HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project; Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project Environ Assess; 1996-03-01c
c
E
E
C
E
E
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CARLSBAD SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED BY
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
|99(o
m
s
te.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SHORELINE PROTECTION MEASURES AT
CARLSBAD/ SAN DIEGO COUNTY/ CALIFORNIA
I have reviewed the attached Environmental Assessment (EA)
H prepared for the Carlsbad Shoreline Project. The proposed
|l project has been designed to provide additional protection to the
shoreline and neighboring infrastructure (i.e. Carlsbad
_ Boulevard) between the inlet and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda
B Lagoon. The proposed project consists of constructing a seawall
• between the jetties and placing additional rock on the existing
northern revetment. Project construction is expected to occur
p between September 1996 and mid-March 1997 and will take between
j|i 150 and 180 days.
p The proposed project actions have been determined to be
L similar to other actions previously proposed for this section of
^ coast, as permitted under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1976, as amended. Therefore, a Negative Determination has
** been submitted in lieu of a Consistency Determination to the
iw California Coastal Commission for project concurrence.
Project impacts on marine resources will be adverse, but not
significant. No federally-listed species will be affected by
project implementation. Therefore, formal Section 7 consultation
is not required pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1969,
as amended.
Short-term adverse air impacts will occur during project
p» construction; these impacts will not be significant. Activities
^ will be in compliance with the San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District policies as well as in Conformity with Section
^ 176(c)(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended.
^* Other short-term impacts may include decreases in water
quality, increases in noise pollution, and increases in traffic.
** These impacts will be temporary and not significant. Aesthetic
lp impacts will cause both short and long term impacts. Short term
impacts will be adverse, but not significant. To minimize long
p term impacts, the City will appropriately decorate the seawall
^ following construction and apply a graffiti proof treatment to
maintain its integrity.
Iff A letter has been sent to the State Historic Preservation
If Officer transmitting the Corps' effect determination on National
Register or eligible properties. As no National Register listed
H or eligible properties are present, no cultural resource impacts
|| are expected. All project coordination with respect to Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800) will
be completed prior to construction.
™
to
-2-
I have considered the available information contained in this
EA, and have determined the proposed project (Alternative 2) is
the environmentally preferred plan. It will have relatively few
adverse effects on the environment. In addition, the beneficial
impacts and increased safety and shore protection will outweigh
the identified short-term adverse affects. It is my
determination that impacts resulting from the implementation of
the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect
upon the existing environment or the quality of the human
environment; therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is not required.
DATE Michal R. Robinson
Colonel, Corps of Engineers m
District Engineer
m
m
m
E
:TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Proposed Project 1-1
1.2 Environmental Assessment Process 1-1
1.3 Relationship to Environmental Protection
Statutes 1-1
SECTION 2
2. History and Purpose
2.1 Description of Project Area and Background
History 2-1
2.2 Study Authority/Federal Interest 2-1
2.3 Purpose and Need 2-2
SECTION 3
3. Project Alternatives
3.1 Project Criteria 3-1
3.2 Alternatives Considered 3-1
3.3 Project Description 3-2
3.3.1 Methods and Staging Requirements 3-2
3.3.2 Notifications and Requirements 3-3
3.3.3 Project Duration and Timing 3-3
SECTION 4
4. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects
4.1 Oceanography 4-1
4.1.1 Affected Environment 4-1
4.1.1.1 Bathymetry 4-1
4.1.1.2 Geology 4-1
4.1.1.3 Tides and Sea Level 4-1
4.1.1.4 Currents. 4-3
4.1.1.5 Cross Shore Currents 4-4
4.1.1.6 Sediment Sources and Sinks 4-4
4.1.1.7 Historic Shoreline Changes 4-4
4.1.1.8 Sediment Budget 4-4
4.1.1.9 Water Quality 4-4
4.1.2 Environmental Consequences 4-6
4.1.2.1 Criteria 4-6
4.1.2.2 Alternative 1 4-6
4.1.2.3 Alternative 2 4-8
4.1.2.4 No Action 4-8
4.2 Marine Resources 4-8
4.2.1 Affected Environment 4-8
4.2.1.1 Vegetation & Wildlife 4-8
4.2.1.2 Other Threatened, Endangered,
and Sensitive Species 4-10
4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 4-16
4.2.2.1 Criteria 4-16
4.2.2.2 Alternative 1 4-16
4.2.2.3 Alternative 2 4-19
4.3 Noise 4-19
4.3.1 Affected Environment 4-19
4.3.2 Environmental Consequences 4-19
4.3.2.1 Criteria 4-19
4.3.2.2 Alternative 1 4-20
4.3.2.3 Alternative 2 4-21
4.4 Air Quality 4-21
4.4.1 Affected Environment 4-21
4.4.1.1 Climate and Meteorology 4-21
4.4.1.2 Existing Air Quality 4-22
4.4.2 Environmental Consequences 4-22
4.4.2.1 Criteria 4-22
4.4.2.2 Alternative 1 4-25
4.4.2.3 Alternative 2 4-26
4.5 Land and Recreation Uses 4-26
4.5.1 Affected Environment 4-26
4.5.2 Environmental Consequences 4-26
4.5.2.1 Criteria 4-26
4.5.2.2 Alternative 1 4-26
4.5.2.3 Alternative 2 4-27
4.5.2.4 No Action 4-27
4.6 Ground Transportation 4-27
4.6.1 Affected Environment 4-27
4.6.2 Environmental Consequences 4-27
4.6.2.1 Criteria 4-27
4.6.2.2 Alternative 1 4-28
4.6.2.3 Alternative 2 4-28
4.6.2.4 No Action 4-29
4.7 Public and System Safety 4-29
4.7.1 Affected Environment 4-29
4.7.2 Environmental Consequences 4-29
4.7.2.1 Criteria 4-29
4.7.2.2 Alternative 1 4-29
4.7.2.3 Alternative 2 4-30
4.7.2.4 No Action Alternative 4-30
4.8 Aesthetics 4-30
4.8.1 Affected Environment 4-30
4.8.2 Environmental Consequences 4-30
4.8.2.1 Criteria 4-30
4.8.2.2 Alternative 1 4-31
4.8.2.3 Alternative 2 4-31
4.9 Cultural Resources 4-31
4.9.1 Affected Environment 4-31
4.9.2 Environmental Consequences 4-32
4.10 Summary of Environmental Compliance... 4-32
4.11 Project Summary 4-33
SECTION 5
5. Prepares/Reviewers 5-1
SECTION 6
6. Acronyms 6-1
SECTION 7
7. References 7-1
p
m
li
P
P
to
I
I
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.3-1 Summary of Environmental Compliance 1-3
Table 4.1-1 Study Site Extreme Wave Height Over 100 Years.. 4-3
Table 4.1-2 Study Site Water Quality Data 4-6
Table 4.2-1 Federally Listed Species 4-11
Table 4.2-2 Special Status Species 4-14
Table 4.4-1 Del Mar, San Diego Air Quality Monitoring
Summary 4-23
Table 4.4-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) 4-24
Table 4.4-3 San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Threshold Levels with Projected
Construction Emission Levels 4-25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1-1 Study Area 1-2
Figure 2.1-la Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad, California. 2-3
Figure 2.1-lb Carlsbad Study Area 2-4
Figure 2.1-2 Detailed Project Area for Reach 3 2-5
Figure 3.2-1 Alternative 1 3-4
Figure 3.2-2 Alternative 2 3-5
Figure 3.2-3 Alternative 3 3-6
Figure 3.2-4 Detailed Project Designs for Seawall
Construction 3-7
Figure 3.2-5 Carlsbad - Study Area 3-8
Figure 4.1-1 Oceanside Littoral Zone 4-2
Figure 4.1-2 Map of Study Site of Bathymetry 4-5
Figure 4.1-3 Schematic Profile of Carlsbad - Reach 3 4-7
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Pi
in
pt
I
APPENDICES
Consultation Letters
404 (b) (1) Evaluation
California Coastal Commission Request for Negative
Determination
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Reports
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
i
e
I
I
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Los Angeles District,
proposes to provide additional storm damage protection to
approximately 3,000-feet of shoreline between the inlet and
outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon adjacent to Carlsbad
Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California.
The project area is identified on Figure l.l-l.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
This Environmental Assessment (EA) shall address potential
• impacts associated with implementing discretionary actions as
|l they relate to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
(Corps), policies and those of other entities.
£The Corps is the Lead Agency for this project. This EA is in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, as amended. The NEPA requires federal
S agencies to consider environmental effects of their actions.
When those actions significantly affect the quality of the human
environment, an agency must prepare environmental documentation
P» that provides full and fair discussion of impacts.
*" The EA process follows a series of prescribed steps. The first,
scoping, has been completed with purpose to solicit comments from
f* other federal and state agencies as well as the general public.
4* The EA is then sent out for a 30-day public review period, during
which written and verbal comments on its adequacy will be
C received. The fourth step requires preparation of a Final EA
(FEA) that incorporates and responds to comments received. The
FEA will be furnished to all who commented on the Draft and made
available at request. The final step is preparation of a Finding
j of No Significant Impact, a concise summary of the decision made
t* by the Corps from among the alternatives presented in the FEA.
JH 1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTES
_ The Corps is required to comply with all pertinent federal and
p state policies; project compliance is summarized in Table 1.3-1.
E
i
l-l
BEST ORIGINAL
1-2
mm n mm
Table 1.3-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Statute
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, as amended
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508) dated 1 July 1986
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 740B
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 403
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Consistency Regulations (15 CFR 930)
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq
California Coastal Act of 1976
Joint Regulations (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior and
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department
of Commerce); Endangered Species Committee Regulations, 50 CFR 402 Interagency Cooperation
Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, as amended
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661-666c
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703-711
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1413
Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm
National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 and 36 CFR 800: Protection of Historic
Properties
Executive Order 1 1593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 13, 1971
Status of Compliance
The EA will be completed and submitted for public review. Upon review of the Final
EA, the District Engineer will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact or require
preparation of an EIS & a ROD will be issued for this project.
Compliance with San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Standards.
A permit to construct will be obtained by contractor.
Environmental Protection Agency concurrence prior to construction for Sections 401
and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act.
Negative Determination will be obtained by the Corps for concurrence prior to
construction.
Consultation is underway with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service, & California Department of Fish & Game.
The proposed project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. A letter has been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) with a determination that this project will not involve National Register
eligible or listed properties. The Los Angeles District is currently awaiting SHPO
concurrence.
I
1
SECTION 2 - HISTORY AND PURPOSE
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA AND BACKGROUND HISTORY
The general project area is located 90 miles south of Los Angeles
along the San Diego County coastline between Buena Vista Lagoon
and Batiquitos Lagoon. It includes approximately seven miles of
coast. Figure 2.1-1(a) depicts the overall project area.
I In January 1994, the Corps prepared the "Pacific Coast Shoreline
Reconnaissance Report" to evaluate shoreline conditions between
Buena Vista Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon. To assess the overall
conditions of the project area, the coast was divided into five8(5) reaches: Reach 1 included the coastal area between the
northern city limit line of Oceanside and the city-installed
seawall located south of Oak Avenue; Reach 2, the seawall and the
8 Tamarack Street parking lot; Reach 3, the parking lot and the
northern boundary of the Terramar housing development; Reach 4,
the Terramar housing development; and Reach 5, the South Carlsbad
_ State Beach (Figure 2.1-l(b)). The Reconnaissance Report
B concluded that a portion of Reach 3, between the inlet and outlet
•* jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, needs immediate shoreline
protection. This stretch of shoreline averages a beach width
P typically between 150 and 200 feet. The beach is covered with
40 one to six-inch diameter cobbles covered by a thin layer of sand.
During the summer, sand averages between one and three feet in
•p* thickness. During winter, sand is naturally transported
: offshore. During this time, winter storm waves have periodically
^ overtopped and washed-out portions of Carlsbad Boulevard,
resulting in road closures and costly repairs. Figure 2.1-2
f* identifies the specific project area recommended for additional
%i storm damage protection.
P^ 2.2 STUDY AUTHORITY/FEDERAL INTEREST
^ The federal authority for providing shoreline protection between
i Buena Vista Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon is found under Section
I* 110 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, which was adopted by
resolution of the House of Public Works and Transportation
m Committee on March 15, 1988. The "Pacific Coast Shoreline
H Reconnaissance Report" was prepared by the Corps in 1994 to
assess the overall shoreline conditions under severe storm
conditions and determine if federal interest is warranted in
B providing additional beach, shoreline, and/or protection to other
•* public facilities. The Reconnaissance Report analyzed different
storm events with and without project conditions, assessedBpotential damages to shoreline facilities, determined economic
justification, and provided a benefit analysis for project
alternatives. This report substantiated federal interest in
§providing shoreline protection along 3,000-feet of shoreline
adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard in Carlsbad (Figure 2.1-2).
2-1
Following the presentation of the report conclusions, the City of
Carlsbad requested the Corps to consider providing additional
protection to the shoreline near Carlsbad Boulevard under the
Corps' Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), Section 103 (Beach
Erosion) of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (PL 87-874), as
amended (request letter enclosed in Appendix A).
2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED
Federal authority directs the Chief of Engineers (CoE) to
initiate studies to assess potential shoreline solutions that
increase storm damage protection along the Carlsbad coast, where
warranted. The Corps' Reconnaissance Report (1994) concluded
that federal interest warrants further study of alternatives to
immediately increase storm damage protection along the Carlsbad
Boulevard shoreline between the inlet and outlet jetties of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon.
2-2
in mm
to
00
IFIC COAST SHORELINE, CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon
Figure 2.1-lb
CARLSBAD STUDY AREA
Northern City B
700 ft north of Cannon Rd.
400 ft north of Cerezo Or.
2-4
I
I
1
i
Figure 2.1-2
Detailed Project Area for Reach 3
rL
r»u
f»
L
C
c
01ll
PROJECT AREA
POSSIBLE
STAGING AREAS
Lar1sbad
2-5
II
I
1
1
I
I
•t
L
SECTION 3 - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3.1 PROJECT CRITERIA
The project goal is to provide additional storm damage protection
along the shoreline between the inlet and outlet jetties of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard. To accomplish
this goal, Corps engineers and planners have established the
evaluation criteria, including: federal economic justification,
technical feasibility and effectiveness for providing shoreline
storm damage protection, local and public acceptability, and
potential environmental impacts.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The following alternatives have been proposed to accomplish the
goal of increasing storm damage protection along Carlsbad
Boulevard: Seawalls & Revetments, T-Groin with Beachfill, and/or
No Action.
Alternative 1: A 3,112-foot long seawall will be
constructed and the revetment will be repaired to provide the
additional storm damage and shoreline protection. Under this
alternative, the seawall will be placed adjacent to the existing
sidewalk to an elevation of about 20 feet above mean lower low
water (MLLW). The seawall will protrude about 42 inches above
the ground level and consist of a 30-foot steel sheet piling with
a reinforced concrete cap. The seaward side of the sheet pile
wall will be reinforced with two layers of 1,500-pound stone,
underlain by a 6 inch thick quarry run. Approximately 9,750 tons
of additional rock will also be set on the existing 400-foot
revetment located immediately south of the north jetty, as
depicted on Figure 3.2-1. This alternative is the locally
preferred plan and was approved by the California Coastal
Commission on 15 November 94.
Alternative 2: Under this option, a 2,504-foot long seawall
will be constructed and the revetment will be repaired similarly
to that described above. These structures are identified on
Figure 3.2-2 and also recommended for further analysis.
Alternative 3: A T-groin with beachfill is also proposed to
provide additional storm damage and shoreline protection. Under
this scenario, a 350-foot long T-groin will be laid as depicted
on Figure 3.2-3. The T-shaped end will be about 200-feet in
length. The beachfill will cover about 2,700 feet of beach and
will be placed between 10 feet above MLLW and 10 feet below MLLW.
The proposed beach berm will be about 200 feet in width. Figure
3.2-3 also delineates the footprint of the beachfill.
Preliminary analyses indicate that short-term project impacts
3-1
will include oceanographic (water-quality) and biological
disturbances. Long-term impacts will include the loss of soft-
bottom inter- and sub-tidal habitat; possibly, rocky-bottom with
established kelp beds; and may also include shoreline changes.
As beach nourishment will likely be required over the long-term,
additional oceanographic, biological and other impacts (i.e. air
and noise) will be created with each nourishment event. Since
the fill will create more beach and the groin may provide
additional fishing habitat, the groin may also pose navigation
hazards for boaters and safety hazards for beach recreationists
(i.e. surfers and swimmers). This alternative is eliminated from
further consideration based on engineering constraints,
environmental considerations, acceptability, and economic
limitations.
No Action. The No Action will not result in any
rehabilitative work. For planning purposes, it is assumed that
the shoreline will continue to erode. Over the long term, storm
damage will be more susceptible and may result in additional
property damage, repair costs, and safety concerns.
3.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As discussed, the Seawall Alternatives presented above will be
analyzed in more detail with the No Action.
The Seawall Alternatives will provide required protection as well
as site access. Approximately five recessed breaks will be
placed between the seawall to allow beach access every 300 feet
via vehicle access ramps and pedestrian stairways. When
completed, the City will be decorate the seawall with approved
art designs to add visual interest. To minimize vandalism, wall
designs will be covered with graffiti proof treatment.
Following is a more detailed project description for each of the
proposed alternatives, including general construction practices
and timing.
3.3.1 Methods and Staging Requirements
Construction materials can be acquired from many sites and will
occur from land. Rock will likely be acquired from local
quarries. Construction will require use of heavy equipment and
manpower to operate it. This equipment will likely include
graders, bulldozers, trucks, a pile driver, and a crane.
To implement either alternative, the site will be prepared for
placement of the sheet metal, which may involve some site
grading. Then, sheet metal will be placed with pile drivers.
Following, the site will be prepared for placement of the re-
3-2
it
m
• inforcement rock. While rock is being hauled to the site, the
site will be graded to the appropriate levels, as identified on
S Figure 3.2-4. (Ground cover (i.e. beach/cobble layer) will be
stored in the project area or on another approved site.) The
rock will be placed seaward of the seawall by crane and recovered
S with the previously removed sand-cobble layer. The existing
revetment will also be reset. Roughly 9,750 tons of additional
rock will be placed on it. This procedure is expected to require
a crew of 10 or less. The operation will use about 0.3 acre of
H beach for staging, used primarily for crew assembly and
f§ secondarily for some equipment storage. Two potential staging
areas are identified on Figure 2.1-2. Working areas will be
barricaded to prevent public access to the site.
I Although the seawall will be placed on the higher elevations of
the beach, work areas may temporarily extend down to mean sea
H level (Figure 3.2-5).
p 3.3.2 Notifications and Requirements
Prior to construction, the Corps/contractor will provide a
1-month notification of the planned activities to the appropriate
IP agencies and post information bulletins of scheduled work time
II and areas at local mariner offices.
P* Project areas and equipment will be appropriately marked and
^ lighted.
All construction materials will meet or exceed Corps standards.
3.3.3 Project Duration and Timing
! Construction is scheduled to occur between September 1996, and
mid-March 1997.
f* If Alternative 1 is implemented, about 180 days will be required
m for the construction window. It is estimated that sheet pile
(i.e. pile driving) operations will take 110 days. Rock haul is
m projected at about 35 days. (It is assumed that 740 total rock
^ haul trips will be required, with approximately 21 trips per
day). Rock placement is anticipated at 70 days.
B lf Alternative 2 is implemented, roughly 150 days will be
required for construction. It is estimated that sheet pile (i.e.
pile driving) operations will take 85 days; rock haul, 30 days;
• and rock placement, 60 days.
3-3m
M
Figure 3.2-1
Alternative 1
Revetment
work area
c
3-4
I
I
I
8
1
L
f
L
I*
P
*>
P
Figure 3.2-2
Alternative 2
c
C
3-5
Figure 3.2-3
Alternative 3
e 4M eea izee
Carlsbad
3-6
1
Figure 3.2-4
Detailed Project Designs for Seawall Construction
i Present Limit
of Sidewalk
Existing
Curb and Gutter
Elevation Varies
Slope 1%
II
i
f»
L
C
T
lk»
P
New 4" Slab on Grade
to Complete Sidewalk
Reinf Cone Cap
Undisturbed Soil
Use 30' Long Sheet Piling
Bethlehem steel PLZ-23 or
Syrd Steel SPZ-23 or
Approved Equal
Two (2) Layer of
1.500 pound Stone
Approx 4 ft Thick
Filter Cloth Wrap
4' at Each End
+5.75'
6 inch Thick Quarry Run
Material Underlain by
Filter Fabric
-17
3-7
Figire 3.2-5
Elevation (ft-MLLW)
E
n
Mi
3-8
§
SECTION 4 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This section defines the project area by establishing an
inventory of baseline resources, including physical, natural, and
sociological characteristics. The environmental consequences are
m presented for the Seawall Alternatives (Section 3.3) as well as
3 the No Action if conditions are expected to change from the
• existing. The assessment is based on significance criteria
consistent with other NEPA documents. If analyses indicate that
S significant impacts may occur, then mitigation is proposed to
reduce the level to insignificance.
