisbad Boulevard and Palomar Ahport Road to allow for temporary
parkmg durmg constmction. This lot currently operates as an undesignated parking area for recreational
beach users and can accommodate the addhional temporary parking during the nonpeak season.
50 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008.
1. Fmal Master Envhonmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City
of Carlsbad Plannmg Department. March 1994.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994.
3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, as updated.
4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Plarming
Department, final approval dated November 2004.
Additional Resources Used in the Analysis of This Proiect:
Califomia Air Resources Board (ARB)"
2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf April.
Califomia Department of Conservation (CDC)
2006 San Diego County Important Farmland Map. Califomia Department of Conservation, Division of
Land Resource Protection.
2007 Division of Mines and Geological Special Publication 42 (California Geological Survey).
Available at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghin/ap/Pages/Index.aspx.
Califomia Department of Transportation (Calfrans)
1998 California Historic Bridge Inventory. Available at www.dot.ca.gov.
2007 California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at www.dot.ca.gov.
Califomia Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
2009a State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Natural
Diversity Data Base. January. Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/
cnddb/pdfs/TEPlants.pdf
2009b Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Natural Diversity Data Base. January.
Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPPlants.pdf
2009c Special Animals. Natural Diversity Data Base. January. Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/
biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals, pdf
Califomia Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
2009 Cortese List Data Resources. Available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList'.
Califomia Native Plant Society (CNPS)
2001 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific
Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. Sacramento, Califomia. 388 pp.
51 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
2009 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (onlme edition, v6-05c). Califomia Native
Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on January 20, 2009. Available at
http://www.cnps.org/inventory.
City ofCarlsbad
2009 City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Map. Available at
http://www.carisbadca.gov/planning/gplumpdf7gplu_l 1 xl 7.pdf
EDAW, Inc. (EDAW)
2009a Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project - Biological Report. March.
2009b Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Project - Archaeological Site Check and Literature Review
Update. March.
Federal Register
2006 PM2.5 De Minimis Emission Levels for General Conformity Applicability. July. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2006/July/Day-17/al 1241 .httn.
GeoLogic Associates
2009 Draft Foundations Report. Febmary.
JMR Envhonmental Services
2009 Report of Test. Vehmasy.
Lmscptt Law & Greenspan (LLG)
2009 Traffic Impact Analysis Encinas Creek Bridge. March.
Nolte Associates, Inc.
2009 Las Encinas Creek Bridge Hydraulic Evaluation. Febraary.
Rhnpo and Associates
2008 URBEMIS 2007 for Wmdows. Available at http://www.urbemis.com/.
Salmas, Julio. Staff Toxicologist. Office of Health Hazard Assessment, Sacramento, CA
2004 Telephone conversation with Kurt Legleiter of EDAW regarding exposure period for determining
health risk. August 3.
San Diego County Ah Pollution Confrol Disttict (SDAPCD)
2008 Personal communication by telephone between Carl Selnick, SDAPCD, and James Kurtz, EDAW,
relative to tiie stams oftiie APCD 2007 Ozone SIP. May 30.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Confrol Board (RWQCB)
1994 The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin 9. Available at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs^ashl_plan/index.shtml.
State Water Resources Confrol Board (SWRCB)
2006 Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. Available at wvm.swrcb.ca.gov.
U.C. Davis Institute of Transportation Studies (UCD ITS)
1997 Transportation Project-level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. December. Davis, Califomia.
Zhu, Yifang, W. C. Hmds, S. Kim, and S. Shen
2002 Smdy of Ulfrafme Particles Near a Major Highway with Heavy-duty Diesel Traffic Atmospheric.
52 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
BIO-1. All temporary impact areas shall be replanted with native species prior to completion of the constmction.
Prior to constmction, a revegetation/plantmg plan shall be prepared and approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department to identify appropriate native species and success criteria. Newly seeded areas shall be monitored for
erosion monthly (or more frequently as needed) for a period of 24 months post-constmction or until vegetation has
become established. In addhion, all revegetated areas shall be weeded quarterly for the period of 24 months to
prevent mvasive plant species from dominating the revegetated areas. Mitigation for impacts to habitats shall occur
on-she within or adjacent to the temporary work area and shall be completed at the ratios described in Table 3.
BlO-2. Riprap placement shall be limited to areas where riprap aheady exists. New riprap shall not be placed onto
the beach and shall not extend westerly beyond the existmg riprap area. If grading or riprap placement should result
m the permanent loss of beach, the project will be requhed to compensate for the permanent loss of beach habitat at
a 3:1 mhigation ratio as requhed by the City of Carlsbad HMP.
BIO-3. The confractor(s) shall be mformed, prior to the bridge replacement, about the biological consfraints of the
project. The constmction limhs shall be clearly marked on project maps provided to the confractor(s) and areas
outside of the constmction Ihnits shall be designated as "no constraction" zones.
BIO-4. Mhigation for temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters (including wetlands) shall be detailed in the
revegetation/plantmg plan as described m mitigation measure BIO-1 and shall mclude at a mmhnum 1:1 m-place
restoration after constraction to reestablish jurisdictional areas to conditions and functions at least equal to the
existing quality of the jurisdictional areas impacted. Any temporary work areas shall be decompacted and
recontoured to origmal grade and preactivity condition.
CULT-1. The City of Carlsbad shall retam a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to perform
constmction monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities. In the event that cultural resources are discovered
during constraction activhies, work shall be halted in that area and redirected until the resources are evaluated by a
qualified archaeologist and appropriate data recovery actions are hnplemented if requhed.