1 4.1 OCEANOGRAPHY
4.1.1 Affected Environmentm
Ijt 4.1.1.1 Bathymetry
I The deep water topography of the Carlsbad area is shown on Figure
4.1-1. The study site is located on the central portion of the
Oceanside littoral cell bounded by Dana Point and Point LaJolla.
The bottom contours for this region are gently sloping and
f uniform. There is a submarine canyon, located at the 100 foot
isobath, approximately 200 feet offshore of the project area,
that provides terrain for strong deep water currents.
f
*l 4.1.1.2 Geology
^* The mean grain size of material on the shoreline varies from 0.15
tw to 0.44 mm (fine to medium sand). The grain sizes shift from
smaller to larger sizes as seasons pass from summer to winter -
*» this is attributable to increased wave energy attacking beaches
, during winter storms. Bedrock at the study site is located at
6.25 feet below MLLW, underlying silty sand (Corps, 1993).
** 4.1.1.3 Tides and Sea Level
p The study site is largely protected from deep ocean waves by the
^ Channel Islands. Deep water waves can approach the Carlsbad area
through three wave windows. These windows are represented by
Figure 4.1-1. There is a southerly window between the coast of
r~ southern California and San Clemente Island, a westerly window
• between San Clemente Island and Santa Catalina Island, and a
northerly window between the coastline of southern California and
• Santa Catalina Island.
i
The extreme wave height data are presented in Table 4.1-1. As
shown in the table, extreme wave heights increase from 10 feet
(at one year frequency) to almost 16 feet (25 year frequency).
M 4-1c
SCALE IN MILES
SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS
I18°4(r 1«8"30-
I
/ '. I I18°20- \ \ 1 • 11B°10-/ _ V A I i J J:: L_
Figure 4 .1-1 Oceanside Littoral zone
4-2
E
Table 4.1-1 Study Site Extreme Wave Height Over 100 Years
I
I
I
3
I
p
p
Return Period (years)
1
10
25
50
100
Significant Wave Height
MLLW
(feet)
10.0
13.5
15.9
17.9
20.0
Tides along the study area are of the mixed semi-diurnal type,
consisting of two high and two low tides per day, whose
magnitudes range from about 4.5 feet during mean high water (MHW)
to less than a foot for mean low water (MLW).
As a part of the Corps Reconnassance Study in 1994, the NOAA
collected 7 months of data for the study site, and 18 years of
measurements at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The MHW average for the
site is 5.37 feet, while the MLW average was determined to be
0.93 feet. The Mean Sea Level was estimated to be 2.75 feet.
The yearly mean sea level data at San Diego has been rising 0.7
feet per century (Flick and Canan, 1984). If current trends
persist, then a sea level rise of 0.2 feet over the next 25 years
can be expected. During El Nino episodes, the average sea level
can increase another 0.2 feet. Storm surges can pose serious
problems with local beach damage, especially when storms occur in
succession.
4.1.1.4 Currents
The offshore currents consist of longshore currents; these
currents affect the mean seasonal circulation of the local water
system. Long shore currents are driven by waves striking the
shoreline obliquely. Typical summer swell conditions produce
northerly drift currents, while the large winter storms produce
southerly currents. According to a previous study by the Corps
for Carlsbad (1994), the strength of the southerly drift during
major storm events results in a net southerly longshore
transport. The mean velocity of these currents are from 5 cm per
second to 40 cm per second. Following storms, the peak velocity
may rise as much as 20 cm per second.
P!M
t
4-3
4.1.1.5 Cross Shore Currents
Cross shore currents exist throughout the study area, especially
during high surf. No quantitative information is available on
these currents, or their effects on sediment transport.
4.1.1.6 Sediment Sources and Sinks
According to the Carlsbad Reconnaissance Study (Corps, 1994),
there are a variety of sources which supply sediment into the
littoral zone. For the study site, near shore currents provide a
significant portion of reworked offshore sediment.
As previously mentioned, there is an offshore submarine canyon
located offshore of the project area which acts a local sediment
sink.
4.1.1.7 Historic Shoreline Changes
In 1946, the Carlsbad shoreline was documented to positioned 100
feet seaward reletive to its present location.
The shoreline erosion rates for the study site are estimated at 1
foot per year. This assumption is based upon the finding of the
Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study (Corps, 1986).
4.1.1.8 Sediment Budget
Net southerly long shore transport is estimated to be 270,000
cubic yards per year (Corps, 1994). This rate is assumed to be
uniform with respect to the entire Carlsbad littoral zone.
4.1.1.9 oWater Quality
Table 4.1-2 presents maximum transmissivity of the water present
in the study site. Measurements indicate that the water has a
high transmissivity, which is an indicator that the concentration
of suspended matter in the study site is very low. These data
were obtained from the state of CA Water Quality Control Regional
Board. In addition, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and fecal
coliform count are all within expected water quality standards.
These data were obtained from a variety of sample site locations
Figure 4.1-2).
4-4
Figure 4.1-2
i
i
} KeHpBeds
Trawl Station
• Surfzone Station
Nearshore Station
Station
Ed-Boundary Station
A Gradient Station
A Reference Station
SOUNDINGS IN FEET
SCALE: r : 2000"
4-5
Table 4.1-2
STATION
GI
Zl
Z2
G2
Rl
DEPTH
(m)
33.0
33.0
33.0
27.0
24.0
TEMP
<°C)
12.52
12.59
12.49
12.65
12.59
SALINITY
(PPt)
33.46
33.45
33.45
33.45
33.46
TRANSMIS
-SIVITY
(%)
86.90
86.20
85.90
86.60
88.5
PH
7.85
7.85
7.83
7.85
7.84
DISS.
OXYGEN
(mg/L)
5.2
5.1
5.0
5.2
5.1
4.1.2 Environmental Consequences
4.1.2.1 Criteria
Oceanographic impacts will be considered significant if:
sediments are unstable and/or subject to ground shaking or
settlement; oceanographic processes are altered to the extent
that there is an increase in the risk of property damage and
hazard to public safety; there is a change in oceanographic
parameters which decreases recreational use of the beach and/or
ocean; water guality criteria in the California Ocean Plan are
violated as a result of project operations; or the project causes
raises pollutant concentrations to levels that have been
documented to have negative biological effects.
4.1.2.2 Alternative 1
The construction site is located at 11 feet above MLLW. Mean High
Water will occur at a plus 5.05 feet. This means the study site
will be between mean sea level (3 feet above MLLW) and 6 feet
above MSL (8 feet above MLLW) or about 15 feet above MHW (Corps,
1995). Eight feet above MLLW corresponds to the area within the
supra-tidal zone (Figure 4.4-3). In otherwords, the construction
site will be 15 feet beyond the farthest point that water will
encroach upon the supra tidal zone and will occur primarily above
the MLLW line.
Oceanographic impacts are expected to be minimal. Oceanographic
processes are not expected to be significantly interrupted by
temporary construction (i.e., equipment) impacts. Although it is
not expected, equipment may push some sediments into the water
column by maneuvering tactics. These sediments will not
significantly alter nearshore, cross, or longshore current
*w
E
4-6
r*i mm ri r i t i ri i i
us
(0
*>
iU)
C/)o
IT(D
3Q)r*_f5'
-o-nO*4«
5"
o^
o
Q]-^
wcrQ)
Q.
DO(Dtoo
IT
CO
Construction Area
Carlsbad Blvd. *I6JB'MLLW
Hard Pan -6J'MLLW ,MHHW Level
300
Horizontal Distance (ft)
patterns. Sediments may cause temporary turbidity impacts on
water quality. These impacts are expected to be negligible
(Section 4.2.2.2) .
No significant adverse oceanographic impacts are expected.
4.1.2.3 Alternative 2
The distance between construction of the seawall and the location
of MHW are similar to those discussed in Alternative 1. Shoreline
and water quality impacts will be similar to those described
above. Overall impact potential will be less under this
alternative, because the time frame for construction is estimated
to be 30 days less than that for Alternative 1.
No significant adverse oceanographic impacts are expected.
4.1.2.4 No Action
Without the proposed changes, significant shoreline erosion may
occur over the next few years. Erosion is projected at about 1
foot per year and may impact existing shoreline facilities within
the next 5 years.
Water quality will not be altered because the release of thermal
water in deeper water will decrease the concentrations of cations
in the sea water, increase the pH, increase the biological oxygen
demand (BOD), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the system.
4.2 MARINE RESOURCES
4.2.1 Affected Environment
4.2.1.1 Vegetation & Wildlife
The primary environment includes supra-tidal beach areas
neighboring Carlsbad Boulevard. Secondary environs include the
existing rocky supra-tidal and sandy inter-tidal habitats. The
tertiary environment includes the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Beach Associated Community
The supra-tidal beach is void of vegetation. Characteristic
sandy beach organisms are expected to include sand crabs (Emerita
analoga), bloodworms (Euzonus mucronata), and beach hoppers
(Orchestoidea sp.).
The supra-tidal rocky habitat includes the existing revetment
near the north jetty; this habitat is also barren of marine
vegetation. It is likely to support niches for different
invertebrates, including crustaceans.
4-8
i
0
I
i
The inter- and sub-tidal areas likely consist of unconsolidated
sediments. If vegetation is present, it is likely to include sea
pansy (Renilla kollikeri) at shallower depths less than 20 feet,
and sea pen (Stylatul elongata) at the greater depths than 30
feet. If rocky substrate exists, it is likely to support
different kelp species.
The nearshore sandy areas are expected to support a common sand
bottom community, including bean clams (Donax gouldi),
polychaetes (Apoprionospio pygmaeus and Nemertea sp.) and
amphipods (Mandibulophoxus uncirostratus).
The water column supports planktonic organisms, which drift with
the currents and include phytoplankton (primary producers) and
zooplankton (animal component). Many species, including many of
the invertebrates and fishes important to fisheries, spend the
early stages of their life histories in the plankton. Planktonic
communities are generally characterized by patchiness in
distribution, composition, and abundance.
H Common sandy fishes are likely to include thornback rays
(Platyrhinoides triseriata) lizard fish, (Synodus lucioceps),
' speckled sanddab (citharichthys stigmaeus), northern anchovy
M (Engraulis mordax), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), and
• walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum). Between March and
September, grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) may also use the nearby
§beaches for spawning. These schooling fishes, which are members
of the silversides family (Atherinidae), lay and bury their eggs
on sandy beaches during nighttime spring tides with eggs hatching
on the following spring tide. Peak grunion spawning activity
I occurs between April and June.
t.
If rocky habitat is present, common rocky fishes may include:
f"* Garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus) , sargo (Anisotremus davidsonii) ,
^ opaleye (Girella nigricans), black perch (Embiotoca jacksoni),
rock wrasse (Halichoeres semicinctus), seniorita (Oxyjulis
p, californica), half moons (Medialuna californiensis) and kelp bass
! (Paralabrax clathratus).
California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and harbor seals
?"* (Phoca vitulina) are also likely to be seen offshore. Several
40 species of whales, dolphins and porpoises are also found
offshore. The California gray whale (Escherichtius robustus)
«, spends its summers in the Bering and Chukchi Seas and calves in
the lagoons of Baja, California. The gray whale is occasionally
** observed offcoast during its seasonal migrations. The whales
travel south between the last week in November and the first week
P in January, and they travel north between the second week of
Id January and the first v/eek of May (Dohl et al. 1981). Immature
gray whales may not complete the entire migration and there is
P evidence suggesting that resident populations may exist in
il' southern California. Gray whales have a low probability of
occurring within the project area.
c
c 4-9
The project area supports loafing, foraging, and roosting for a
variety of shorebirds and waterfowl. Brown pelicans (Pelecanus
occidentalis californicus), gulls (Larus sp.), ruddy and black
turnstones (Arenaria interpres and A. melanocephalaf black
oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani), and wandering tattlers
(Heteroscelus incanus) may use the jetties for loafing. The
California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) may forage in
the harbor waters. A variety of shorebirds are expected to use
the sandy-cobble beaches, including the long billed curlew
(Numenius americanus), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus),
black-bellied plover (Pluvialis dominica), whimbrel (Numenius
phaeopus), marbeled godwit (Limosa fedoa), sanderling (Calidris
alba), and western sandpiper (Calidris mauri).
Coastal Wetlands Community
Agua Hedionda Lagoon supports nearly 150 species of estuarine and
marine invertebrates, 65 species of fish, 65 species of birds,
and 46 species of other animals. The lagoon also supports
saltmarsh vegetation, including pickleweed, seablite, alkali
heath and jaumea. Upland vegetation consists of California sage
scrub, including California sagebrush, goldenbush, and black
mustard.
4.2.1.2 Other Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
Table 4.2-1 identifies federally listed species, their habitats,
and probability of occurrence within the project area.
m*
4-10
|
Table 4.2-1
Federally Listed Species
I
e
c
L
r
Species
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
California brown
pelican
Pelecanus occidentalis
calif oricus
California least tern
Sterna antillarum
browni
Light-footed clapper
rail
Rallus longirostris
levipes
Peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus
Marbled murrelet
Brachryamphus
marmoratus
Western snowy plover
Chgaradrius
alexandrinus nuvosus
Tidewater goby
Eucyclogobius nevrberri
Pacific pocket mouse
Perognathus
longimembris pacj.fj.cus
Salt marsh bird's beak
Cordylanthus maritimus
maritimus
Legal
Status
FE
SE
FE
SE
FE
SE
FE
SE
FE
SE
FT
FT
FE
SE
FE
FE
Habitat
Coastal environments;
foraging in harbor and
river mouth areas
Forage offshore waters and
roost on structures
Sandy, unvegetated
flats (nesting) ; shallow
offshore waters ( foraging.)
Salt marshes
Coastal environments;
foraging in harbor and
river mouth areas
Coastal waters, bays.
Breeds inland on mountains
near the coast.
Sandy shoreline and salt
pan (nesting, foraging);
mudflat (foraging)
brackish or freshwater
lagoons, or in shallow
water near the mouths of
coastal streams
saltmarsh areas
Probability
of
Occurrence
Low
High
High
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low to
Medium
Rare
Rare
Codes for Legal Status:
FE = federally-listed endangered species
SE = state-listed endangered species
FT = proposed for federal listing as a threatened species
Sources: California Department of Fish and Game
I
4-11
The following information concerns the status of endangered
species which may have a medium or higher probability of being
found in the general vicinity of the project area.
California Brown Pelican. The Federally listed endangered brown
pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) is a year-round
resident of the southern California coastline. It is most
abundant on the mainland coast from August to November. Breeding
occurs on several of the Channel Islands from June to October.
The brown pelican is relatively common in the nearshore waters of
the project area, particularly when schools of suitable fish prey
are present. It usually forages in offshore waters greater than
one mile from the coast; they typically roost on existing tanker
ship buoys, breakwaters, rock groins, and piers in the nearshore
waters. Brown pelicans are often very tolerant of human activity.
Activities of the brown pelican in these waters are restricted to
foraging, overflying, and/or temporary roosting.
Brown pelicans have a medium to high probability of occurring
within the project area.
California Least Tern. The Federally and State listed endangered
least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) is a small seabird. The
tern migrates to southern and central California in the spring to
breed, arriving in early to mid-April. Terns nest in coastal
areas adjacent to shallow marine and estuarine habitats, where
they forage on near surface swimming fish, i.e. topsmelt and
anchovies. Eighty percent of foraging occurs within 3 miles of
the nesting site. The terns usually depart for wintering grounds
in August or early September after rearing of their young. The
closest colonies are located at the Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda,
and Batiquitos lagoons. In 1980, only 835 breeding pairs were
estimated to be in southern California (Garret and Dunn, 1981).
With intensive prior management and continuing efforts of many
dedicated persons, the population expanded to over 2,250 pairs in
1993 (from publication CDFG census data).
The least terns usually forage within a mile and a half of the
harbor shoreline on surface fishes, such as topsmelt and
anchovies, in nearshore waters and estuaries near the breeding
colonies. They are intolerant of human activity at close
proximity.
Least terns have a medium to high probability of occurring within
the project area between April and August.
4-12
I
C
Western Snowy Plover. The snowy plover (Charadrinus alexandrinus
nivosus) is a Federally listed endangered species. Its coastal
breeding population is severely depleted. This small shorebird
nests on large expansive sandy areas and forages on sand flats or
intertidal mudflats.
The Western snowy plover nest sites typically occur in flat, open
areas with sandy or saline substrates where vegetation and
driftwood are usually sparse or absent. Nest site selection and
pair bond formation occur in late March, and eggs of the first
clutch are usually laid in early April. Nesting activities
generally occur through July and into August. Plovers forage on
invertebrates located in intertidal sandy areas above the high
tide and along the edges of salt marshes and ponds.
Studies in California, Oregon, and Washington indicate that the
coastal breeding population has declined significantly in recent
years (Page and Stenzel 1978; Wilson 1984). Fewer than 1,500
birds, and 28 nesting sites, remain in the three states. The
subspecies of plover has disappeared as a breeding bird from most
of California beaches south of Los Angeles, and development has
eliminated the plover as a breeding species from many other
coastal areas as well. Dune stabilization by introduced beach
grass has modified much formerly open coastal sand flat habitat.
Evidence exists that human activity (i.e. recreation, beach
cleaning) is responsible for some of the coastal decline along
with predation by animals, including dogs, cats, crows, foxes,
and skunks.
The Western snowy plover has a medium probability of occurring
within the project vicinity.
Light-footed Clapper Rail. The clapper rail (Rallus longirostris
levipes) is a year round resident that is know to nest in
cordgrass stands at Buena Vista- Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and
Batiquitos Lagoon. Clapper rails' home ranges are estimated to
range from 0.9 to 4.2 acres. They are generalistic feeders,
foraging on mudflat invertebrates such as crabs and snails.
Nesting occurs between mid-March and mid-August. The primary
cause of the decline in population has been correlated with
wetland disturbances and development. The light-footed clapper
rail has a medium probability of occurring within the project
vicinity.
Tidewater Goby. The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi),
Federal threatened-endangered fish species, is usually found in
the upper ends of brackish or freshwater lagoons, or in shallow
water near the mouths of coastal streams. This species spend
most of their life cycle in fresh water. Several populations of
the tidewater goby are believed to exist in Agua Hedondia Lagoon
(USFWS 1994) . The tidewater goby has a low to medium probability
of occurring within the project area.
4-13
Table 4.2-2 lists federal candidates and species of special
concern that may occur in the project impact area.
Table 4.2-2
Special Status Species
Species Legal
Status
BIRDS
Belding's savannah sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi
Elegant tern
Sterna elegans
Harlequin duck
Histionicus histrionicus
Long-billed curlew
Numenius americanus
Reddish egret
Egretta rufescens
White-faced ibis
Plegadis chihi
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
Black Tern
Chilodonias niger
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
California horned lark
Eromophila alpestris actia
Western least bittern
Ixobrychus exilis hesperis
Black rail
Laterallus "jamaicensis coturniculus
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
4-14
I
Species
Large-billed savannah sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus
Legal
Status
C2
Codes for Legal Status;
C2 = Category 2 candidate for federal listing.
Cl = Category 1 candidate for federal listing.
Table 4.2-2
Other Special Status Species
P
m
I
Species Legal
Status
MAMMALS
Southern marsh harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys megalotis limicola
C2
REPTILES
Southwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata pallida
San Diego banded gecko
Coleonyx variegatus abbotti
Two-striped garter snake
Thamnophis hammondii
Cl
C2
C2
INVERTEBRATES
Oblivious tiger beetle
Plegadis chihi
Cal brackish water snail
Tryonia imitator
Glogose dune beetle
Coelus glogosus
Salt marsh skipper
Panoquina errans
Wandering skipper
Pseudocopaeodes eunus eunus
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
PLANTS
Coastal dunes milk-vetch
Astragalus tener titi
Cl
4-15
Species
Coast wallflower
Erysimum ammophilum
Prostrate lotus
Lotus nuttallianus
Legal
Status
C2
C2
Codes for Legal Status:
C2 = Category 2 candidate for federal listing
Cl = Category 1 candidate for federal listing
4.2.2 Environmental Consequences
4.2.2.1 Criteria
An impact to biological resources will be considered significant
if: the population of a threatened, endangered, or candidate
species is affected or its habitat is lost or disturbed; there is
a net loss of value of a sensitive biological habitat including
eelgrass beds, halibut nursery areas, seabird rookeries, or Area
of Special Biological Significance (ASBS); movement or migration
of fish or wildlife is impeded; and/or there is a substantial
loss in the population or habitat of any native fish, wildlife or
vegetation. (Substantial loss is defined as any change in a
population detectible over natural variability for a period of
5 years or more).
m
m
4.2.2.2 Alternative 1
The environment to be affected primarily includes the supra-tidal
beach and secondarily inter-tidal beach and supra-tidal rocky
habitats. Marine impacts will be associated with the seawall and
rock placement activities.
Seawall activities will result in a minimal loss of sandy-cobble
habitat. Activities may result in temporary beach and possibly
nearshore impacts. Sandy beach invertebrates such as beach
hoppers and sand crabs will be crushed and/or decimated. These
species are adapted to periodic disturbance and recovery is
expected within months.
m
m
I
H
4-16
i
i
Although potential water quality impacts may include increased
turbidity within an existing turbid area (surf zone), these
impacts are not expected, because work will be conducted above
the water line. If turbidity impacts occur, it will be in a
rigorous environment of constantly shifting sand and water. Most
of the sediments that may be pushed into the water column will
consist of the larger, grained sand and cobble particles, which
will sink rapidly. Sediments may be expected to remain in
suspension less than 15 minutes and silt fractions, 30 minutes
(Corps-LAHD 1992).
Because very little turbidity is expected and most will be
m- confined to the immediate locality, impacts will not be expected
B to affect plankton populations and/or benthic organisms. Fishes
• and marine birds that feed on benthic invertebrates may suffer a
localized, short-term loss of food. Although fishes may
8 temporarily avoid turbid areas, turbidity may impact visually
foraging piscivorous seabirds by making it difficult for them to
see their prey. Because the area of impact is such a small
mm portion of the local marine habitat, the impact of loss of food
E on.fish and bird populations is judged to be adverse but not
™ significant. Turbidity will not impact common dolphin, harbor
seal, sea lion, and/or whale populations.
FII Although revetment work will occur on land and water impacts are
not expected, rock placement will result in direct habitat
mm disturbances. As mentioned, no vegetation exists on the
[ revetment, and no impacts are expected. However, existing niches
may be destroyed or disturbed for some invertebrate species.
Species recolonization is expected to occur by neighboring
f" species in a few weeks following construction. It is expected
•• that species colonizing the rebuilt portions will be difficult to
distinguish from that on the existing structures within a year or
P* less. This temporary habitat disturbance will be an adverse
I impact, but not significant.
Although impacts will be adverse for some species, the newly
placed rock will serve as a resting area for some marine birds.
M All three species of cormorant, including gulls, double-crested
cormorant (a California Species of Special Concern) and
p» California brown pelicans (a State and Federal Endangered
ta Species) may use the additional area for roosting.
Aside from these direct habitat impacts, there will also be noise
impacts. Data on noise effects on fishes are limited. Suzuki et
*• al. (1980) have reported studies that showed that ship noise can
affect fish behavior. These investigators believed that sounds
P produced by large or high speed vessels can frighten fish schools
|| or cause them to change their migration routes. University of
California, Santa Barbara divers at Naples Reef have noticed that
_ fish scatter briefly as boats go over the reef (Davis, personal
H communication, 1994). The data suggest fish will be more likely
• to be startled by sudden staccato noises. Therefore, if
construction noise vibrates through the land-water medium, mobile
P organisms (i.e. fishes, marine mammals, sea birds, etc.) may
4-17
•PHV
avoid noise impacted areas. Potential species disturbances from —
construction are judged to be adverse, but nonsignificant.
Of the federally-listed species identified in Section 4.2.1.2, —
only the California brown pelican, California least tern, Western
snowy plover, light-footed clapper rail, and tidewater goby may „,,
occur within the project area with a medium to high probability.
(Note: construction will occur between September and mid-March). "•
Construction will not affect nesting habits of the brown pelican. **
Although construction may temporarily disturb daytime roosting ^
opportunities; there are several other loafing areas available in
the local area. Construction will not affect night time roosting M
opportunities. Although construction may create some turbidity
in the immediate area, sediment settlement should occur within •"*
minutes. Turbidity is not expected to affect the foraging
behavior of the pelican. It is likely that forage fish fed on by m
the pelican will avoid direct impact areas and will be available M
for capture elsewhere. Construction is not expected to impact
overall foraging opportunities of the brown pelican. M
Least terns are known to nest in Agua Hedionda Lagoon. "*
'Construction is scheduled to avoid the breeding season;
therefore, no impacts will occur. ^
m
Snowy plovers are not likely to nest in the project area, due to
heavy influences of human use. Therefore, construction will not m
affect roosting and/or foraging opportunities. Construction is ^
also scheduled to avoid the breeding season.
Light-footed clapper rails are known to nest in Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. Construction is scheduled to avoid the breeding season, "*
and no impacts will occur.
PI
Tidewater goby impacts are not expected. Construction impacts —
will be land-based, not water-based.
Supplemental information is provided on noise in Section 4.3.2.2.m
Because construction will occur between September and mid-March,
the Corps has determined this alternative will not have an affect •
nor jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed ||
threatened or endangered species. Formal consultation pursuant
to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not _
required for project implementation. i•I
Because grunion use the lower portion of the beach for spawning
activities and construction will not affect this portion of the ^
beach, impacts on grunion are not expected. In addition, the ••
proposed construction schedule will avoid the grunion spawning
season. Sensitive species impacts are not expected with project «w
construction. (•M
No significant adverse impacts are expected on marine resources.
Wff
m
4-18
iI
I
I
I
I
I
E
C
I
4.2.2.3 Alternative 2
Although construction impacts will be similar to those described
above, the project duration is expected to be 30 days less than
for Alternative 1. Construction will occur between September and
mid-March. Significant adverse impacts are not expected.
4.3 NOISE
4.3.1 Affected Environment
The dominant land uses in the project area include recreational
uses of the beach. The closest residential unit is about 1,000
feet from the northern construction area limit; the closest
commercial/industrial units are approximately 500 feet from the
southern limit.
Dominant noise sources include waves, beach recreation
activities, and vehicle noise on adjacent roads. The sound of
wave action will vary with many factors including wave height,
period, frequency, angle of attack, bottom profile, wind
conditions, etc. One study performed by Chambers Group (1992)
revealed average noise levels (Leq) from wave action ranging from
approximately 56 to 70 decibels on an A-weighted scale (dBA) for
10 minute periods at a distance of about 165 feet from the
water's edge at low tide. The noise included both wave and wind
activity. These noise levels can vary considerably more than
presented depending on wave action and atmospheric conditions.
Beach noise (dBA) is expected to vary between the 50s and 70s.
4.3.2 Environmental Consequences
4.3.2.1 Criteria
Impacts will be considered significant if project-generated noise
levels exceed city noise ordinances or noise regulations
promulgated on the federal or state level.
People are sensitive to the additions of extraneous noise in
their environment. Increases in traffic-generated noise levels
will be considered significant if the project traffic-related
noise increases the road noise by at least 3 dBA, which is
considered the minimum discernable change detectable by the human
ear under controlled conditions.
Finally, noise impacts will also be considered significant if
project-generated noise levels exceed 70 dBA at any federally
listed species colony site. This value was ascertained and
confirmed with the CDFG during the preparation of the document
"Noise Survey for the Construction and Operation of the
International Wastewater Treatment and Outfall Facilities at the
Tijuana River, San Diego, California (Chambers Group 1992)".
4-19
4.3.2.2 Alternative 1
Noise impacts will be produced by pile driving activities,
traffic along the access route, and heavy earthmoving equipment.
A pile driver will be used to set the seawall. This is
anticipated to be the noisiest single piece of equipment used in
project construction. The noise of a pile driver can exceed 100
dBA as measured at a distance of 50 feet. The closest
residential receptor will be on the order of 1,000 feet, and the
estimated Leq at this distance is 76 dBA. The closest
commercial/industrial receptor will be on the order of 500 feet,
with an Leq of approximately 80 dBA. The noise of a pile driver
will essentially overpower the noise of any other construction
equipment functioning in proximity at the same time.
Noise generation will occur along any construction material haul
routes and from employee commuting travel. Heavy equipment is
typically moved onsite and remains for the duration of the
project; it will not add to the daily traffic noise. Haul routes
over major arterials, proposed state and federal haul routes
(Section 4.7), will experience little additional noise intrusion
because construction activities will be limited to daytime hours
when reasonable volumes of traffic already exist on proposed
roadways. Additional noise will be generated by employee
commutes; approximately 10 workers will meet on a daily basis at
the staging area. In order to cause significant adverse noise
impacts, the noise level will have to increase by 3 dBA, which
will essentially require a doubling of the current traffic
levels. This is not expected by the addition of 21 truck trips
per day in combination with employee commutes. Thus, little
additional vehicle traffic noise is projected.
Rock placement will produce a noise level of approximately 85 dBA
at a distance of 50 feet. (This value, however, does not
consider the noise of a pile driver, which can exceed 100 dBA.)
The closest residential receptor will be on the order of 1,000
feet, with an Leq of approximately 59.5 dBA. The closest
commercial/industrial receptor will be on the order of 500 feet,
with an Leq of approximately 65 dBA. Other beach work (i.e. site
grading) will also be expected to produce similar noise levels as
that presented for the rock.
Because noise impacts will occur during construction,
construction activities will be restricted to the hours between
7:00 a.m. and sunset, Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and
sunset on Saturday, with no work on Sundays or holidays, as
dictated by the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. All
construction equipment shall use properly working mufflers and be
kept in a proper state of maintenance to alleviate backfires.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Planning
Aid Letter (1994) (Appendix D) , California least terns and light-
footed clapper rails are known to nest in Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
(Species nesting activities for these species occur between late-
4-20
I
I
I
i
i
e
f*
«*
March and late-August.) Because the proposed construction
schedule (September to mid-March) avoids the nesting window of
these species, no breeding or colony affects are anticipated.
Although brown pelicans may forage or temporarily roost in the
area, they do not nest in the immediate area. Although pelicans
may avoid the immediate project area during working hours, there
are several other areas in the local region that support both
foraging and roosting opportunities. Construction noise will not
affect breeding and/or nesting habits nor jeopardize the
continued existence of the species listed above. Therefore,
formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act is not required.
Significant adverse noise impacts are not expected.
4.3.2.3 Alternative 2
Impacts will be similar to those described above. Mitigation
measures discussed above will also be implemented under this
alternative. Significant adverse impacts are not expected.
4.4 AIR QUALITY
4.4.1 Affected Environment
4.4.1.1 Climate and Meteorology
The climate in the project area is characterized by moderate
summer temperatures, mild winters, frequent morning coastal
stratus clouds, infrequent rainfall confined mainly from late
fall to early spring, and moderate onshore breezes. The project
area, being coastal, is protected from the worst of the air
pollution problems by the daily sea breeze that brings in clean
air and blows pollutants inland. For this reason, the coastal
regions have better air quality than inland areas.
Two meteorological parameters are important in assessing air
quality impacts of changing patterns of emissions. These are the
winds which control the rate and trajectory of horizontal
transport, and the vertical stability structure which control the
vertical depth through which the pollutants are mixed.
Winds across the site travel in two distinct directions: a
strong onshore wind by day which is strongest in summer, and a
weak offshore wind which is strongest in winter when nights are
long and the land becomes cooler than the ocean.
In addition to the two characteristic wind patterns, there are
two corresponding temperature inversions that trap pollution
within shallow layers near the ground. The first is created when
daytime onshore cool ocean air undercuts a massive dome of warm
air within the Pacific high pressure system. This process
creates marine/subsidence inversions that form a lid at about
1,000 feet or so above the surface over the entire airshed basin
4-21
regulated by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District _
(SDAPCD). These inversions allow for the mixing of pollutants
near their source, but they trap the entire basin's emissions —
within the shallow marine layer. As the relatively clean marine
air moves inland, pollution sources continually add contaminants """"
from below without any dilution from above. Reactive organic ^
gases and nitrogen oxides combine under abundant sunlight to form
photochemical smog. Smog levels increase steadily from the coast *»
inland until the inversion is broken by strong surface heating
and by thermal chimneys created along the heated slopes of the ""»
mountains surrounding San Diego. |—
The second major inversion type forms during long, cloudless „,
nights as cold air pools near the surface while the air aloft
remains warm. The radiation inversions from this second type are "•
very shallow and contribute to the "hot spot" potential near
ground level sources, especially vehicular source concentrations. **
(A "hot spot" is a high concentration of pollutants trapped in a „,
cooler air pocket with limited dispersion characteristics.)
*•
Regional trapping inversions occur on about 85 percent of all
summer afternoons while ground-level radiation inversions are **
found on about 70 percent of all winter nights and early
mornings. Both of these inversion types occur during all seasons **
and at all times of the day, but they are not as strong, «•*
persistent, or frequent as during their summer afternoon and
winter morning dominant periods. m
4.4.1.2 Existing Air Quality
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends are
best documented from measurements made by the San Diego Air i*
Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The last available 5 years
of monitoring data are summarized in Table 4.4-1. Based on the **
California Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are more m
stringent than the National Standards, the data show no long term
decreases in local airshed quality. H
4.4.2 Environmental Consequences l*
4.4.2.1 Criteria Hto
Air quality standards used to determine federal and state
significance critieria are identified in Table 4.4-2. ||yIn San Diego County, air quality planning, enforcement,
permitting, and other control functions are the responsibility of _
the SDAPCD. The district uses an emissions "budget" to insure "
that cumulative minor sources of air emissions remain within an **
allowable range of total emissions, and has a program of New
Source Review (NSR) to insure that any significant new sources *!
cause an equal or greater amount of emissions to be retired ^
somewhere within the county. Significant impacts for air quality
are subject to local county ordinances (Regulation IX, subpart •»
MM). SDAPCD Significance values are listed in Table 4.4-3.—
4-22
Table 4.4-1
Del Mar, San Diego Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Number of days standards were exceeded and
max levels during such violations
Pollutant /Standard 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Ozone (O3)
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm
1-Hour > 0.12 ppm
Max. 1-Hour Cone, (ppm)
30
9
0.18
36
16
0.25
23
9
0.17
28
7
0.17
19
3
0.14
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1-Hour > 20 ppm
8 -Hour > 9.1 ppm
Max 1-Hour Cone, (ppm)
Max 8-Hour Cone, (ppm)
N.M.N.M.N.M.N.M.N.M.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,)
1-Hour > 0.25 ppm
Max. 1-Hour Cone, (ppm)
N.M.N.M.N.M.0
0.10
N.M.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO,)
1-Hour > 0.25 ppm
Max 1-Hour Cone, (ppm)
24-Hour > 0.05 ppm
Max. 2 4 -Hour Cone, (ppm)
N.M.N.M.N.M.N.M.N.M.
Suspended Particulate
Total Suspended Particles (TSP)
24-Hour > 100 ug/m3
24-Hour > 150 ug/m3
24-Hour > 260 ug/m3
24-Hour > 375 ug/m3
Max. 24-Hour > max ug/m3
N.M.N.M.-N.M.N.M.N.M.
Lead (Pb)
Measured every 6 days
24-Hour > max ug/m3
N.M.N.M.N.M.N.M.N.M.
Sulfate (S04)
24-Hour > 10 ug/m3
24-Hour > 20 ug/m3
24-Hour > 25 ug/m3
24-Hour > 30 ug/m3
24-Hour > Max. Cone, ug/m3
N.M.N.M.N.M.N.M.N.M.
Note: N.M. = Not Monitored at
the above location
4-23
Table 4.4-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS)
Pollutant
O/onc
Carbon
Monoxide
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Sulfur
Dioxide-
Suspended
Paniculate
Matter
(PM-IO)
Sul fates
Lead
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
Averaging
Time
1 Hour
S Hour
1 Hour
Annual Average
1 Hour
Annual Average
24 Hour
Annual
Geometric
Mean
24 Hour
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
24 Hour
.10 Dav Average
Calendar
Quarter
1 Observation
California Standards
Concentration
>0.09 ppm
(ISO ug/m1)
>9. 1 ppm
(10 mg/m1)
> 20 ppm
(2.1 mg/m')
>0.25 ppm
(470 up/m')
0.05 ppm
(131 ug/m1!
.10 ug/m.1
> 50 ug/m.1
25 ug/m3
1 .5 ug 'm.1
Method
Ultraviolet
Photometry
Non-dispersive
Infrared
Spectroscopy
(NDIR)
Gas Phase
Clicmilumi-
neseenee
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Si/c Selective
Inlet High
Volume Sampler
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Turhidimelrie
Barium Sull'ate
Atomic
.Alisorplion
In sufficient amnuiit to reduce the
prevailing visibility in less than 10
miles when the relative humidity is
less than 70 percent
Federal Standards
Primary
>0.12 ppm
(235 ug/m3)
i-9.5 ppm
(10 ma/m')
>35 ppm
(40 ma/m1)
>0.0534
ppm
(100 ug/m1)
-
0.03 ppm
(80 ug/m')
0 14 ppm
(.165 ug/m1)
>150
ug/m.1
> 50 uj!/m3
1.5 ug/m.1
Second
ary
Same as
Primary
Std.
Same as
Primary
Stds.
Same as
Primary
Std.
-
-
Same as
Primary
Stds.
-
.
Same as
Primary
Std.
Method
Ethylcne
Chemiluminescenc
c
Non-dispersive
Infrared
Spectroscopy
(NDIR)
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescenc
e
Pararosoaniline
•
inertia! Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
-
Atomic Absorption
-
* Prepnred in accordance with applicable SCAQMI) Air Quality Data Cards and ARK Fact Sheet 38 (revised 7/88).
4-24
Table 4.4-3
I
San Diego Air Pollution Control District Threshold Levels
with Projected Construction Emission Levels
Chemical Sp.
or Particulate
Nox
CO
Sox
Particulates
Calculated
Emission
Levels
(without
control
measures)
12.3 Lb/day
11.5 Lb/day
8.5 Lb/day
9.3 Lb/day
Calculated
Emission
Levels (with
Control
Measures)
9.8 Lb/day
10.1 Lb/day
7.8 Lb/day
6.7 Lb/day
SDAPD
Threshold
Values
10 Lb/day
10 Lb/day
10 Lb/day
10 Lb/day
E
L
r*L
c
* These figures include emissions contributions from one truck
making 25 trips per day, one pile driver, and one crane. Also
included are an estimated 20 individuals commuting in separate
automobiles 2 times per day, for a 180 day period. Emission
values were averaged for the entire construction period.
Emissions factors were computed from AP 42 Air Pollution Control
Emissions Factors Manual, 1995.
4.4.2.2 Alternative 1
The construction project is expected to take 180 days.
Calculations were based on the use of an all-terrain hydraulic
crane (consisting of pile driver and crane) and one catapillar
truck (used 10 hours per day for 180 days), and 30 private
vehicles (10 used twice per day for 180 days, and 20 used twice
per day) were used in the operation.
Based upon these assumptions, a standard BACT review and related
benefit study were completed. Emissions and operations factors
were determined from AP 42 and G-Grove Inc. manufacture's data
sheets, which are approved methods for SDAPCD.
Minor increases in suspended particulate dust will occur during
construction of the seawall. Small increases in CO and Nox will
occur, which will exceed SDAPCD threshold limits. Timing of each
engine to about 4 degrees and using turbo-cooled exhaust
recirculating systems will bring emissions to acceptable levels
(Table 4.4-3).
With proper control measures as discussed above, no significant
air impacts will be generated during construction.
4-25
No significant adverse air impacts are expected. —
4.4.2.3 Alternative 2 «»**
Construction methods for alternative 2 are similar to those of
Alternative 1. Construction is expected to take 150 days, """
approximately 30 days less than Alternative 1. Using this method, «*
about 597 less pounds of Nox and CO will emitted into the airshed
compared to Alternative 1. Aside from the duration factor, other •*
methods are similar for both alternatives.
«•«*
No significant impacts are expected. m
4.5 LAND AND RECREATION USES
•ft
4.5.1 Affected Environment
Much of the Carlsbad coastline has been developed for parking „,
lo.ts, and commercial and residential units. The project area
consists of public beach, neighbored by Carlsbad Boulevard. The ""
Agua Hedionda Lagoon exists east of Carlsbad Boulevard.
The project area supports beach recreation activities, including m
sunbathing, swimming, snorkeling, surfing, and fishing. The
coastal waters provide for recreation opportunities, including p
both boating and fishing. Some of the common sportfish caught by
anglers include Pacific bonito, California barracuda, rockfish, *
sole, California halibut, and sandbass.
boating, hiking, and bird watching.
4.5.2 Environmental Consequences
4.5.2.1 Criteria
I
I
A significant impact will be based on permanent physical impacts
related to compatibility. The project's compatibility with
adjacent existing land and water uses will be judged based on a
logical transition of uses. Impacts will also be considered
significant if the project results in a permanent loss of
existing recreational areas. 1
4.5.2.2 Alternative 1 •
Construction will occur in an area that is typically used for
recreation purposes year-round and, make a small area around the _
project and staging areas unavailable for public access due to I
safety concerns. Construction has been scheduled to minimize ™
potential public and recreation land use impacts and will not
occur during the heaviest use season, April through August.
4-26
I
i
Proposed revetment repairs consist of rebuilding the structure to
its predamage conditions. New rock to be set on the existing
structure will be compatible with existing stone.
Construction activities will not restrict public access to other
land uses that abut the proposed staging and/or construction
areas. The completed project will maintain a beach width similar
to the existing and provide more safety for shoreline structures
than current conditions. Therefore, the project is considered to
be compatible with adjacent existing land and water uses.
Although short term adverse land/recreation use impacts will
occur, these impacts are not expected to be significant.