CULT-2. In the event of discovery of any human remams, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the
site and the County Coroner shall be contacted. If the Coroner determines that the remams may be those of a Native
American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted and Native American consultation shall be
undertaken to determme appropriate steps to be taken.
HYDRO-1. The City shall prepare and hnplement a SWPPP, consistent with the State Water Resources Confrol
Board (SWRCB) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Constraction Activity (99-08
DWQ) or most current permit at the time of constmction commencement. The SWPPP shall contain a she map(s)
that shows the constmction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection
and discharge pomts, general topography both before and after constmction, and drainage pattems across the
project. The SWPPP must list BMPs the confractor will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those
BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitormg program, and a chemical monitoring program for
"nonvisible" pollutants to be hnplemented if there is a failure of BMPs.
BMPs shall mclude, but are not limited to:
• Spoils, frash, or any debris remammg at the she after project completion shall be removed and disposed of at an
approved disposal facility.
• No equipment refueling areas shall be located at the constraction site outside of designated areas. Fueling of
constraction equipment shall take place on existmg paved roads and not within or adjacent to any dramages,
wetlands, or native habitats.
• "Fuelmg zones" shall be designated on constmction maps and qualified biologists shall flag the limits of the
"fueling zones." These "fueling zones" shall be located at least 50 feet from all dramage features and wetlands.
• All stockpiled soil should be stored m 55-gallon drums withm the roadway (nonwetland areas).
53 Rev. 11/17/08
07080213
Enemas Creek Bridge Replacement
Stockpiles shall not remain on-site for more than 1 week.
H"VDRO-2. The conttactor shall monhor the constraction site durmg all storm events to ensure that water damming
does not reach volumes that could cause a risk to consttuction workers or recreational beach users from dam failure
and subsequent flooding. Diversion mechanisms shall be of adequate capacity to pump water durmg storm events,
and back-up diversion pumpmg shall be readily available m the event of equipment malfunction.
TRAFFIC-1. At the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encmas, the City of Carisbad shall
implement the following improvements:
• Provide dual westbound left-tum lanes
• Provide northbound right-tum overlap phasmg
• Prohibit westbound to eastbound U-tums on Palomar Ahport Road
• Modify signal timhig as appropriate due to modified lane designations.
TRArFIC-2. To enhance the awareness of bicyclists to motorists, "Share the Road" signs would be posted on
Palomar Ahport Road and Avenida Encmas.
TRAFFIC-3. The loss of approximately 34 parking spaces at the roadside parkmg area north of SOlomar Drive
would be mitigated by installmg temporary recreational parkmg signs at the dht lot near tiie tum-around chcle at the
intersection ofCarlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road to allow for temporary parkmg durmg constmction.
This lot currently operates as an undesignated parkmg area for recreational beach users and can accommodate the
additional temporary parking during the nonpeak season.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR
WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signamre
54 Rev. 11/17/08
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS
Page: 1
3/18/2009 04:49:21 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Summary Report for Annual Emissions (TonsA'ear)
File Name; C:\Work\Projects\Encinas CreekVEncinas Creek Bridge Replacement.urb924
Project Name: Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Project Location: Orange County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PMIO Exhaust PMIO PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 C02
2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.10 0.82 0.40 O.oo 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.04 o.06 89.41
Page: 1
3/18/2009 04:49:35 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Detail Report for Annual Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Tons/Year)
File Name: C:\Work\Projects\Encinas Creek\Enclnas Creek Bridge Replacement.urb924
Project Name: Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Project Location: Orange County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated)
ROG NOx CO $02 PMIO Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2,5 Exhaust PM2,5 Total C02
2010 0.10 0.82 0.40 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.13 0,02 0,04 0,06 89,41
Demolition 01/03/2010-01/16/2010 0.02 0.21 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0,00 0,01 0,01 27,50
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Demo Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.21 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0,01 0,01 25,44
Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,35
Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 1,71
Fine Grading 01/17/2010-01/23/2010 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0,02 0,00 0.02 6,64
Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0,02 0,00 0,02 0.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 5.62
Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,71
Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,31
Building 01/24/2010-02/27/2010 0.07 0.51 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0,03 0,00 0,03 0,03 52,22
Building Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.50 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0,00 0,03 0,03 51,17
Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,65
Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,39
Asphalt 02/28/2010-03/06/2010 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,06
Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00
Paving Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 2.45
Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.06
Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,54
Phase Assumptions
Phase: Demolition 1/3/2010 - 1/16/2010 - Default Demolition Description
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 11880
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 1188
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 16,5
Off-Road Equipment:
2 Air Compressors (106 hp) operating at a 0.48 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Bore/Drill Rigs (291 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day
Page; 1
3/18/2009 04:49:35 PM
2 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Fine Grading 1/17/2010 -1/23/2010 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 1.5
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.5
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
20 lbs per acre-day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 66.67
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Paving 2/28/2010 - 3/6/2010 - Type Your Description Here
Acres to be Paved: 0.1
Off-Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0,56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0,55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 1/24/2010 - 2/27/2010 - Default Building Construction Description
Off-Road Equipment;
2 Aerial Lifts (60 hp) operating at a 0,46 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Air Compressors (106 hp) operating at a 0,48 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0,43 load factor for 4 hours per day
2 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0,62 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Pumps (53 hp) operating at a 0,74 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Rough Terrain Forklifts (93 hp) operating at a 0.6 load factor for 8 hours per day
2 Signal Boards (15 hp) operating at a 0.78 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day