4.5.2.3 Alternative 2
U Impacts will be similar to those described above. Significant
adverse use impacts are not expected.
™ 4.5.2.4 No Action
§The shoreline currently provides insufficient levels of
protection for neighboring facilities and infrastructure. In
addition, future storms may progressively worsen the existing
PI situation, resulting in fewer recreation opportunities with beach
i and road closures. These impacts may be significant. Mitigation
is recommended to implement either of the proposed alternatives.
F"i;
L. 4.6 GROUND TRANSPORTATION
f- 4.6.1 Affected Environment
L The Carlsbad project area is accessed by Carlsbad Boulevard (S21)
via Palomar Airport Road (S12) from the south or Tamarack Road
{ from the north via Interstate (I) - 5.
f* 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences
4.6.2.1 Criteria
! Traffic impacts will be considered significant if project traffic
*"* or construction activities result in a substantial safety hazard
to motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians; or construction
f* vehicles are not provided with adequate parking, necessitating
It, the overcrowding of existing parking facilities or tieing up
local roads. As consistent with other Corps projects, traffic
-. impacts will also be considered significant if construction
j traffic exceeds 50 vehicles during the peak hour.
L
c 4-27
4.6.2.2 Alternative 1
Construction will require the use of heavy equipment, and
manpower to operate it. Traffic will be generated by work crews.
The entire crew to operate this equipment is anticipated to be 10
people, and this small staff will not significantly add to the
areal traffic levels.
Although heavy equipment will be delivered to the site, these
pieces of equipment will remain during construction activities;
therefore delivery activities are not expected to change existing
daily traffic averages. To minimize traffic impacts in the local
region, state roads will be used to access the site (i.e. S21,
S12, and 1-5).
Rock delivery will also occur by a land-based operation via state
and federal roads. It is anticipated that 21 truckloads will
occur on a daily basis over about 35 days. Because most freeways
operate under congested conditions (especially during rush
hours), this volume of traffic will further add to the local
congestion within the project area. However, 50 trips will not
occur during peak hours, and significant impacts will not be
produced during rock hauling.
It is likely that a portion of Carlsbad Boulevard will have to be
temporarily closed while trucks maneuver at the project area. A
flagperson will be appointed to guide traffic (and people) in
staging, loading and other construction areas to direct truck
maneuvering needs and to prevent safety concerns (i.e.,
visibility of local motorists can be impaired). Because Carlsbad
Boulevard is heavily used to access beach areas, especially on
weekends, no rock truck hauls will be conducted on y
Sundays to minimize traffic impacts and safety concerns. Traffic
safety impacts will be adverse-and cause temporary annoyances
over the project duration, especially during the rock hauling
period (about 35 days), but will not create significant impacts.
Upon completion of construction, no additional vehicular traffic
is anticipated with this project. Because the project will
provide more protection for Carlsbad Boulevard, it will aid in
the circulation and movement of goods and people that use
Carlsbad Boulevard.
Significant adverse traffic impacts are not expected.
4.6.2.3 Alternative 2
Impacts will be similar to those described above, however, total
projected construction and rock hauling periods will be slightly
shorter. Significant adverse traffic impacts are not expected.
4-28
I
I
I
I
-
I
4.6.2.4 _ No Action
No additional wave/storm protection will be provided for Carlsbad
Boulevard. Therefore, it is likely the existing situation will
worsen as the shoreline continues to erode and may result in
additional road closures. This situation may also expose the
general public to increased safety risks. At worst case, loss of
life may even occur. Mitigation is recommended to implement
either of the proposed alternatives.
4.7 PUBLIC AND SYSTEM SAFETY
4.7.1 _ Affected Environment
Adequate wave and storm damage protection is not currently
provided for shoreline structures (Section 2) . These conditions
may place the general public at risk.
A cursory review of available literature on known hazardous,
toxic, and radial waste (HTRW) sites and underground storage
tanks does not identify any sites within or adjacent to the
proposed construction limits.
4.7.2 _ Environmental Consequences
4.7.2.1 _ Criteria
Safety impacts will be based on both the potential for upset and
P the consequences of any project-related adverse events. The
L significance of a potential upset increases as either (or both)
of these two parameters increase. By definition, adverse safety
P- impacts result only from abnormal operation of a project.
L Safety impacts will also be considered significant if work
^ creates a public health hazard or involves the use, production,
| and/or disposal of potentially hazardous materials that pose a
«•• threat to the general public through risk of explosion or release
in the event of an accident or upset condition.
4.7.2.2 _ Alternative 1
f"I Project construction areas impose potential safety concerns. To
*• minimize these concerns, appropriate notifications will be given
and active areas properly marked and temporarily closed. Only
f" construction crews will be permitted access to work/staging
^, areas. Safety impacts are not expected.
p. The potential exists for equipment to leak fuel due to a
mechanical or structural failure. The potential for a mechanical
*• or structure failure is similar to that of other heavy equipment,
which is extremely low.•»»
4-29
At this time no known or potential HTRW sites have been
identified at the project site. If such resources are discovered
during construction, work will be suspended in the area until all
necessary survey and testing is completed and a remediation plan
acceptable to the appropriate Federal/State resource office(s) is
developed. Construction will not result in the use, production,
or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials; however, if
activities involve moving, handling, or storing hazardous or
toxic materials, these activities will be done in accordance with
all federal, state, and local regulations.
Project implementation will result with adequate levels of
protection provided to the existing shoreline and structures.
No significant adverse public/system safety impacts are expected.
4.7.2.3 Alternative 2
Impacts will be similar to those described above. Adequate
shoreline protection will be established by implementing this
alternative. No significant adverse public/system safety impacts
are expected.
4.7.2.4 No Action Alternative
No additional wave/storm protection will be provided to the
shoreline. It is likely the existing situation will worsen as
the shoreline further erodes and exposes the general public to
increased safety risks. Mitigation is recommended to implement
either of the proposed alternatives.
4.8 AESTHETICS
4.8.1 Affected Environment
The aesthetic character of the project area is composed of a
recreation-oriented visual setting, dominated by public beaches
and the lagoon. The area is maintained and projects an image to
attract the recreation user.
4.8.2 Environmental Consequences
4.8.2.1 Criteria
The project will significantly impact the aesthetics if a
landscape is changed in a manner that permanently and
significantly degrades an existing viewshed or alters the
character of a viewshed by adding incompatible structures.
I
4-30
4.8.2.2 Alternative I
Aesthetic impacts will occur in staging and construction areas.
Because the staging area is adjacent to the construction area,
impacts will be similar to construction impacts.
Aesthetic impacts will occur during construction of the seawall
and restoration of the revetment. Because equipment will be on
the beach, the equipment will be dominant elements in the
viewshed of an adjacent beach viewer. The viewshed's character
will be altered by the introduction of these anomalous elements
for the duration of the project, about 180 days.
The seawall will alter the character of the existing viewshed,
because it will protrude 42-inches above ground level. Although
the seawall presents a potential to create an offensive view to
the general public by nature of its existence, it is not expected
to obstruct the ocean view of the public passing through the area
by car or foot. In addition, the City will decorate the wall to
minimize aesthetic impacts of the structure (Section 3.3). The
wall's design will be covered with a graffiti-proof treatment to
maintain its integrity.
The rock that is placed seaward of the seawall will be covered
with a sand-cobble mixture.
Because a rock revetment already exists, no long term impacts
will be associated with the proposed repairs.
P Aesthetic impacts will be adverse, but not significant.
p 4.8.2.3 Alternative 2
L Overall, aesthetic impacts will be similar to those described
above. However, the seawall will be approximately 600-feet
L shorter in length and less intrusive to the public viewer, and
the construction duration will be shorter for this alternative,
as compared to Alternative I. Impacts will be minimized as
f* discussed above. Impacts will not be significant.L
p 4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES
•* 4.9.1 Affected Environment
JP The project location was surveyed for cultural resources by a
j^ Corps staff archaeologist. Based on this survey, the Corps has
determined that there is little likelihood for the presence of
H cultural resources. The beach has been subjected to repeated
E wave action that is alternately bringing fresh sediments onto the
•• beach and causing heavy erosion. This wave action precludes the
potential for any cultural remains to be existent.
4-31
I
I
I
I
1
I
4.9.2 Environmental Consequences
If there had been any cultural resources within the footprint of
the revetment, they would have been destroyed during the original
construction. The revetment itself is less than 45 years old and
is not under consideration for potential eligibility with the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The project as
planned will not cause any impacts to cultural resources.
4.10 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Following is a summary of both general and resource commitments
that have been developed to reduce the impact associated with
construction of the proposed alternatives. Responsibility for
each measure has been committed to by the Corps. The Corps will
be responsible for implementing these commitments.
General Commitments: Prior to construction, the LAD/contractor
will provide a 1-month notification of the planned activities to
the appropriate agencies and post information bulletins of
scheduled work time and areas at the appropriate offices.
Construction will occur between September and mid-March. All
construction materials will meet or exceed Corps standards.
Oceanography Commitments: Not applicable.
Marine Resource Commitments: Not applicable.
Noise Commitments: Construction will be restricted to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and sunset, Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m.
and sunset on Saturday, with no work on Sunday or holidays,
unless otherwise approved by the city.
Air Quality Commitments: Compliance with county ordinances.
Land/Water and Recreation Uses: Not applicable.
Ground Transportations Rock trucks will require haul route
permits from the City of Carlsbad. A flagman shall be provided
to direct traffic (and people) in congested areas, if needed.
Public and System Safety: Equipment and working areas will be
properly marked and notifications posted. Only construction
crews will be permitted access to work/staging areas. If HTRW
resources are discovered during construction, work will be
suspended in the area until all necessary survey and testing work
is complete and a remediation plan acceptable to the appropriate
Federal/State resource office(s) is developed.
Aesthetics: The City will decorate the seawall, pursuant to
Section 3.3. The wall's design will also be covered with a
graffiti-proof treatment to maintain its integrity.
4-32
• Cultural Resources: Appropriate coordination and consultation
with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is
• being conducted. A letter has been sent to the SHPO transmitting
H the Corps' eligibility determination. Upon SHPO concurrence, the
Corps will be in compliance with 36CFR800. If cultural resources
0, are discovered during construction and cannot be avoided, work
y will be suspended in that area until properties are evaluated for
"• eligibility for listing in NRHP in consultation with the SHPO.
If properties are determined eligible for NRHP, additional SHPO
P consultation will be required, and ACHP will be provided an
jjg opportunity to comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11.
:
rL
rI
b
p
4.11 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Proposed Seawall/Revetment Alternatives have been designed
and scheduled to avoid, and minimize probable effects on the
environment. Where avoidance can not be used and significant
impacts may result, mitigation measures have been designed to
minimize the impact upon the resources. Environmental
commitments identified in Section 4.10 will be implemented over
the project life.
Through formal agency coordination and assessment of the proposed
project impacts, it is determined that the proposed project
alternatives will not have a significant impact upon the existing
environment or the quality of the human environment, as
documented in this EA. As a result, preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
4-33
SECTION 5 - PREPARERS/REVIEWERS
P
r
L
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Los Angeles District - Preparers/Reviewers
Name
Pam Castens
Stephen
Dibble
Russell L.
Kaiser
Angelo
Karavolis
Richard
Perry
Ruth
Villalobos
Degree
M.A. - Geography
M.A. - Anthropology
M.S. - Coastal Zone
Management /Oceanography
M.S. - Civil Engineering
B.A. - Anthropology
M.A. - Geography
Study Role
Review
Review
Environmental Manager/
Enviro. Resources
Water & Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Review
5-1
H
I
E SECTION 6 - ACRONYMS
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
APCD Air Pollution Control District
APE Area of Potential Effects
ARE Air Resource Board
ASBS Area of Special Biological Significance
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CARB California Air Resource Board
CCC California Coastal Commission
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
CoE Chief of Engineers
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
cy cubic yard
dBA decibel (A weighted scale)
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEA Final Environmental Assessment
FONSI Findings of No Significant Impacts
H Horizontal
HP Horse Power
HTRW . Hazardous, Toxic. & Radial Waste
MLLW mean lower low water
mph miles per hour
mcy million cubic yard
NEPA National Environmental Policy Agency
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOx nitrogen oxides
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSR New Source Review
O, ozone
ppm parts per million
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
ROC reactive organic compounds
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SOx sulfur oxides
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
V Vertical
c 6-1
ii
i
SECTION 7 - REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board, 1992.
Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of
Regulations Regarding the California Exhaust Emission
Standards and Test Procedures for the New 1996 and Later
Heavy-Duty Off-Road Diesel Cycle Engines and Equipment
Engines, January 9, 1992.
Chambers Group, 1992.
Final Noise Survey for the Construction and Operation of the
International Wastewater Treatment Plant and Outfall
Facilities at the Tijuana River, San Diego, California.
Prepared for Department of the Army, Los Angeles District,
Corps of Engineers.
City of Carlsbad, Office of the City Manager, 1994.
Project Request Letter.
City of Los Angeles, Environmental Monitoring Division, 1991.
Marine Monitoring in Santa Monica Bay Annual Assessment
Report int he Period July 1990 through June 1991
Environmental Monitoring Division Bureau of Sanitation
Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles.
Dohl, T.P., K.S. Norris, R.C. Guess, J.D. Bryant, and M.W. Honig,
1981.
Cetacea of the Southern California Bight. Part 2 of
Volume II.
Herbich, J.B. and S.B. Brahme 1983.
Literature Review and Technical Evaluation of Sediment
Resuspension During Dredging U.S. Army Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station CDS Report No. 266.
O'Connor, J.M., D.A. Neumann, and J.A. Sheik, Jr. 1977.
Sublethal Effects of Suspended Sediment on Estuarine Fish
Technical Paper U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal
Engineering Research Center (No. 77-3):9Opp.
Page, G.W., and L.E. Stenzel, 1981.
The Breeding Status of the Snowy Places in California.
Western Birds, 1:1-40.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1994.
Pacific Coast Shoreline Reconnaissance Report. Department of
the Army, Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994.
Planning Aid Letter for Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline
Protection Studies for Oceanside and Carlsbad, California.
7-1
rm
A
it
RESOURCE
APPENDICES
f
tm
s
I
I
ft
APPENDIX A
CONSULTATION LETTERS
£
^ 7'
City of Carlsbad
Office of the City Manager
December 7, 1994
\\\
*ai
Fi»
r
I
:
Colonel Michal R. Robinson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, Ca. 90053-2325
Dear Colonel Robinson:
I would like to thank your staff in the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for their efforts in completing the Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad Reconnaissance
Study. This comprehensive study analyzed the potential damages which may be realized along
Carlsbad's coastline during the occurrence of an intense storm event in addition to providing an
evaluation on the effectiveness of various shoreline protection structures and beach building
methods. The study further concluded that federal interest exists in providing storm protection
to a 2,700 foot reach of Carlsbad Boulevard fronting the Agua Hedionda Lagoon (identified as
Reach 3 in the report). As I now realize, the effort in the preparation of an analysis of this
nature is extensive and your staff is to be highly commended for their professional work and
thorough evaluation of the City's eroding shoreline.
The Final Report also indicated that the next phase in the development of a beach protective
project is for the City to enter into an agreement for the preparation of a Feasibility Study.
However, this Feasibility Study phase is projected to take approximately 32 months to complete.
Due to the imminent threat of damage to a principal thoroughfare (Carlsbad Boulevard) and the
potential availability of State funds for assistance in construction of a shoreline protective
structure along this stretch of roadway, the City believes that the seawall alternative proposed
in the Reconnaissance Study should be pursued as the most effective and expeditious option.
Because the length of the area affected is relatively short, the Continuing Authority Program
appears to be the best approach. Therefore, this letter shall serve as a formal application to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a Section 103 study of the area of Carlsbad's coastline
adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
It is my understanding that the Continuing Authority Program will be conducted in two phases;
the first phase being a reconnaissance study which is funded by the Corps of Engineers. It
would seem fair to assume that a majority of this effort has been completed and can be extracted
from the Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad Reconnaissance Study. The City further recognizes
that we must fund 50 percent of the second phase, the feasibility study, and that as much as one-
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 • (619) 434-2821
1to
/fi
half of this share may consist of in-kind services. It is the City's desire to submit the completed
design plans for the seawall construction as well as the secured permits from the required
regulatory agencies as in-kind services. This is submitted in an effort to reduce the overall costs
as well as processing time. Additionally, the City can and will provide all necessary local
cooperation and participation through the City's Beach Erosion Committee and Engineering
technical staff.
I would like to take this opportunity to express the City's sincere appreciation for your attention
to this matter. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (619) 434-2821 or Mr.
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4391.
Sincerely,
RAYMOND R. PATCHETT
City Manager
c: City Council
Beach Erosion Committee
Community Development Director
City Engineer
Associate Engineer Jantz
mm
¥»
M
m
m
I
£
C
C
:
it
E
TAKE
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES m •
Carlsbad Field Office
** 2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008m
b
August 2, 1993
Ms. Hayley Lovan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Resources Branch
P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Re: Endangered Species Information for the Reconnaissance Study in Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California (1-6-93-SP-215)
Dear Ms . Lovan :
This is in response to your letter dated July 8 , 1993 , and received by us on July
14, 1993, requesting information on endangered, threatened and candidate species
which may be present within the area of the referenced project in San Diego
County, California.
IK The Federal lead agency under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
i as amended (Act), has the responsibility to request a species list and to prepare
a Biological Assessment if the project is a construction project which may
require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1 If a Biological Assessment is§not required, the lead Federal agency still has the responsibility to review the
proposed activities and determine whether listed species will be affected.
During the assessment or review process, the lead Federal agency may engage in
planning efforts but may not make any irreversible commitment of resources. Such
a commitment could constitute a violation of Section 7(d) of the Endangered
Species Act. If a listed species may be affected, the agency should request, in
writing through our office, formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.
A Federal agency is required to confer with the Service when the agency
determines that its action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed
critical habitat. Conferences are informal discussions between the Service and
Federal agency, designed to identify and resolve potential conflicts between an
action and proposed species or proposed critical habitat at an early point in the
decision making process. The Service makes recommendations, if any, on ways to
minimize or avoid adverse effects of the action. These recommendations are
advisory because the jeopardy prohibition of Section 7(a)(2) does not apply until
the species is listed or the proposed critical habitat is designated. If the
proposed species is listed or the proposed habitat designated, the Federal agency
determines whether or not formal consultation is required. The conference
process fills the need to alert Federal agencies of possible steps that an agency
might take at an early stage to adjust its actions to avoid jeopardizing a
./yley Lovan • .
>•' proposed species.
Informal consultation may be used to exchange information and resolve conflicts
with respect to listed species prior to a written request for formal
consultation. It should be noted that candidate species have no protection under
the Act. Therefore, the lead Federal agency is not required to preform a
Biological Assessment for candidate species nor to consult with the Fish and
Wildlife Service should it be determined that the project may affect candidate
species. They are included for the sole purpose of notifying Federal agencies
in advance of possible proposals and listings which at some time in the future
may have to be considered in planning Federal activities. If early evaluation
of your project indicates that it is likely to adversely impact a candidate
species, you may wish to request technical assistance from this office.
Should you have any questions regarding the species listed on the following
pages, or your responsibilities under the Act, please call Susan Wynn of my staff
at (619) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
Peter A. Stine
Acting Field Supervisor
"Construction Project" means andy Federal action which significantly
affects the quality of the human environment designed primarily to
result in the building or erection of man-made structures such as
dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, channels, and the like. This
includes Federal actions such as permits, grants, licenses, or other
forms of Federal authorizations or approval which may result in
construction.
M
WPI
*yley Lovan
f*
I,
Listed, Proposed, Endangered, Threatened,
and Candidate Species
That may occur in the Area of
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
(1-6-93-SP-215)
LISTED SPECIES
Common Name
Birds
Peregrine falcon
Bald eagle
Brown pelican
Light-footed clapper rail
California least tern
Western snowy plover
Plants
Salt marsh bird's beak
PROPOSED SPECIES
Fish
Tidewater goby
CANDIDATE SPECIES
Mammals
Pacific little pocket mouse
Southern marsh harvest mouse
Scientific Name
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Pelecanus occtdentalis
Rallus longirostris levipes
Sterna antillarum browni
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Cordvlanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus
Eucvclogobius newberrvi
Perognathus longimembris oacificus
Reithrodontomvs megalotis limicola
Status
E
E
E
E
E
T
PE
2
2
•1*
a
*
Birds
Tricolored blackbird
Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Black Tern
Reddish egret
California horned lark
Harlequin duck
Western least bittern
Loggerhead shrike
Black rail
Belding's savannah sparrow
Large-billed savannah sparrow
White-faced ibis
Elegant tern
Reptiles
Southwestern pond turtle
San Diego banded gecko
Two-striped garter snake
Agelaius tricolor
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
Chilodonias niger
Egretta rufescens
Eromophila alpestris actia
Histrionicus histrionicus
Ixobrychus exilis hesperis
Lanius ludovicianus
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
Passerculus sandwtchensis beIding
Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus
Plegadis chihi
Sterna elegans
Clemmys marmorata pallida
Coleonvx variegatus abbotti
Thamnophis hammondli
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
I
•1
ayley Lovan '•
Invertebrates
Ca. brackish water snail Tyronia imitator 2
Oblivious tiger beetle Cicitidela latesignata obliviosa 2
Globose dune beetle Coelus globosus 2
Salt marsh skipper Panoquina errans 2
Wandering skipper Pseudocopaeodes eunus eunus 2
Plants
Coastal dunes milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. titi 1
Coast wallflower Ervsinum fp^Plll 1m" 2
Prostrate lotus Lotus nuttallianus 2
(E) - Endangered
(T) - Threatened
(PE) - Proposed for listing as endangered
(1) - Category 1: Taxa for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient
biolpgical information to support a proposal to list as
endangered or threatened.
(2) • Category 2: Taxa for which existing information indicates that listing may
be warranted, but for which substantial biological information ,
to support a proposed rule is lacking. \
m
It
m
f
APPENDIX B
404 (b) (1) EVALUATION
I,
F
E
ft
m
THE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS
OF THE DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
I. INTRODUCTION. The following evaluation is provided in accordance with
Section 404 (b)(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(Public Law 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-
217). Its intent is to succinctly state and evaluate information regarding the effects
of discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the U. S. As such, it is not
meant to stand alone and relies heavily upon information provided in the
environmental document to which it is attached. Use of the "Documentation"
category is for expansion of discussions only when necessary or for references and
citations.
ll II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. (Referenced and described briefly as follows:)
|* The location of the study site is located between the inlet and outline jetties of Agua
w Hedionda Lagoon and Carlsbad Boulevard.
f A fieneraLDescription: [Section 3.2-3.3 of the attached EA.]
The proposed project consists of constructing a 2,504 foot seawall between the jetties
i and setting additional rock on the existing revetment. The seawall will be placed
adjacent to the existing sidewalk at an elevation of 20 feet above mean lower low
water (MLLW). The seawall will protrude about 42 inches above ground level,
y consist of a 30 foot steel sheet piling, and have a reinforced concrete cap on the top.
The seaward side of the seawall will be reinforced with two layers of 1500 pound
m stone. About 9,750 tons of additional rock will be placed on the revetment. The
jy operation is expected to require 0.3 acres of beach for staging. Construction
equipment to be used and methods are discussed in Section 3.3 of the attached EA.
m
i|g B__Authority_and-Pjjrpose:
Hi Federal authority for this project is provided under the Continuing Authorities
Hi Program (CAP), and Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962. [Section 2.2
of the attached EA.]
P*
|p The purpose of this report is to provide shoreline protection for the Project area
between Agua Hedionda Lagoon (inland and outline jetties) and Carlsbad Boulevard.
*i
m
C General Description nf Dredged or Fill Material: [Section 3.2 of the attached
EA.] See section IIA.
Ill FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS.
A S ubstrate_el e vati on_and _sl ope
Approximately 9,750 tons of material will be used in the construction of the seawall.
About 1500 pounds of rock will be used in the re-enforcement of the seawall itself,
on the seaward side. Quarry stone will be the rock type used in the construction of
the seawall.
R Physical effects on Marine Environment
The environment to be affected primarily includes the supra-tidal beach and
secondarily inter-tidal beach and supra-tidal rocky habitats. Marine impacts will be
associated with the seawall and rock placement activities.
Seawall activities will result in a minimal loss of sandy-cobble habitat. Species
inhabiting these areas are adapted to periodic disturbance and recovery is expected
within months. Although potential water quality impacts may include increased
turbidity within an existing turbid area, these impacts are not expected, because
work will be conducted above the water line. Because very little turbidity is expected
and most will be confined to the immediate locality, impacts will not be expected to
affect plankton populations and/or benthic organisms. Fish and marine birds that
feed on benthic invertebrates may suffer a localized, short term loss of food.
Although fish may temporarily avoid turbid areas, turbidity may impact visually
foraging piscivorous seabirds by making it difficult for them to see their prey.
Because the area of impact is such a small portion of the local marine habitat, the
impact of the loss of food on fish and bird populations is judged to be adverse, but
not significant. Turbidity will not impact common dolphin, harbor seal, sea lion,
and /or whale populations.
Although revetment work will occur on land and water, impacts are not expected.
Rock placement will result in direct habitat disturbances. It is expected that species
colonizing the rebuilt portions will be difficult to distinguish from that on the
existing structures within a year or less. This temporary habitat disturbance will be
f
M
f*
M
an adverse but not significant impact Aside from these direct habitat impacts, there
will also be noise impacts. If construction noise vibrates through the land-water
medium, mobile organisms may avoid noise impacted areas. Potential species
disturbances from construction are judged to be minimally adverse, but not
^ significant.
In Of the federally-listed species identified in Section 4.2.1.2, only the California
jg brown pelican, California least tern, Western snowy plover, light-footed clapper rail,
and tidewater goby may occur within the project area with a medium to high
HI probability. Because construction will occur between September and mid-March, the
H Corps has determined this alternative will not have an affect nor jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally listed threatened or endangered species. Formal
ft consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not
a required for project implementation. Sensitive species impacts are not expected with
project construction.
«K C Effect on Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity
* No significant impact on salinity, pH, water chemistry, clarity, color, odor, taste,
T* dissolved oxygen, and nutrients are expected to occur during construction. In
addition, no eutrophication is expected to occur (Section 3.3 of attached EA).
* D Effect on Current Patterns and Circulation. The potential of discharge or fill on
the following conditions were evaluated:
L Construction activities are not expected to changes water flow patterns, water
velocity, stratification, or the local hydrological regimes. (Section 3.4 of attached
fc EA).
§Construction activities are not expected to change the tidal or river stage regimes in
the study area (Section 3.4 of attached EA).
it No action is necessary to minimize any such change in the above parameters due to
JMf the proposed action.
Hi E Suspended Particiilate/Turhidity Determination'; at the Disposal Site!
M
No effects on turbidity levels, suspended sediment levels, the ability of light to
P penetrate the water column, and dissolved oxygen are predicted to occur for the
li proposed action. In addition, no increase in toxic and organic metals and pathogens
are anticipated, as no significant amounts of hydrocarbon fluids or other wastes are
If to be introduced into the ecosystem.
mw
No significant effect on the productivity of suspension/filter and sight feeders are
expected to occur as a result of the proposed action within the study site. No actions
are necessary to minimize the impacts of the proposed action on these biota (Section
4.2 of attached EA).
F Proposed Disposal Site Determinations
The Corps has determined that the proposed project is entitled to 404(f) exemption;
401 water quality certification is, therefore, not required. Section 404(f)(l) exempts
the discharge of dredged or fill material from certain activities. The exempt activities
include discharges "for the purpose of maintenance, including emergency
reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures such as
dikes, levees, groins, riprap "
The proposed project is not expected to introduce any new known or suspected
pollutants into the water column, based upon a review of the current water quality
assessment of the study site. Table 1 gives a comparative listing of relevant
documentation/criteria with respect to contaminant determination in the study site.
Table 1 Contaminant Criteria for proposed study site activity
1. Physical characteristics
2. Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated sources of
contaminants
3. Results from previous testing of the
material or similar material in the vicinity of
the project
4. Known, significant, sources of
contaminants (e.g. pesticides) from land
runoff or percolation
5. Spill records for petroleum products or
designated (Section 311 of CWA) hazardous
substances
6. Other public records of significant
introduction of contaminants from industries,
municipalities or other sources
7. Known existence of substantial material
deposits of substances which could be
released in harmful quantities to the aquatic
environment by man-induced discharge
activities
8. Other sources (specify)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
G Determination of Cumulative Effects of Disposal or Fill on the Aquatic
B Ecosystem
-. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. An evaluation of the
0 appropriate information in Section II F indicates that there is no reason to believe
that the proposed dredge or fill material is a carrier of contaminants.
H H Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem
p No such secondary impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
m
IV FINDING OF COMPLIANCE.
iH The proposed activity does not appear to: 1) violate applicable state water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited under Section 307 of the CWA; or
S jeopardize the existence of Federally listed endangered or threatened species or their
habitat; and violate requirements of any Federally designated marine sanctuary.
* The activity will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the
** U.S. including adverse effects on human health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability, and
P recreational, aesthetic, and economic values.
A Adaptation. oLthe_SectionJl04.b(JX-Guidelines-lQJ:his_EYaujatiQn
*l No significant adaptations of the guidelines were made relative to this evaluation.
IT
fc./alnation of Availability nf Practicable Alternatives tn the Proposed Discharge
Site which would have less Adverse Impact nn the^Aquatic Ecosystem
All available practical alternatives for reconstruction and modification were
p evaluated. The proposed action is the most cost effective and least environmentally
|y damaging.
C Compliance with Applicable State Water Quality Standards
The proposed project will comply with State Water Quality standards.
D Compliance with Applicable Tnxir. F.ffluenf Standard nr Prnhihitinn under
Section 307 of the dean Water Act.
No toxic materials are expected to be generated by this project, outside the waste oils
from possible spills from machinery.
F. Compliance with the Endangered^Species Act of 1973
No federally protected species will be affected by the proposed action (Ref. Ill B).
Compliance-with-SpecifiecLErotection_Measares for Maritime Sanctuaries
Designated-byjhe Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act nf 1Q72
No sanctuaries will be affected by the proposed project.
G. Evaluation nf Extent of Degradation nf the Waters nf the United States
No significant degradation of municipal or private water supplies, special aquatic
sites, or plankton resources will occur. The project will have a short-term affects
upon fish and invertebrates due to limited turbidity effects.
H. Appropriate and Practical Steps Taken to Minimi/e Potential Adverse Impacts
of theJ)-ischarge-QnJhe_Aquatic-Ecosystem.
No significant degradation of water resources will occur from the activities of the
proposed project.
/PII.I _ Guidelines fnr Proposed Disposal Site(s), fnr the. Discharge nf Dredged nr Fill
p MateriaL
This project is in compliance with Section 404(b)(l) guidelines, with the inclusion of
p appropriate conditions to minimize pollution or adverse effects on the aquatic
ecosystem.
H
f1 v \ \\\
IB Prepared by: o>V^ J>\\\ ~- ,
Name \ ^ ^ A L-A<(Xc<xooV &:
H Date it-
i
P
^
E
I.
f*
w
f
Ito
*m
Position £Y\U;fttoAme.rV<x\ G-yxq\AgtC.- - —
m
:
1
p APPENDIX C
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DETERMINATION
I
Pi
r DRAFTfa
p September 6, 1995
m Office of the Chief
E Environmental Resources Branch
••
f| Mr. Peter Douglas
|y Executive Director
California Coastal Commission
^1 Attn.: Mr. Larry Simon
E 45 Fremont, Suites 1900 and 2000
• San Francisco, California 94105
ft Gentlemen:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
p (Corps), submits this Statement of Negative Determination for the
|| proposed shoreline protection project located at Carlsbad.
The proposed project consists of placing a seawall adjacentBto Carlsbad Boulevard between the inlet and outlet jetties of
Agua Hedionda Lagoon and placing new rock on the existing
revetment, as outlined under Alternative 2 in the enclosed
pi Environmental Assessment (EA).
"* The proposed project is similar to a previously approved
project covered under the consistency determination 6-94-91,
P pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976, as amended.
|« Therefore, a Statement of Negative Determination is appropriate
for this project in compliance with NOAA regulation 930.35(d)(2)
which states "a Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) is not
required for Federal activity ... which is the same or similar
to activities for which consistency determinations have been
prepared in the past ..."
c
c
I
The Corps has concluded that preparation of a CCD is not
required for the specified project. Your prompt action on this
Statement of Negative Determination is appreciated as soon as
possible, due to schedule constraints. If you have any
questions, please contact Mr. Russell L. Kaiser, Environmental
Manager, at 213-894-0247. Thank you for quickly expediting this
matter.
Sincerely,
Robert S. Joe
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
I
P*
tm
I
P
PH
I
APPENDIX D
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION REPORTS
£
rto
E
, SENT. BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 5 2- 7-96 ! 8J42AM !6196745388 213!# 1
United States Department of the Interi
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Field Office
2730 Lokcr Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
T*
« °'f
«
December 20, 199
Colonel Michael R, Robinson
District Engineer, Los Angeles District
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Att. : Russell L. Kaiser, Environmental Resources Branch
Re: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Dear Colonel Robinson:
Please find enclosed the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (CAR) for the referenced
project in fulfillment of the FY 95 Scope of Work Agreement (£86 95 0078) dated September 5,
1995, between our respective agencies. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) submitted a Draft
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in October
1992 for comments and concurrence. We received concurrence from the Corps on November 29,
1995. This CAR constitutes the report of the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 2(b) of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Gale Bustillos, Project Biologist, or John
Hanlon, Chief, Branch of Federal Projects, at (619) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
• >^ \\ — jj£xj — \»-~^-
ul C. Kobetich
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: CDFG, Region 5, Long Beach, CA (Att.; R. Nitsos)
NMFS, Long Beach, CA (Att.: R. Hoffman)
SENT, BY'Xerox Telecopier 7021 J 2- 7-96 ! 8U2AM I 5196745388-21310 2
FISH AND WILDLIFE
COORDINATION ACT REPORT
for the
Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project, Carlsbad
San Diego County,California
Prepared for the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
by the
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 1
Carlsbad Field Office
Carlsbad, California
Gale Bustillos
Project Biologist and
Author
John Hanlon
Chief, Branch
of Federal Projects
December 1995
SENT BYJXercx Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-86 ; 8U3AM I 6196745J88-* 21318 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF TABLES ii
COMMENTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES Hi
INTRODUCTION " 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA 2
DESCRIPTION OFPROJECT 3
DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3
Terrestrial Habitat 3
Marine Habitat 3
Wildlife 4
Invertebrates 4
Fish 4
Birds 5
Mammals 5
Sensitive Species 5
Fish -. 5
Birds 5
IMPACTS OF PROJECT ONBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6
Terrestrial Habitat 6
Marine Habitat 6
^jldlife 7
Fish 7
Birds 7
Sensitive Species 7
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7
LITERATURE CITED 8
SENT BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-96 I 8J44AM ; 6196745388-* 213i* 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1, Location Map of Carlsbad Study Area 10
Figure 2. Detail of Reach 3 11
Figure 3. Detailed Project Designs for Seawall Construction 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1; List of avian species known, or reasonably expected to occur within the
Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project Study Area 13
SENT, BYJXerox. Telecopier 7021 : 2- 7-96 I 8:44AM 5 6196745388-* 213i« 5
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS AMOEUS DISTRICT, CO«P» OF ENGINEERS
LOS 4NQUK. CAU'OftNM MOM-29H
November 24, 1995
ATTSMTION Of:
Office of the Chief
Environmental Resources Branch
Mr. Gail Kobetich
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attention: Mr. John Hanlon
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Kobetich:
Thank you for your submittal of the Draft Coordination Act Report (DCAR) for the Carlsbad
Shoreline Protection Project at Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. We appreciate the
opportunity to review the DCAR and concur with the conclusions presented in the report. As
documented in both the DCAR and the Draft Environmental Assessment (DBA), the
recommended plan will avoid and/or minimize project impacts to a level that is not considered
significant nor will it have an effect or jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed
threatened or endangered species. Formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act is not required for project implementation. The Corps will also include the DCAR as
an enclosure to the DEA prior to public release. We look forward to the receipt of the Final
CAR.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact either Ms. Pamela Castens, Chief,
Environmental Planning Section, at 213-894-2314 or Mr. Russell L. Kaiser, Environmental
Manager, at 213-894-0247.
Sincerely,
cW
Robert S.
Chief, PlanningUivisiorT
SENT BY'Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-96 ; 8J44AM ;5196745388-213;* 6
UNITBO STATES DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE
National Oceania and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southwest Region
501 Wnt Oe»«n Boulevard, Suite 4200
Long IN«ch, Californli 90802-4213
TEL (310) 080-4000; FAX (310) 980.4018
F/SW021:RSHDEC I 4 I995
Mr. Gail C. Kobetich
Field Supervisor
Carlsbad Field Office
U.S. Pish and wildlife Service
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Kobetich:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report for th* Carlsbad Shoreline
Protection Project.
I concur with the conclusions of the Report that no significant
impacts to marine resources will result from the project. If you
have any questions, please contact Mr. Robert Hoffman at (310)
980-4043.
Sincerely,,
az-Soltero
Director
Printed on Recycled Paper
JANr 8-96 NON 7:45 US FWS FAX NO, 6194319624 P.01
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
1416 NINTH STREET
P.O. BOX 944209
SACRAMENTO. CA
(91$) 653-4875
December 19,1995
Mr. John Hanlon
Chief, Branch of Federal Projects
U.S. Fish and WUdlife Service
2730 Loter Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Ms. Gale Bustillos
Dear Mr. Hanlon;
Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the Draft Coordination Act Report for the
Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 2,504-foot
long seawall between the southern inlet jetty to Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the northern outlet jetty from
the San Diego Gas and Electric power plant. The Department concurs with your conclusion and
recommendations for the proposed project
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Richard Nitsos, Environmental Specialist,
Environmental Services Division, Department of Fish and Game, 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50, Long
Beach, California 90802, telephone (310) 590-5174.
Sincerely,
John L. Turner, Chief
Environmental Services Division
cc: .Mr, Richard Nitsos
Department of Fish and Game
Long Beach
Mr. Robert Hoffman
National Marine Fisheries Service
Long Beach
.it!
SENT.BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-86 ; 8:45AM ! 6196745388-* 21358 7
LACDA Water Conservation and Supply Study
at Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams
Los Angeles County, California
COMMENTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
California Department of Fish and Game Concurrence with DC AR, Richard Nitsos,
pers. comm. on December 13, 1995.
SENT, BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-96 ; 8I45AM ; 6196745388-* 213!# 8
INTRODUCTION
This document constitutes the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (CAR) prepared by the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) regarding potential effects to fish and wildlife resources
by the proposed construction of a 2,504-foot long seawall between the inlet jetties to Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and the outlet jetties from the San Diego Gas and Electric Encina Power Plant
located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, This is in fulfillment of the Fiscal
Year 1995 Scope of Work (E86 95 0078) between the Service and the Los Angeles District
Corps of Engineers (Corps) dated September 5,1995. The Service's analysis of this project and
recommendations are based on information provided in 1) the project description in the Scope of
Work (SOW), 2) the Planning Aid Letter for Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection
Studies for Oceanside and Carlsbad, California (March 1994), 3) field work and site visits by
Service personnel on October 6 and October 13,1995,4) information contained in the Service's
files and library, and 5) the Service's best collective professional judgement, This report
constitutes the report of the Department of the Interior as required by the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)
SENT. BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 ! 2- 7-95 ; 8J46AM ; 6196745388-* 213!# 9
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
The project is located at Carlsbad State Beach between the mouth of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and
the Encina Power Plant discharge canal in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
approximately 35 miles north of the City of San Diego (Figure 1). The strip of land separating
Agua Hedionda Lagoon from the ocean is bisected by Carlsbad Boulevard. The project site is a
low, narrow barrier beach composed of sand and cobbles. The condition of the beach is affected
by the jetties at the entrance to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The predominant littoral drift is to the
south. The jetties and the entrance channel intercepts the littoral material moving southward,
thereby starving the beach south of the entrance channel.
The climate of coastal southern California is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool,
relatively wet winters. Typical winter temperatures range'from 40"- 60°F, while 658-95°F can
be expected during the summer months. Precipitation consists almost entirely of winter rainfall,
averaging about 15 inches per year in the area. Average annual wave height is 3.5 feet with
occasional 10 -12 foot breakers (Corps of Engineers 1970).
The site lies in the middle of the Oceanside Littoral Cell which has a predominate southward
sediment transport (Corps of Engineers 1986, Ingmanson and Wallace 1973, Inman 1984),
However, nearcoast currents are weak and can flow either north or south at any time of the year
(State of California 1977). Historically, sediments have been supplied to the beaches in this area
from four rivers: San Mateo Creek, San Onofre Creek, Santa Margarita River, and San Luis Rey
River (State of California 1977). However, flood control dams, other structures, and in-river
sand and gravel operations have reduced sediment bearing flows, depriving the beaches of an
adequate supply of sand (Simons, Li and Associates 1985, Corps of Engineers 1986, Corps of
Engineers 1987a). Beach erosion problems are further aggravated along the Oceanside and
Carlsbad shoreline due to the construction of Oceanside Harbor in 1942 as the jetties and
breakwater interrupted the downcoast littoral drift that carried sand to the city beaches. Other
structures include the various groins and jetties along the Oceanside and Carlsbad reach. Such are
the historical factors that continue to influence and aggravate the erosion problems on the beach
of the proposed project site.
The project site is predominantly a sandy-cobble beach. The width of the San Diego County
beaches changes with the seasons. During the fall and winter the beaches are narrow as sand is
typically moved offshore, often exposing the underlying beach cobbles. During the spring and,
summer sand is redeposited on the beaches by low energy waves, thereby widening the beaches.
At the time of the site visits in October 1995 the average beach width was approximately 100 feet
and exposed cobbles were evident.
Immediately outside the study area, to the south, the beach is backed by sandstone cliffs overlain
by marine terrace deposits (Corps of Engineers 1987b). To the north, the City of Carlsbad has
constructed a sea wall along the base of the developed cliffs. Private houses and public roadways
SENT.BY'Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-36 ; 8=46AM ; 5195745388-> 213;#10
line the tops of the cliffs both north and south of the study area. A large public access parking lot
is situated just north of the inlet jetties.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The proposed project consists of constructing a 2,504-foot long seawall between the jetties at the
entrance channel to Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the jetties of the Encina Power Plant discharge
canal and setting additional rock on the existing revetment located immediately south of the
southern jetty of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon entrance channel (Figure 2). The seawall will be
placed adjacent to the existing sidewalk to a top elevation of about 20 feet above mean lower low
water (MLLW). The seawall will protrude 42 inches above the sidewalk consisting of a 30-foot
steel sheet piling with a reinforced concrete cap. The seaward side of the steel sheet pile seawall
would be protected with two layers of 1,500-pound stone, underlain by a six inch layer of quarry
run stone (Figure 3). In addition, approximately 9,750 tons of rock will be set on the existing 400-
foot revetment located immediately south of the south jetty to Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Figure 2).
Approximately five recessed breaks will be constructed every 300 feet in the seawall for beach
access.
DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Service addressed the biological resources of the project area in our Planning Aid Letter
dated March 31, 1994, for Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection Studies for
Oceanside Carlsbad, San Diego County , California. The proposed project area is a small segment
of a much larger project,
Terrestrial Habitat
The habitat in the proposed project area was historically composed of coastal strand vegetation.
However, due to the construction of roads and parking areas, past stabilization projects, and
heavy public use of the area, little of the native terrestrial habitat remains today. The only
terrestrial vegetation found was in the highly disturbed fenced off areas on either side of the
south jetties and along a heavily impacted hillside just south of the proposed project area. The
only shrubs seen during the field visits of October 6 and 13, 1995, were goldenbush (Is
jnenzissiD, a common early successional plant in disturbed areas, two introduced ornamental
species, gazania (Gazania longiscapa) and limonium fLimonium pereziiV and a low-growing
variety of atriplex CAtriplex sp.). Spring annuals were not evident at this time of year.
Marine Habitat
The two primary types of marine vegetative communities that occur within the study area include
algae and phytoplankton. Bradshaw et at. (1976) identified 26 species of marine subtidal algae in
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, including three species of kelp. Four separate kelp beds occurred along
SENT.BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-95 ! SU7AM 5 6196745388-* 213W1
the shoreline of the study area (San Diego Coast Regional Commission 1974). Phytoplankton
form the base of the marine food chain and live within the euphotic zone of the ocean. Since
these plants are reliant upon sunlight for energy, they are highly sensitive to changes in turbidity.
ymdlife
Invertebrates
Invertebrates comprise approximately 90 percent of all animal species in the world and are the
most abundant animals in intertidal and subtidal ecosystems. In coastal and estuarine systems,
invertebrates perform essential roles in various ecological interactions, including prey, predators,
water purifiers, grazers, decomposers, and biological control agents. While relationships are often
unclear, it appears that these interactions generally enhance the stability of the ecosystem.
The stability is weakened when large-scale reductions occur in the complexity and diversity of
species richness and interactions (May 1973, Usher 1986).
Among the aquatic invertebrates that occur in the project area, worms, barnacles, clams, starfish,
anemones, amphipods, snails, and crabs are the most numerous. During the field visits of October
6 and 13, 1995, shells of mussel (Mytilus sp,), scallop (Aequipectin sp V chama (Chama sp.) and
tube snail (AJetes sp,^ were washed up along the waterline.
Fish
Various fish communities would be expected to occur in the marine intertidal, marine subtidal,
and estuarine habitats in and around the project area. Based on a literature survey, a minimum of
63 species offish either occur or could reasonably be expected to occur (Bradshaw et al. 1976,
Southern California Edison Company 1978) in the study area.
Nearshore fish populations not only play a vital role in marine ecosystems but also serve as the
prey base for some avian species, including the Federal endangered California least tern. It, along
with numerous other piscivorous birds, forage for small fish in shallow nearshore waters, mostly
just outside the surf zone. Some of the preferred prey species that occur in the project area
include northern anchovy (^pgraulis mordax,)T topsmelt (Atherinops affin|s\ and jacksmelt
(Atherinopsis californiensis). The abundance and distribution of these fish species also influences
the distribution and reproductive success of California least terns.
During the site visit of October 6,1995, five white croaker (Genvonemus lineatus) had been
caught by fishermen fishing off the south outlet jetty. Other species caught by the fishermen from
that same point on other days, included shark, spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculatofasciatua)t
and California corbina (Menticirrhus undulatusV
SENT, BYiXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-96 : 8J48AM ; 6196745388-* 213;#12
Birds
Based on a literature search and comparisons of known range, distribution, and apparent suitable
habitat 140 species of birds could reasonably be expected to occur in the study area (Table 1).
The majority of these species are considered common residents or migrants. The California least
tern and brown pelican are Federal endangered species and the western snowy plover is a Federal
threatened species. California least terns are known to nest on the sandy beaches and islands
within Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos lagoons. The California least terns use the
lagoons and shallow coastal waters in the study area for foraging. The reproductive success of
least terns is closely associated with the availability of prey near breeding areas. During site visits
of October 6 and 13,1995, sanderlings (Calidris sp.), a marbled godwit (LifflQSa ffidoA) and
willets (Catoptrophorus samipalmatus^ were seen foraging in the receding waves and along the
beach.
Mammals
The only mammals seen at the site during the field visits on October 6 and 13,1995, were
California ground squirrels (gpermophilus beecheviV Due to the lack of suitable habitat no
threatened, endangered or sensitive species of small mammals are expected to occur at the project
area. However, no recent mammal surveys have been conducted in the study area.
Sensitive Species
Fish
The California grunion fLeuresthea tenuisl spawns on sandy beaches during spring and summer
high tides between March and August. The Cafifornia grunion is recognized as a sport fish, The
fish come to shore in large numbers to lay their eggs in the wet sand during the high tide. The
eggs remain near the surface of the sand to allow for oxygen exchange and to prevent the
hatchlings from getting trapped too deep or buried. With the return of the next series of high
tides, the eggs hatch and the young emerge and swim off to deeper water. Because of these
habitat requirements, grunion reproductive success can easily be influenced by human activities
along the shoreline during the spawning season.
Birds
The California least tern, peregrine falcon, and brown pelican are Federal endangered species, and
the western snowy plover is a Federal threatened species. All four species occur or may occur in
or near the project site.
California least terns are known to nest on the sandy beaches and islands within Buena Vista,
Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos lagoons. The terns use the lagoons and shallow coastal waters in
the project area for foraging. The reproductive success of the California least tern is closely
SENT.BY'Xercx Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-96 ; 8U8AM : 6196745388-> 213IJM3
associated with the availability of prey near breeding areas. Should construction activities cause
turbidity in the local marine and lagoon waters near the study site, this could negatively impact
foraging opportunites.
The Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalism is a Federal endangered species that occasionally
roosts on both the inlet and outlet jetties at Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the discharge canal.
These birds faced extinction in the early 1970's because they were sensitive to chemical pollutants
absorbed from the forage fish. The pollutants affected calcium metabolism and resulted in thin-
shelled eggs that broke before the chicks were able to hatch.
Western snowy plovers have been known to breed on sandy beaches and around the lagoons.
They are highly sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season and may abandon their nests in
response to nearby human activity. Snowy plover nests are very cryptic and easily stepped on or
otherwise disturbed by unaware sunbathers. The coastal beaches also serve as important foraging
grounds to migrating and resident snowy plovers during the winter months, The plovers are
insectivorous and often rely upon the decaying vegetative debris lying along the beaches that
attracts their prey. Their affinity for sandy beaches, need for vegetative cover, and high sensitivity
to disturbance, is in direct conflict with recreational beach use and associated management
practices,
IMPACTS OF PROJECT ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No short term direct impacts to fish and wildlife are expected to occur from the proposed project
construction. However, long-term impacts to the California grunion could occur from the loss of
suitable sandy beach material if this seawall becomes a deflector cf oceanic waves and the beach is
scoured away.
Terrestrial Habitat
The purpose of the seawall is to keep wind-blown sand off of Carlsbad Boulevard and to prevent
oceanic overwash to a limited degree. However, the proposed seawall could actually accelerate
beach erosion resulting from the scouring action of reflected wave energy during storms. The
wall would minimize the deposition of beach sand and cobbles on Carlsbad Boulevard,
Marine Habitat
Since no rock or sand is proposed to be placed in the water and the seawall is well above the
water, no impacts to marine habitats are expected.
SENT-BYlXerox Telecopier 7021 ! 2- 7-96 ; 8U9AM I 61967A5388-* 213I8H
Wildlife
Fish
The California grunion which spawns on sandy beaches from March through September could be
impacted if the seawall becomes a wave energy deflector and scours away the beach.
Birds
Since all construction activities would be conducted above the water, no impacts to birds are
expected. The heavy recreational use of the project area precludes any bird nesting.
Sensitive Species
No sensitive species are expected to be impacted from the proposed project nor during
construction activities,
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The project area consists of a heavily used recreational beach. No Federal endangered,
threatened, or sensitive species of plants or animals would be affected by the City of Carlsbad's
shoreline protection project. In addition, no other fish and wildlife would be adversely affected.
The Service concludes that no mitigation would be required if the project is constructed as
proposed.
SENT. BYiXerox Telecopier 7021 I 2- 7-96 I 8:49AM '< 6196745388-* 213!*fl5
LITERATURE CITED
Bradshaw, J., B. Browning, K. Smith, and J. Speth. 1976. The Natural Resources of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. Unpublished report prepared for the Office of Biological Services,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Corps of Engineers. 1970. Beach Errosion Control Report, Cooperative Research and Data
Collection Program of Coast of Southern California, Cape San Martin to Mexican
Boundary, Three Year Report 1967-1968-1969. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los
Angeles District.
Corps of Engineers, 1986. Southern California Coastal Processes Data Summary. CCSTWS
86-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
Corps of Engineers. 1987a. Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report,
CCSTWS 87-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
Corps of Engineers. 1987b, Coastal Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region. CCSTWS 87-2, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
Ingmanson, D.E and W. J. Wallace 1973. Oceanography: An Introduction. Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont, California.
Inman, D. 1984. Summary Report of Man's Impact on the California Coastal Zone.
Unpublished report prepared for the State of California - the Resources Agency, Dept. of
Boating and Waterways.
May, R.M. 1973. Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton Univ. Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.
San Diego Coast Regional Commission. 1974. Life in the Sea, the Marine Environment of the
San Diego Coast. San Diego Regional Commission, California,
Simons, Li and Associates, Inc. 1985. Final Report - Analysis of the Impacts of Dams on
Delivery of Sediment from the Santa Margarita River, California. Project
No. CA-COE-04.
Southern California Edison Company. 1978, Annual Operating Report, San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Volume IV, Biological, Sedimentological, and Oceanographic Data
Analysis, 1978. Unpublished report prepared for Southern California Edison Company by
Brown and Caldwell, Lockeed Center for Marine Research, and Marine Biological
Consultants.
SENT BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 I 2- 7-96 ! 8J50AM ; 6196745388-* 213itf16
State of California. 1977. Assessment and Atlas of Shoreline Erosion Along the California -
Coast. State of California - the Resources Agency, Dept. of Navigation and Ocean
Development.
Usher, M.B. 1986. Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London, England.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Planning aid letter for storm damage reduction and
shoreline protection studies for Oceanside and Carlsbad, California, Provided to the U.S.
Army corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Carlsbad (Calif.) Field Office, 17pp.
SENT. BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-95 ; 8!50AM ;6196745385-2131817
BEST ORIGINAL
O
O
FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP
CARLSBAD SHORELINE PROTECTION
STUDY AREA
10
SENT. BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 ! 2- 7-96 ; 8J51AM ! 6196745388-2135*18
BEST ORIGINAL
Figure 2. Detail of Reach 3
\
Carlsbad
SENT BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-96 ; 8J51AM I 6196745388-213i»19
Figure 3. Detailed Project Designs for Seawall construction
Prtsant Limit
of Sttewaik
Qavauon varias
Stopa 1%
Ust 30' Long Sheet PiKng
8ttnith«m steel PLZ-22 ar
Syrti Sl««l SPZ-23 or
Appravad Equal
Two (Z) Layer of1,500 pound Stona
Approx A ft Thick
Filter Clotn Wrap
A' at Each End
N«w 4* Slafi on Gradeto Compete SJdawaik
8 incfi Thick Quarry Run
Material Underlain by
Rtar Fabric
-IT
12
SENT BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-96 ; 8'-52AM : 6195745388-* 213I820
Table 1. List of avian species known, or reasonably expected to occur
within the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project Study area.
species Common Name (Scientific .Name) Status1
Brown pelican (Pelicanua pggidantalis^ E
Peregrin* falcon (galea pereorinua) E
Snowy plover (Charadyiua nivoaua) T
Semipalmated plover fcharadriua aemipalmatus)
Killdeer (Charadriua
Lesaer golden plover ( Pluvial i a
Black-bellied plover (Pluvialis aquatarola)
Spotted sandpiper (Achitia macularia^
Ruddy turnstona (Arenaria intei-pres^
Black turns tona (Arenaria malanogephala)
Sanderling (Calidria alba)
Dunlin fg^lidrifl alpina)
Baitd'fl sandpiper (Calidria bairdiil
Red knot (Calidria G^ntua^
Western sandpiper (Calidris mauril
Stilt sandpiper (Mieropalana hiraan^^P118'1
Pectoral sandpiper (qalidria melanotoa)
Least sandpiper (Calidria fflLnutilla)
Willet (Cafcoptrophorus giemipalmatua }
Wandering tattler (Heteroagalua
Dowitchers (Ijimnodromua spp.)
Marbled godwit (Limoaa fedoa)
Long-billed curlew <1Jumaniufl
Whinbrel (Kumeniua phaaopua ^
Lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipea)
Greater yellowlegs (Tringa
Herring gull (Larus argantatua)
California gull (Larus californicua)
Hew gull (Larua canus)
Ring-billed gull (Larus dalawarenaia)
Glaucous -winged gull (Larua glauoescap.sl
Heerman's gull (Larua heermanni)
western gull (Larua oeeidentalis)
Bonaparte's gull .'Larue Philadelphia)
Herring gull (Larus ar-
California gull (Larus californicua)
New gull (Larua caima )
California least tern (Sterna antilla,r^;ji brown i)
Blegant tern (starna, eleaans)
Caspian tern fstarna caapj.a)
Forster's tern (sterna forsteri)
Common tern (sterna
Royal tern (Sterna maximal
Rook dove (Cplumba livia)
American crow (Corvna braehyrhynnhoa )
Coffloaon raven (Corvue eorax)
Buropean starling (sturnua
13
SENT BYJXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-96 ; 8=52AM ; 6196745388-213I#21
Table 1. (continued)
Species common Name (Scientific Name) Statue
blackbird (Euph,aaua
finch (Carpodae;^ maxicanua )
Xcuee iparrow (Paaagr domeatieua)
1 Status:
E refers to species which are listed as endangered by the respective
government agencies.
T refers to species that are listed as threatened by the respective
government agencies.
14
m
ft
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEECOLOGICAL SERVICES
CARLSBAD FIELD OFFICE
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
Colonel Robert VanAntwerp
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
P.O. Box 2711 _*•
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
March 31, 1994
Re:Planning Aid Letter for Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline
Protection Studies for Oceanside and Carlsbad, California.
P
'k
P
to
IP
Attn: Haley Lovan
Dear Colonel VanAntwerp:
This is in fulfillment of the FY94 Scope of Work (SOW) between our agencies
requesting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provide a
Planning Aid Letter (PAL) regarding the potential effects to the fish and
wildlife resources by the implementation of several alternatives for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection in Oceanside and Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California.
The SOW outlined the proposed project and alternatives. Our information is
preliminary in nature and is provided as technical assistance to aid in
your planning process. The PAL describes: 1) the biological resources
within the proposed project and study areas based on a literature review
and a brief field visit; 2) an analysis of the proposed alternatives and
their possible effects on biological resources within the project and study
areas; 3) preliminary avoidance and mitigation measures to minimize impacts
to the biological resources; and 4) preliminary Service recommendations
regarding the proposed alternatives.
This PAL is intended to assist with the preparation of a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a feasibility study. This letter
is for planning purposes only and does not constitute the report of the
Secretary of Interior within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et
seq.).
If a Federally listed species may be affected, the lead Federal agency or
Federal permitting agency for this project must request formal consultation
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(ACT) in writing through our office. "Informal consultation" may be used
to exchange information and resolve conflicts with respect to listed
species prior to a written request for formal consultation.
The Service's analysis of this project and recommendations are based on
information provided in the 1) scope of work (SOW) project description, 2)
preliminary information in support documents for the SOW provided to the m
Service on December 8, 1993, 3) a field survey conducted by the Service's • —
staff, 4) various scientific papers, technical reports, and letters; 5)
inforaation contained in the Service's files and library, and 6) t&e
Service's best collective professional judgment.
if
We hope that the above analysis proves useful and we look forward to
continued exchange during the planning process of "this project. If you m
have any questions regarding our comments please contact Mark A. Pavelka of ^
my staff at (619) 431-9440.
\ Sincjrely. *
m
w
f
Gail C. Kobetich
Field Supervisor
9
M
ff
m
t
m
PLANNING AID LETTER
Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline .Protection
Carlsbad and Oceans ide, San Diego County.. CaliforniaU .. IE» ?
**
Prepared for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
Los Angeles, California
Prepared by
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 1
Carlsbad Field Office
Carlsbad, California
Field Supervisor
Gail C. Kobetich
Federal Projects Supervisor
John Hanlon
Author
Mark A. Pavelka
March 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .............................. 1
Description of Project Alternatives ............... \ . . . 1
Methods and Materials .......................... 4
Results ..................... * ............ 4
Environment Without the Project
1. General Description ....... J^ ..... ". ..... 4
I |2. Vegetation ............. . .......... 5
3. Invertebrates ...................... 6
4. Fish .......... ................. 6
5. Reptiles and Amphibians ............ ..... 7
6. Birds ...... . ................... 7
7. Mammals ........ ...... ; ......... 12
Environment With the Project .................. 13
Discussion and Conclusions ...................... 14
Summary and Recommendations ...................... 15
Literature Cited ........................... 16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Area Location Map ................... 2
Figure 2. Oceanside and Carlsbad Reaches and Sub-reaches ........ 3
*
*
n
m
c
P» INTRODUCTION
to This constitutes a Planning Aid Letter (PAL) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
_ Service (Service) on the preliminary assessment of project impacts^xfor the
Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection, Oceanside and Carlsbad
*** Reaches, Reconnaissance Study, San Diego County, California. A map showing
the location of the project area and vicinity is presented in Figure 1.
|H Our information is preliminary in nature and is provided as technical
k| assistance to aid in your planning process. It describes: 1) the
biological resources within the proposed project1 and study2 areas based on
p, a literature review and field survey; 2) an analysis of the proposed
* alternatives and their possible effects on biological resources within the
** project and study a^fpas; 3) preliminary avoidance ari& mitigation measures
to minimize impacts to the biological resources; and 4) preliminary Service
P* recommendations regarding the proposed alternatives.
to
The proposed project has been divided into two study reaches distinguished
pn by local government jurisdictions (Figure 2). The Oceanside reach extends
approximately four miles along the coast from Oceanside Harbor south to
Buena Vista Lagoon. The Carlsbad reach begins at Buena Vista Lagoon and
extends southward for approximately 7 miles to Batiquitos Lagoon. The
Carlsbad reach has been further divided into 5 sub-reaches (Figure 2).
to
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
(P>
^ Five structural and non-structural alternatives are identified by the Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the Oceanside reach. The proposed
^ alternatives are 1) revetments, 2) sea walls, 3) offshore breakwaters, 4)
groins, and 5) beach replenishment. A no action alternative is not
w discussed with respect to the Oceanside reach.
** Eight alternatives, structural and non-structural, are described by the
^ Corps for the Carlsbad reach. The alternatives are 1) beachfill in sub-
reaches 1 and 2, 2) a groin system with beachfill in sub-reaches 1 and 2,
p» 3) an offshore breakwater system in sub-reaches 1 and 2, 4) a 600-foot long
* revetment in sub-reach 1, 5) beachfill in sub-reach 3, 6) a groin system
with beachfill in sub-reach 3, 7) an offshore breakwater system in sub-
reach 3, 8) a 2,400-foot long seawall/revetment in sub-reach 3, and 9)§extend the northernmost inlet jetty at Agua Hedionda Lagoon approximately
200 to 400 feet, to -12 feet mean sea level.
1Project Area - the area that will be directly impacted by the
proposed project. Direct impacts are described here as the effects for
which some aspect of the construction of the proposed project results in
the direct destruction or replacement of the environmental resource(s).
2Study Area - the area that includes the direct and indirect impacts
of the proposed project. Indirect impacts are described here as the
eventual loss of the resource(s) through a process of deterioration or
replacement of environmental resources indirectly caused, or triggered by
some aspect of the proposed project.
to
r^^^sS"^1:?-^*- '••••' •••••'.-—'1^ .'£•»• • >-"i^.^^S^A-rfe^Vc^ •^-^sa'TZ^3*dcJrl -t--^&>"£-'• 7. •~. \ ••,,'" /* ' d \ t7*--' i:'Vr--fT*fK*' I£j^--v-£#:^s.*V •-•• /Wsrr**-/ •• A ^HSr N*^y^.•vffi^ay*-^ '•••*: ••vVj--- a--r- ^•^•»-' ••^JL;l^^-i jfX ;•-• v>^^'-- • ..V^mo -.•^y.r::^AJ-.-"y tegfegy''^*?
«t ?"«'^^v^'< ^=."5iir---SCV*^--^. V. •.v;---.-;^-..'w.,.<s^=-,T "^C, \W\ -~•"-:•<£*-/@^Z--^C-J--..- :- .•«..{j.,^?L *•-",-> _j
ftT-. •••AJ'I •* * ~ 'A— v' ^—•—T>» ' r \ — " • ' • • ';^- & •'••• »>^ «c'-- '•'. ..V-CJme ••***.&*±fS' AJ-^ -'«• jtsrgijgg.^"f AJJ?'j:i' . .ig—^y^. -_ A. ... - — I \ -.
^feT^^-v^^'lT^P^^^m^S»Ss«V.>. V?'.~•- ^y'JSf •>•', — -^.aauar-.lofflitaDl,1. JJ1^. : — x T • :-'f-V;---^~ --••-£/«^^^KX^^-^R-^r---.^•-'•?->-'-'-s^^-Jr-"*^-rri • rv v>W-'v^
\3fe^fe^^&5S?T:VS^/'\%S8S^^^^Sf^B>--/f :^<:.^r><- ^^
^1 •* ^ «f ^ ' -'-^ -X•~t-fT-:.rx/r/ ; ^'"• J ^.•?.f-£j^/.--i:'~''J'"',^- LI^J^
*^^^**^jr— . • ^ ^r-^t \\ •-* •^i|^llXrJ
M KX \ \ \ \
Scale 1:250.000
m
a
H
ff
«i
II
I
i»
iit
ia
Figure 1. Location of project area for the Storm Damage Reduction
and Shoreline Protection Reconnaissance Study, Oceanside
and Carlsbad Reaches, San Diego County, California.
II
V
ri t i f i mm r*r i f i f i r 11 r i § i r t f i 11
CD
10
(Dt»
g
H-aro
n
t/1trAIa
n>P>
&ft)
(A
Ba
w&
(D
POtr
(D
OCEANSIDE REACH
CARLSBAD REACH
The alternatives are not mutually exclusive and the Corps indicates that a
final, preferred alternative would probably contain features from several
of the alternatives listed.
^This Planning Aid Letter was prepared by Mark A. Pavelka, Project
Biologist, under the supervision of John Hanlon, F.ederal Projects
Coordinator, and Gail C. Kobetich, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife &
Service, Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, California. l§
The Service's analysis of this project and recommendations are based on jm
information provide^ in the 1) scope of work (SOW)" project description, 2) _
preliminary information in support documents for thv'SOV provided to the
Service on December 8, 1993, 3) a field survey conducted by the Service's
staff, 4) various scientific papers, technical reports, and letters; 5) *
information contained in the Service's files and library, and 6) the **
Service's best collective professional judgment.
•
RESULTS . n
Environment Without the Project ^
1. General Description Wm
The cities of Oceans ide and Carlsbad are located along the northwestern
coast of San Diego County, California, approximately 60 miles north of the ft
Mexican border. Within the borders of these two cities there are If
approximately 12 miles of city-owned beaches. Historically, sediments have
been supplied to these beaches from four rivers, San Mateo Creek, San tm
Onofre Creek, Santa Margarita River, and San Luis Rey River (State of m
California 1977). However, flood control dams and other structures which
have restricted flows bearing sediment, and modifications in the coastline
profile have deprived the beaches of an adequate supply of sand (Simons, Li
and Associates 1985, Corps of Engineers 1986, Corps of Engineers 1987a) .
Additional sediments have historically flowed from three lagoons in the
study area, Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos (Inman 1984). Human
developments, including roads and fill for structural projects, have
severly restricted the flow from two of these lagoons and only Agua
Hedionda remains permanently open to tidal flushing.
The Oceans ide and Carlsbad reaches are located in the middle of the
Oceanside Littoral Cell with a predominate southward sediment transport
(Corps of Engineers 1986). However, nearcoast currents are weak and can fH
flow either north or south at any time of the year (State of California j|
1977) . It is estimated that the annual net movement of sand from the
Oceanside study area due to littoral transport mechanisms is 215,000 cubic M
yards downcoast (Corps of Engineers 1970) . B
Beach erosion problems were intiated with the construction of Oceanside
Harbor in 1942. The jetties and breakwater interrupted the downcoast W
littoral drift that carried sand to the city beaches. To counter sediment if
depletion and beach erosion, up to 3,615,000 cubic yards of sand has been
placed annually on Oceanside beaches (dorps of Engineers 1970). Additional
sand is supplied Co Oceanside beaches by the Oceanside Harbor sand bypass
** system, when it is functioning.
** The beaches in this study that are currently covered with send 2::t=nd from
^ Oceanside Harbor south through sub-reach 3 of the Carlsbad reach. Beach
widths in these areas range from approximately 1 to 100 feet. The beaches
m are currently covered with cobble in sub-reaches 4 and 5 of the Carlsbad
reach. There is a small amount of rocky intertidal habitat off the coast
'&* of the Carlsbad reach.
P Except for the northernmost 1 mile of beach, the benches in the study area
IB are backed by 10 to ,100 foot high mesas of sandstona^ siltstone, and
mudstone overlain by marine terrace deposits (Corps itif Engineers 1987b).
a* Private houses, public roadways, and a State Park line the tops of most of
these bluffs. Some of the areas with private homes are protected with rip-
rap along the shoreline.
m The climate of coastal southern California is characterized by warm, dry
%f summers and cool, relatively wet winters. Typical winter temperatures
range from 40-60'F, while 65-95*F can be expected during the summer months.
pi Precipitation consists almost entirely of winter rainfall, averaging about
i 15 inches per year in the area. Tidal levels in the study areas have a
mean range of 3.7 feet and a diurnal range of 5.3 feet. Average annual
• wave height is 3.5 feet with occasional 10-12 foot breakers (Corps of
Engineers 1970).
«•
2. Vegetation
*t
10 The proposed project area has essentially two vegetation types: coastal
strand and marine habitats. The mudflat, salt pan, marsh, and open water
pi habitats within the three lagoons, fiuena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and
Batiquitos, and at the estuaries of the Santa Margarita and San Luis Rey
*** Rivers, also lie within the study area and could potentially be affected by
the proposed proj ects.
^ High levels of public recreation on the beaches coupled with periodic
losses of sandy substrates due to erosion have impacted these vegetation
m communities. However, since no recent surveys of the vegetation communties
* have been conducted in the study area, it is not possible to estimate
extent of these impacts or the distribution of remaining sensitive species.
Coastal strand vegetation is typically sparse throughout the study area.
*» This is probably due to the high levels of human use and periodic erosion
of the sandyisubstrates. Based on a literature search and comparisons of
^ known range, distribution, and apparent suitable habitat, one Federal
LJ category 1 species, coastal dunes milk vetch (Astragalus tener va. titi).
and two Federal category 2 species, aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides) and
prostrate lotus (Lotus nuttallianus), could reasonbly be expected to occur
in the project area. Common coastal strand species expected to occur in
i* the project area include sand verbena (Abronia maritima). sea rocket
(Cakile maritima) , sand-burr (Ambrosia chamissonia'), and hottentott fig
m
m
(Carpobrotus edulis) . Non-native planes such as Arundo donax . iceplant,
and various ornamentals commonly occur along the margins of the beach it
(pers. obs.). " m
r.-.i r. ; p.-i^ic--' ~".~i- zl jj.-i..i-2 vajetati-e =-:cr:ur.iti3s thai occur vichin yg
the study area include algal and phytoplanktonic. Bradshaw et al. (1976)
identified 26 species of marine sub tidal algae in Agua Hedionda Lagoon,
including three species of kelp. Four seperate ke.lp beds have also been
known to occur along the shoreline of the study area (San Diego Coast
Regional Commission 1974). Fhytoplankton form the base of the marine food 0
chain and live within the euphotic zone of the ocean. Since these plants
are reliant upon sunlight for energy, they are highly sensitive to changes m
in turbidity. No recent surveys of marine vegetation in the study area _
have been conducted.' f-
3. Invertebrates *
iw
Invertebrates comprise approximately 90 percent of all animal species in
the world, and are the most abundant classification of animals in inter- *
and sub tidal ecosystems. In coastal and estuarine systems, invertebrates ^
perform essential roles in various ecological interactions, including prey,
predators, water purifiers, grazers, decomposers, and biological control •.
agents. Many species of birds are highly dependent upon them as forage
(Smith 1980). While relationships are often unclear, it appears that these *
interactions generally enhance the stability of the ecosystem. The
stability is, however, weakened when large-scale reductions occur in the P
complexity, diversity, and redundancy of species richness and interactions |p
(May 1973, Usher 1986).
Based on a literature search and comparisons of known range, distribution, —
and apparent suitable habitat, six Federal category 2 species of
invertebrates may occur within the study area. Four of these species, the
sandy beach tiger beetle (Cincidela hirticollis gravida) , globose dune
beetle (Coelus globosus) , oblivious tiger beetle (Cicindela latest gnata •
obliviosa) , and penisular range shoulderband (Helminthoglvpta traskiae
coelata) , prefer habitats along beach fronts and on sandy hummocks . The HI
other two species , mimic tyronia (Tvronia imitator) and the salt marsh j^
skipper (Panoouina errans) , prefer estuarine habitats and may occur within
any of the three lagoons. _
1fitAquatic invertebrates expected to occur within the study area include •"
worms, barnacles, clams, mussels, urchins, starfish, anemones, amphipods,
snails, crabs, and lobster. Most of these invertebrates have specific f|
habitat requirements which range from rocky intertidal, to sand beaches, to 4J
benthic soft ..bottoms . No Federal listed endangered or threatened marine
invertebrate species have been identified in the study areas. However, no j|
recent invertebrate surveys have been conducted in the study area. i
4. Fishes •
Different fish communities would be expected to occur in the marine ft
intertidal, marine subtidal, and estuarine habitats of the study area.
a
m
mm
Based on a literature survey, a minimutt of 63 species of fish either occur
^ (Bradshaw et al. 1976) or could reasonably be expected to occur (Bradshaw
IN et al. 1976, Southern California Edison Company 1978, Corps of Engineers
1990) in the study area, including the Federal listed endangered tidewater
fn goby f5v.g"-.".ogoblus newberrvi) . Tidswatsr tsbys ars often washed ^rom the
t lagoons into the ocean during high water and storm events. The gobys then
move downcurrent in the nearshore waters and disperse into other lagoons.
The offshore kelp beds and the tidal systems of the lagoons in the study
: area are important in the life cycle of a number of coastal marine fish
l|» species including the diamond turbot (Hvpsopsetta guttulata) and California
halibut (Paralichthys californicus).
f** Nearshore fish populations not only play a vital role in marine ecosystems
but also serve as the prey base for some avian spec£ps, including the
Federal listed endangered California least tern which forages for small
** fish in shallow nearshore waters (mostly just outside the surf zone). Some
I* of the preferred prey species that occur in the study area include northern
anchovy fEngraulis mordax). topsmelt (Atherinops affinis). and jacksmelt
(* (Atherinops californiensis). Factors which affect the abundance and
ttf distribution of these fish species can also influence the distribution and
reproductive success of least terns.
' California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis). a sport fish species, is known to
** breed along the Oceanside beaches each year between March and August. The
fish come to shore in large numbers to spawn, laying their eggs in the
** beach sand. The eggs must remain near the surf ace. of the sand to allow for
%M oxygen exchange and to prevent the hatchlings from getting trapped too deep
or buried. Because of these habitat requirements, grunion reproductive
p» success can easily be influence by human activities along the shoreline.
^No Federal listed endangered or threatened species of fish have been
identified in the study area. However, no recent surveys of the fish
resources have been conducted in the study area.I*
5. Amphibians and Reptiles
pi
^ Based on the known range and distribution, the Federal listed endangered
San Diego horned lizard (Phrvnosoma corona turn blainvillei), the Federal
p, proposed endangered arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) , and two
• Federal candidate 2 species, the orangethroated whiptail lizard
** (Cnemidophorus hvoervthrus) and the western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus
hammondii). could be reasonably expected to occur within the study area.
A Because the study area encompasses five large estuarine lagoons, there is a
^9 potential for numerous other species of amphibians and reptiles. However,
no recent hqrpetological surveys have been conducted in the study area.
mL, 6. Birdsin
Based on a literature search and comparisons of known range, distribution,
f* and apparent suitable habitat 140 species of birds could reasonbly be
Itf expected to occur in the study area (Table 1).
»
p»
ftm
Table 1. List of avian species known, or reasonably expected Co occur
within the Oceans ide/Carlsbad Shoreline Stabalization Study area. H
. ' «
Species Common Name (Scientific Name) Status.*
Federal State -_
Common loon (Gavia immer)
Pacific loon (Gavia pacifica)
Red- throated loon ( Gavia stellata) ft
Clark's grebe (Aechmophorus elarkii) tp
Western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis)
Horned grebe (Podiceps auritus) .
Eared grebe (Ppdiceps nigricollis)
Pied-billed grebe fPodilvmbus Podi
American white pelican (Pelicanus ervhtrorhynchos )
>• » :JL
Pied-billed grebe fPodilvmbus Podiceps) *
Brown pelican (Pelieanus occidentalism E E ™
Double-crested cormorant ( Phalacrocorax auritus) M*'
Brandt's cormorant ( Phalacrocorax penieillatus)
Magnificent frigatebird fFregata magnificens) H
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) ^
American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)
Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) «l
Green-backed heron (Butorides striatus) "
Great egret (Casmerodius albus) *
Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea)
Snowy egret (Egretta thula) ft
Tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor) It
Black-crowned night-heron (Nvctieorax nvcticorax)
Northern pintail (Anas acuta) p
American wigeon (Anas ymar^ra^a^ _
Northern shoveler (Anas clvpeata)
Green-winged teal (Anas crecca)
Cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera)
Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) **
Hallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
Gadwall (Anas strepera) **
Lesser scaup (Avthya af finis) — j
Greater scaup (Avthva marila)
Oldsquaw (Clangxila hvemalis) M
Redhead (Avthva americana)
Ring-necked duck (Avthva collaris) "*
Canvasback (Avthva valisneria)
Brant (Branta bernicla) ^
Canada goose (Branta canadensis) m
Buf flehead (Bucephala albeola)
Common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) j§
Snow goose (Chen caerulescens)
White-winged scoter (Melanitta fusca)
Surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata)
Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator)
m
m
m
a
Table 1. (continued)
Species Common Name (Scientific Name) Status
Federal S^tate
Common merganser (Mergus merganser)
Ruddy duck (Oxvura lamaicensis)
Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
Sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus)
Red- tailed havk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Red- shouldered havk (Buteo lineatus)
Northern harrier (Circus cvaneus)
Black- shouldered kite (Elanus caerulens)
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Merlin (Falco columbarius)
Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) E
American kestrel (Falco sparverius)
American coot (Fullca
Common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus)
Sora (Porzana Carolina)
Virginia rail (Rallus limicola)
Light-footed clapper rail (R. longirostrus levipes) E
Snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) T
Semipalmated plover (Charadrius s eminalmatus )
Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)
Lesser golden plover (Pluvialis dominica)
Black-bellied plover (Pluvialis souatarola)
Black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus)
American avocet (Recurvirostra
fn Spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia)
Ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres)
Black turnstone (Arenaria melanocephala)
Sander ling (Calidris alba)
*** Dunlin (Calidris alpina)
tto Baird's sandpiper (Calidris bairdiiV
Red knot (Calidris canutus)
<* Western sandpiper (Calidris mauri)
^ Stilt sandpiper (Micropalana himantopus)
Pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos)
p, Least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla)
Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus)
** Common snipe (Gallinago gal linage)
Wandering tattler (Heteroscelus incanus )
^ Dowitchers (Limnodromus spp . )
jy Marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa)
Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus)
pi Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus)
i Red phalarope (Phalaropus fulicaria)
f*
Table 1. (continued)
Species Common Name (Scientific Name) Status ' V
Federal -State
*
Red-necked phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus)
Wilson's phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor)
Lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) .
Greater yellowlegs (Tfringa melanoleuca) ^
Herring gull (Larus argentatus) IV
California gull (Larus califomicus)
Mew gull (Larus canus.) y . f|
Ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) ?' * gj
Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens) *
Heerman's gull (Larus heermanni) ~.
Western gull (Larus occidentalis) •
Bonaparte's gull (Larus Philadelphia) **
Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactvla)
Black skimmer (Rvnchops niger) *
Parasitic jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus) «»
California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) E E
Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) H
Elegant tern (Sterna elegans) 2 m
Forster's tern (Sterna forsteri)
Common tern (Sterna hirundo)
Royal tern (Sterna maxima) W
Rock dove (Columba livia) **
Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)
Common ground dove fr-n\"™hjf\^ Passerina) p
Greater roadrunner (Geococcvx californianus) ^
Barn owl (Tvto alba)
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus)
White-throated swift (Aeronautes saxatalis)
Vaux's swift (Chaetura vauxi)
Belted kingfisher (Cervle alcvon)
Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans)
Black phoebe (Savornis nigricans)
Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) 2
Cliff swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota) .
Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica)
Tree swallow (Tachvcineta bicolor)
American crow (Corvus brachvrhvnchos)
Common raven (Corvus corax)
Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris)
American pipit (Anthus rubescens)
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 2
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)
Brewer's blackbird (Eu-phagus cvanocephalus)
10
t
*
Table 1. (continued)
*« Species Common Name (Scientific Name) Status
Federal State
I* ' —
Common yellowthroat (Geothlvpis trichas)
Savannah sparrow fPasserculus sandwichensis nevadensis)
^ fielding's savannah sparrow (P. s. beldinei) . 2
Large billed savannah sparrow (P. s. rostratus) 2
!•» Song sparrow (Melospi?a melodia)
Lincoln's sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii)
P* White-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrvff)
^ House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)
House sparrow"(Passer domesticus)
1 Status: £ refers to species which are listed as endangered by the
^ respective government agencies. I refers to species that are listed as
threatened by the respective government agencies. 2. (Category 2) refers to
^ species which may be warranted for listing as Federally endangered or
ty threatened, but sufficient information is not currently available to make a
determination. 2. (Category 3) refers to species that have proven to be
m more abundant or widespread than previously believed and/or those that are
not subject to any identifiable threat (USFWS 1991).
** The majority of these species are considered common residents or migrants.
iw However, four species, the California least tern, light-footed clapper
rail, peregrine falcon, and brown pelican, are Federal listed endangered,
pft and one, the western snowy plover, is Federal listed threatened.
L California least terns are known to nest on the sandy beaches and islands
within Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos lagoons. The terns use
the lagoons and shallow coastal waters in the study area for foraging. The
reproductive success of least terns is closely associated with the
*» availability of prey near breeding areas.
I* The light-footed clapper rail is a secretive resident of southern
jj^ California coastal wetlands and has been found in the marsh areas of each
lagoon in the study area. The principle cause of decline in this species
—. has been the destruction and degradation of coastal wetland habitat.
• Zembal and Massey (1988) determined that the seasonal formation of inland
** lakes at coastal estuaries with closed ocean inlets drown out foraging
substrate and force clapper rails to upland fringes where they are exposed
|P to predators. Portions of each marsh that are not periodically inundated
id dry out resulting in the loss of the forage base and alteration of marsh
characteristics.
Lj Western snowy plovers have been known to breed on the sandy beaches and in
areas around the lagoons. They are highly sensitive to disturbance during
the breeding season and may abandon their nests in response to nearby human
j* activity. Snowy plover nests are very cryptic and easily stepped on or
Hi otherwise disturbed by unaware sunbathers. The coastal beaches also serve
m
to 11
P*
not only as breeding areas buc also as important foraging grounds to
migrating and resident snowy plovers during the winter months. The plovers H
are insectivorous and often rely upon the decaying vegetative debris lying •• ^
along the beaches that attracts their prey. Their affinity for sandy
bsachsc, r.3;d f~r •T-*i=-2.-\—i -T.-^r and hijh sensitivity to disturbance, is g|
in direct conflict with recreational beach use and associated management
practices. ^
A comprehensive survey of the avifauna in the study area, and an *
investigation into their use of the local resources would be necessary to of
evaluate any proposed proj ects.
y. • H7. Mammals . vj»
' v'Based on a literature search and comparisons of known range, distribution,
and apparent suitable habitat 18 species of mammals could reasonbly be P
expected to occur in the study area (Table 2). IV
Table 2. List of mammalian species known, or reasonably expected to occur (M
within the Oceanside/Carlsbad Shoreline Stabalization Study area. ^
Species Common Name (Scientific Name) Federal Status1 —
Opossum (Didelphis virginiana) •*
Ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus)
Brush rabbit (Svlvilagus bachmani) ft
Desert cottontail (Svlvilagus audubonii) ^
S.D. Black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) 2
California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beechevi) g.
Dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) ,
San Diego pocket mouse (Perognathus fallax fallax) 2 .
California pocket mouse (Perognathus californicus)
Western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) P
Deer mouse (Peromvscus maniculatus) I*
California mouse (Peromvscus californicus)
Brush mouse (Peromvscus bovlei) |H
California meadow mouse (Mierotus californicus) M
Coyote (Canis latrans)
Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargentues) —
Red fox (Vulpes fulva) ™
Raccoon (Procvon lotor) " **
Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata)
Stripped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) W
Spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) «g
Bobcat^(Lynx rufus)
Pacific Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus') E M
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)
Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
1 Status: E refers to species that are listed as endangered by the Federal *
government. 2. (Category 2) refers to species which may be warranted for «*
m
12
9
m
Table 2. (continued)
^ listing as Federally endangered or threatened, but sufficient information
is not currently available to make a determination.•%.l»
|^^The number of mammalian species expected to occur in the study area is low
due to the high levels of human activity and disturbance. However, the
** Federal listed endangered Pacific pocket mouse (Peroenathus loneimembris
ti pacificus^ may occur in the area based on the species known historic range
and distribution. No recent mammal surveys have been conducted in the
m study area. fr
•tf I 3ftEnvironment With the- Project 3*
The Corps has presented five "action" alternatives in the Oceanside reach,
l» eight "action" alternatives in the Carlsbad reach, and no "no action"
alternatives in either project area. If any of the alternatives are
Jp* implemented, both short- and long-term effects are likely to occur within
1^ the project and study areas and other coastal and estuarine habitats.
pn Short-term direct impacts such as wildlife mortality, displacement, and
, disturbance throughout the construction period would be expected to occur,
** though impossible to quantify. Species utilizing the reaches could already
be suffering from displacement due to concurrent County, State, and Federal
^ projects.
«H
Long-term impacts would vary depending on the alternative implemented. All
pi proposed alternatives would, however, lead to increased disturbance in the
| reaches due to increased human activities. High levels of disturbance will
reduce the amount of habitat available to some sensitive species.
• Beach replenishment without containment may conflict with current
«M "restoration/enhacement" projects in the study area leading to reduced
tidal flushing in the coastal lagoons and extirpation of some sensitive
0* species. The additional sand will also cover intertidal and some sub tidal
^ rocky habitats and may reduce the viability of offshore kelp beds.
_ An introduction of groin structures along the beaches would prevent
sediments from depositing on beaches south of the project area. This would
*" create new problems necessitating additional beach stabilization projects
throughout the southern half of the Oceans ide Littoral Cell. Groin
* structures would also hamper the natural dispersal mechanisms of tidewater
|p gobys by restricting their downcurrent movement. Lastly, groins provide
shelter for non-native predatory species such as feral cats and Norway rats
pi (Rattus norvegicus). Feral cats are capable of depredating and
I* significantly impacting sensitive species in adjacent habitats.
Although revetments and seawalls would prevent erosion of the coastal
^ bluffs, they would accelerate the loss of beach sediments throughout the
In project area resulting from the scouring action of reflected wave energy
during storms. The loss of these sandy beaches may result in the
PI
13
extirpation of several endangered and sensitive species from the project
area. Erosion of the coastal bluffs also provides a source of beach M
material to the longshore drift. Many of the local sand sources have been .. ^
lost due to flood control structures such as debris basins and sand and
graval rparatisns in the coastal streams and rivers. Revetments ai»d
seawalls would further reduce the natural beach nourishment processes.
These structures would also result in a direct loss of habitat and **»
potentially sensitive species along the coastal bluffs.
It
A series of offshore breakwaters would serve to reduce wave energy impacts m
on the beach and slow the shoreline erosion process, however, beach erosion
and loss of shoreline habitat would continue at a decelerated rate. -*
Offshore breakwaters may also affect the distribution of nearshore fish
populatons that serVe as prey for terns and other s^lbirds. The potential '"*
effects of the proposed breakwaters on the local kelp communities are
unknown. Finally, the breakwaters would result in a direct loss of soft **
bottom and possibly rocky subtidal habitats. w
Discussion and Conclusions m
MPThe coastal beaches and estuaries in the study area are dynamic systems
that support a high diversity of plant and animal species. Any project
that attempts to prevent the natural processes of a coastal system will *
have local and regional impacts on the species which depend upon a dynamic W
. system. In southern California, modifications to the coastline have caused
significant negative impacts on the nearby wildlife and habitats and have •
caused a cascade of downcoast problems, each necessitating another remedial ^
project. For these reasons, nous true tural alternatives that seek to
restore and emulate the natural processes are preferable to structural ._
alternatives.Mr
Although several Federal listed endangered and threatened species are known
to occur throughout the study area, there is very little information P
available regarding the biological resources in the proposed project site. ||
Surveys of the flora and fauna in the study area need to be conducted and
the importance of the area to sensitive species assessed. gl§
Water turbidity can significantly influence the foraging success of many
bird species, including the California least tern and brown pelican. Some
methods used to transport and deposit beach fill could result in increased ™
turbidity and reduced foraging success. The placement of fill along the * H
shoreline will also bury and kill many of the invertebrates which form the
prey base for shorebirds. Therefore, those methods of fill which reduce H
the potential for increases in nearshore turbidity and minimize the amount u
of shoreline buried during each fill activity would be preferred.
Habitat loss and degredation could be offset by the establishment of a
natural reserve along a suitable portion of the beach, such as the sand •*
spit at the mouth of the San Luis Rey River. Alternatively, a cooperative
effort could be pursued with the California State Parks Department in *
establishing a natural reserve near the mouth of Batiquitos Lagoon. w
m14
Summary and Recommendations
/*»
^ There is very little information available regarding the biological
resources in the proposed project site. Biological surveys conducted in
j^ the lagoons ar.d other parts of the study araa. are not recent. In general,
the Service is concerned about the potential loss or degredation of habitat
*** and the increase in human activities and disturbance. In order to minimize
impacts to biological resources in the study area, the Service recommends
** that:
*.
- all impacts to threatened and endangered species be avoided.
** .y- formal consultation pursuant to section 7 bfLthe Endangered Species
Act of 1973, ass ammended, be initiated if threatened or endangered
species may be affected, directly or indirectly, by any project
^ alternative (s).
fe.
- project implementation be scheduled to avoid the breeding
iP* periods of California least terns and grunion.
%*- the flora and fauna in the project area be surveyed prior to the
p, implementation of the proposed projects and a monitoring program
* should be established to evaluate the long-term impacts and benefits
**• realized.
^ - the Corps initiate a study quantifying the importance of nearshore
M waters in the study area to California least terns and other
endangered and threatened species. The results should be interpreted
p* in reference to the potential impacts of each proposed alternative.
- beach nourishment projects be designed to minimize the area
where sediments are placed thereby reducing impacts to coastal
m invertebrates. This could be accomplished through the use of diked
«w impoundments and allowing the natural processes to distribute the
sediments throughout the study area.
**
L - the Corps identify the area where sediments will be obtained for
proposed beach nourishment projects and include this area into any
impacts analysis.|M
** - the Corp pursue those alternatives which are non- structural and
either restore or compliment the natural processes in the project
!H area.
m - the Corps consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service to
m identify and monitor potential impacts to kelp bed resources
£.• throughout the project area.
- the cities, in cooperation with State Parks, establish a beach
P reserve for sensitive wildlife displaced by the project and
||| subsequent increases in human activity.
m
IP
i.
- the Corps map the profile of the ocean floor throughout the
project area. The bottom profiles should be monitored to examine the P
changes and impacts due to the proposed projects. •• u
*Literature Cited m
Bradshaw, J., B. Browning, K. Smith, and J. Speth. 1976. The Natural
Resources of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Unpublished report prepared for •>
the Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. m
Southern California Edison Company. 1978. Annual Operating Report, San _
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Volume IVT, JBiological, .
Sedinentological, and Oceanographic Data Analyis, 1978. Unpublished **
report prepared for Southern California Edison Company by Brown and
Caldwell, Lockeed Center for Marine Research, and Marine Biological *
Consultants. «v
Corps of Engineers. 1970. Beach Errosion Control Report, Cooperative Hi
Research and Data Collection Program of Coast of Southern California, ^
Cape San Martin to Mexican Boundary, Three Year Report 1967-1968-
1969. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
Corps of Engineers. 1986. Southern California Coastal Processes Data W
Summary. CCSTWS 86-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles
District. •
Corps of Engineers. 1987a. Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment
Budget Report. CCSTWS 87-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los _
Angeles District. ,
Corps of Engineers. 1987b. Coastal Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region.
CCSTWS 87-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. ft
May, R.M. 1973. Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton
Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey. HI
San Diego Coast Regional Commission. 1974. Life in the Sea, the Marine
Environment of the San Diego Coast. San Diego Regional Commission,
California. *
«•
Smith, K.G.V. editor. 1973. Insect and Other Arthropods of Medical
Importance. British Museum, London, England. HI
m
Simons, Li and Associates, Inc. 1985. Final Report - Analysis of the
Impacts of Dams on Delivery of Sediment from the Santa margarita •>
River, California. Project No. CA-COE-04.m
State of California. 1977. Assessment and Atlas of Shoreline Erosion
Along the California Coast. State of California - the Resources M
Agency, Dept. of Navigation and Ocean Development. w
*
16
Inman, D. 1984. Summary Report of Man's Impact on the California Coastal
Zone. Unpublished report prepared for the State of California - the
Resources Agency, Dept. of Boating and Waterways.
Usher, M.3. 1986. Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. Chapman and\Hall,
London, England.
to
P» 17
APPENDIX E
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA)
m
my
to
CEQA REQUIREMENTS
f"
it, This report is intended to fulfill State CEQA requirements for
the Proposed Project Action (Alternative 2), which is addressed
p, in more detail in the enclosed Environmental Assessment (EA) for
the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project, Carlsbad, California,
^* in conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines.
^ The following environmental review corresponds with and responds
^ to questions on the appended initial study checklist. In
addition, a comparison is made between the impacts of the
P» proposed alternatives, and the impacts addressed in the EA.
^* GENERAL COMMITMENTS: Prior to construction, the LAD/contractor
will provide a 1-month notification of the planned activities to
^* the appropriate agencies and post information bulletins of
«* scheduled work time and areas at the appropriate offices.
Construction will occur between September and mid-March. All
f» construction materials will meet or exceed Corps standards.
few
1. EARTH (Section 4.1 of EA)
Iw The proposed project will not result in or be affected by
unstable geological conditions or changes in substructures. The
I* action alternatives will not expose people or property to
L geologic hazards. The project will not destroy, cover or modify
any unique geologic or physical features. There will be no
increase in wind or water erosion of soils, on or off-site, as a
result of implementation of either of the proposed alternatives.
Mitigation: Not applicable.
W 2. AIR (Section 4.4 of EA)
Existing air quality in the project area has slightly elevated
<* concentrations of Nox and CO, which currently exceed standards
set by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD),
P Rules 1110, llio.l, and 1110.2. No other pollutants, such as
IP SOx, CO2 or particulates exceed these standards.
p, Project emissions will likely contribute to the current NOx and
. CO exceedances; NOx is predicted to increase by 12.5 pounds per
•* cubic foot (ppcf), and CO, 13.2 ppcf. Construction activities
will result in temporary adverse air impacts; air impacts will
(* not be significant. No long term impacts are expected.
Commitment; Compliance with federal, state and local policies.
m To minimize short-term impacts, turbo-cooled exhaust recycling
£ systems will be used on all construction equipment, and a three
1
I*
m
degree adjustment in engine timing will be required on pile ii
drivers and rock trucks. These measures will bring total
emissions to less than 10 ppcf, an acceptable limit set by ft
SDAPCD .
3. WATER (Section 4.1 of EA) •*
Oceanographic/water quality impacts will occur; impacts will be 0
temporary and not significant. Sediment impacts are not ^
expected.
Mitigation; Not applicable.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Section 4 . 2 of EA) H
t»The affected benthic habitat consists primarily of supra-tidal
sandy habitat, and secondarily inter-tidal habitat. Direct —
habitat destruction and disturbances will occur, and these
impacts will be adverse, but not significant. It is anticipated **
that reconstructed areas will be fully colonized within a few
months by species migration of the adjacent community and W
succession. It is expected that species colonization will be »
difficult to distinguish from that in the existing habitat within
less than a year. «PIP
|bAside from the direct impacts, turbidity and noise impacts will
occur over construction; however, these impacts will be temporary
in nature. Impacts will not be significant. H
if
The Corps has determined the proposed project as scheduled will
not have an affect nor jeopardize the continued existence of any m
federally listed threatened or endangered species. Formal ;
consultation pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) is not required for project implementation.
Sensitive species impacts will not occur. Htf
Mitigation; Not applicable. M
«t
5. CULTURAL/ SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES (Section 4.9 of EA)
The project will not have an impact on a historic structure or *"*
archaeological site given the site neither contains nor is
located near such a resource. *•
Commitment ; If cultural resources are discovered during
construction and cannot be avoided, work will be suspended in M
that area until properties are evaluated for eligibility for w
2 m
m
mm
listing in NRHP in consultation with the SHPO. If properties are
determined eligible for NRHP, effects of proposed construction
will be taken into consideration in consultation with SHPO; and
ACHP will be provided an opportunity to comment in accordance
with 36CFR800.il.
6. ENERGY/NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project will not use abnormally high amounts of fuel
or energy. It will not increase demand on existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy, nor
will it increase the rate of use of any natural resources or
preclude the extraction on natural resources.
Mitigation; Not applicable.
7. AESTHETICS (Section 4.8 of EA)
The proposed project will have temporary adverse aesthetic
impacts during construction, but not significant. Placement of
the seawall will also have long term impacts.
Commitment ; The City will decorate the seawall, pursuant to
Section 3.3. The wall's design will also be covered with a
graffiti-proof treatment to maintain its integrity.
8. LAND USE (Section 4 . 5 of EA)
The proposed project will not conflict with zoning or general
plan designations, nor will it conflict with adjacent, existing
or planned land uses. It will not induce urban growth.
Significant adverse impacts are not expected.
Mitigation; Not applicable.
9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION (Sections 4 . 6 of EA)
The proposed project will temporarily increase local traffic.
Traffic impacts will be adverse, but not significant.
Commitment ; Rock truck hauls will occur only between Monday and
Friday. A flagman shall be provided to direct traffic (and
people) in congested areas, if needed.
*
•t
10. RECREATION (Section 4 . 5 of EA) »
The proposed project will enhance current recreational H
opportunities by providing a safer environment for the public; m
this will be a beneficial impact for the local area.
Commitment; Construction is scheduled to avoid the peak beach
use season; work will occur between September and mid-March. *•
•
11. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY (Section 4 . 7 of EA) m
The action does not involve the risk of explosion or the release m
of hazardous substances including oil, pesticide, chemicals or
radiation in the event of an accident or disruption of **
conditions. It does not expose persons or the property to
wildfire hazards. Nor will expose persons who occupy the site to W
these dangers. The proposal will not interfere with an emergency m
response or evacuation plan, nor will it use or dispose of
potentially hazardous materials. In fact, the proposed project m
will increase the safety currently provided to the Harbor area.
Commitment : If such resources are discovered during
construction, work will be suspended in the area until all **
necessary survey and testing work is complete and a remediation m
plan acceptable to the appropriate Federal /State resource
off ice (s) is developed. m
MM
12. NOISE (Section 4 . 3 of EA)
The proposed project will incrementally increase the noise levels «*
in the project area, due to the use of construction equipment.
This impact is short term in nature, and will not lead to ••
exposure of people to noise levels in excess of local standards.
Commitment : Construction will be restricted to the hours between
7:00 a.m. and sunset, Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and
sunset on Saturday, with no work on Sundays or holidays. All «•»
construction equipment shall use properly working mufflers and be
kept in a proper state of maintenance to alleviate backfires. It
m
13. LIGHT AND GLARE
The proposed project will not produce light and/ or glare impacts. "i
Commitment: Not applicable. (•
iM
MRm
14. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
The proposed project will have no adverse physical impacts on the
following facilities: fire protection, police protection,
schools, parks and other recreational facilities, electrical and
natural gas distribution lines, communication systems, water,
sewer/septic tanks, storm water drainage, and solid waste and
disposal facilities.
Commitment; Not applicable.
FINDINGS; Recommended CEQA findings for Alternative 2, as
outlined above and present in detail in the EA, is determined to
adequately satisfy all requirements of CEQA.
m
m
A. lUne of Proponent: £
B. Addi-eii and Phone KuOer of Proponent:
fcrvteu |
Project Reference *
JL.
C. Date of Checklist Sub»1ttal:
CHECKLIST Of ENmWMCn'TAi IKPACTS:
LlJ
Environmental Iroacts
__ A
_A
1. Eartt. Kill the proposal result 1n or be TES KATE? KO
affected by:
A. Unstable earth conditions or In
changes in geologic substructures?
B. Disruptions. Displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil?
C. Change in topography or around __
surface relief features?
C. The destruction, covering or ___
•edification of any unique geologic
or physical features?
£. Any Increase in wind or water ^^
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site?
F. Changes in deposition or erosion ___
Of beach sands, or changes In sllta-
tlon, deposition or erosion which
any modify the channel of a river or
strtan or the bei of the ocean or any
bay. inlet or laker
C. Exposure of people or property to ^^
geologic hazards such as earthquakes.
landslides, mueslides. groundfailure, or s1r.ilar hazards?
2. Air Kill tne src?os*l result in:
A. Increased air emissions or de-
terioratlor. of ancient air .QuiHty? ^~"~
B. The crittior. y! objectionable odors?
C. Alteratior of air movement. ___
•Distort or leTiperature, or any change ~~"in cliute, either locilly or regionally?
0. Expasure of persons to locally • ___
elenteS leve*:s cr air pollution?
3. Ktter Will the proposal result 1n:
A. Changes in currents, or the course
or dlrectlpr »f water moveeitnts. ineither mtilnepr fresh waters?p>TcirMt.i Ii%»t\5. i<pwp. C*t_B. Chiiges in absorption'rates.
drainage pattern;, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
C. Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
D. Change ir. the amount of surface water
in any water body?
•E. Discharge into surface waters, or
ir iny tlte'ttion of surface water Quality,
including but net Hxitef! to temperature,dissolved oiygen or turbidity?
T. Alteratior. of the direction or rete
cf f <o» of oround waters?
G. Cr.a-cf In the Quantity or quality of
grour; -air's, either through direct
additions o' witnorfr-»'-S, 0' through
tntercectlcr. of an aquifer by cuts or
ticavt:lons?
H. Su:s*.iit1il reijction In the amount
of wtttr otherwise available for public
wtter
tieloolcal Resources tftll the
proposal result in:
A. Change In the diversity of species.
or nurcer of any species of plants or
animals (Including trees, shrubs, grass.
crops, Microflora. aquatic plants,
birds, land animals, reptiles, fish
and shellfish, txnthic organise,
insects or «icrofauna)?
B. Reduction of the nutbers of any
unique, aesthetically significant.
rare or endangered species of plants
or animals?
C. Introduction of new species of
plants or animals into an area, or in
a barrier to the nornel replenishment
or Blgration of existing species?
0. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
E. Deterioration of existing fish
or wildlife habitat?
TES mTBE IO
_ __ _ X
'
5.Cultural/Scientific Resources Kill
the proposal result in an alteration
of a significant archaeological or
historical site. Structure, objector building, pa leonto logical site.
or other -important cultural/scienti-
fic resource?
_ _ X
PH
S
Natural Resources Kill the proposal
result in:
A. Increase in the rate of use of
any natural resource?
B. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource, inclu-
ding agricultural soils or open space?
Aesthetics Kill the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result In the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public »ltw?
. __ ^
"
_ X,-v ^»
1m
iM
IW'§
*'"*' '"•'-
A. Use of substantial-anounts of fuelor energy?
B. Increase demand upon existing sources
of energjr. or require the development ofne« sources of energy?
Sodoeceneir.ic Impacts
9. Land Use Kill the proposal result 1n:
A. Conflict with zoning or general plan
designations for the property?
B. Conflict with adjacent, existing or
planned land uses? -
Inducement of urban
J. Ejpcurt of people or property to
water re'ntC ntiardi such as
flDOClIC n- fin.l -»..<'
>i
C. Inducement of urban growth?
10. Transportation/Circulation Will the
, proposal result in:
A. Generation of substantial additionalvehicular «ove«ent?
B. Effects on eiisting parklr.j facilitiesor derjnij for new oarklno? ~
m
m
am
A
m