HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIA 00-03; RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ADDENDUM; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; 2001-12-011 I-SDGCBD La Costa Avenue to Malroro Me
STPLF-5308(007)
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD REALIGNMENT AND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO:
42 USC 4332(2)(C). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Amendments
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
AND
State of California, Department of Transportation
/z/7/0/
DATE ’
DAfE .
City of Carlsb
,~
INTkRd DISTRICT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT 11
CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Gary Vettese Mr. Jeff Lewis Ms. Came Loya Smalley
Local Assist. Engineer, Dist. 11 Sr. Tramp. Engineer
Cal. Dept. of Transportation FHWA - California Division
P.O. Box 85406 980 Ninth Street, Ste. 400
San Diego, CA 921 86 Sacramento, CA 9581 4-2724
Sr. Civil Engineer
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(6 19) 688-6778 (9 16) 498-5035 (760) 602-2746
ABSTRACT: The proposed action would widen and realign 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) Rancho Santa Fe Road from two lanes to an ultimate six lane prime arterial roadway from approximately 30 meters (100 feet) south of the La Costa Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection to approximately 30 meters (100 feet] north of the Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection in the City of Corlsbad, Northern Sari Diego County. The proposed widening and
realignment project is part of the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan to upgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road to a Prime Arterial Roadway Designation. Potential benefits from this project will include reduced congestion, improved traftic flow and increased safety for travelers on the roadway. Additionally, this road realignment will provide a vital link in the region’s
roadway network. The analysis in the Environmental Assessment concludes that upon implementation of environmental commitments, no substantial adverse effects will occur as a result of the proposed project.
.
TABLE or CONTENTS ..
-
.
I
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Section
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................... e5-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ............... 5-1
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT .............................. 1-1
1.1 Project Purpose and Need ....................................... 1-1
1.2 Proposed Action .............................................. 1-3
1.3 Transportation and Circulation Plans ............................. 1-4
1.4 Project History ............................................... 1-4
1.5 Existing Facility .............................................. 1-5
1.6 Project Funding .............................................. 1-5
1.7 Traffic ...................................................... 1-5
1.8 Scope of the Environmental Review .............................. 1-6
1.9 Comments and Coordination ................................... 1-6
1.10 Decisions to Be Made and Permits Required ....................... 1-7
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES .............. 2-1
2.1 Project Location .............................................. 2-1
2.2 Description of Proposed Project .................................. 2-1
2.2.1 Roadway Realignment ................................... 2-1
2.2.2 Bridge Improvements .................................... 2-5
2.2.3 Project Phasing ......................................... 2-6
2.2.4 Construction Activities .................................. 2-6
2.2.5 Existing Roadway Vacation ............................... 2-6
Analysis of Alternatives ........................................ 2-7
2.3.1 No Project Alternative ................................... 2-7
2.3.2 Alternatives Withdrawn from Further Consideration .......... 2-7
2.3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ................................ 3-1
3.1 Environmental Evaluation Checklist ............................. 3-2
December 2001 1576.03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement i
TABLE or CONTENTS
Section Page
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................... 4-1
4.1 Physical Environment ......................................... 4-1
Topography/Visual Resources (#s 1,2,9,21,49,50) .......... 4-1
4.1.2 Geologic Features/Hazards/Paleontology (#s 2, 3,4) ......... 4-24
Energy/Natural Resource/Water Demand (#s 5,6, 7, 12) ...... 4-25
Hazardous Materials (#s 8,45, 56) ........................ 4-25
Floodplain Evaluation (#lo) ............................. 4-28
4.1.6 Water Quality (#s 11,14,51) ............................ 4-32
4.1.7 Air Quality (#s 15,16,17,18) ............................ 4-36
4.1.8 Noise (#s 19,20,51) ................................... 4-42
4.2 Biological Resources (#S 9, 13,22 - 29,49,52 - 54) ................ 4-57
4.2.1 Farmland (#25) ....................................... 4-69
4.3 Social and Economic ......................................... 4-69
(#s 30 - 39,47) ........................................ 4-69
Historic and Archeological Resources (#48) ................. 4-77
4.1.1
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.3.1 Community Disruption/Land Use/Property Values
4.3.2 Public Services and Utilities (#s 8,40,41) .................. 4-77
4.3.3
The Relationship Between Short Term Uses of Man’s
Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long Term Productivity ( # 54) .................. 4-82
4.4
4.5 Cumulative Impacts of Related Projects (#55) .................... 4-83
No Project Alternative Environmental Evaluation .................. 4-85 4.6
5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .......................... 5-1
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PERSONNEL .................... 6-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A USFWS Correspondence
Appendix B Project Permits
Appendix C ACOE Jurisdictional Wetlands and Project Impacts
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement ii
I
TABLE or CONTENTS
Section Paae
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6
Figure 4-7
Figure 4-8
Figure 4-9
Figure 4-10
Figure 4-1 1
Figure 4-12
Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
Final Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Typical Road and Bridge Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Viewshed Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
Bridge Replacement Visual Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
View of Roadway and Bridge Looking Southbound
on Rancho Santa Fe Road . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
View of Roadway and Manufactured Slopes Looking
Southbound on Rancho Santa Fe Road . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
View of Roadway and Bridge from Existing Residences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Project Area Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29
Noise Measurement and Receptor Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45
Noise Measurement and Receptor Locations - Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47
Sound Wall Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-52
Phase 2 Sound Wall Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-55
High Income Population . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-74
Low Income Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-75
Table 1-1
Table 1-2
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4-3
Table 4-4
Table 4-5
Table 4-6
Table 4-7
Rancho Santa Fe Road
Present and Forecasted Traffic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Rancho Santa Fe Road Accident Rates & Reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Peak Flows Existing Rancho Santa Fe Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30
Air Quality Ambient Air Qualrty Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38
Short-term Measured Average Noise Level and
Concurrent Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
Existing Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46
Existing Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48
Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50
Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement iii
TABLE or CONTENT^ -
Section
Table 4-8
Table 4-9
Table 4-10
Table 4-1 1
Table 4-12
Table 4-13
Table 4-14
Table 4-15
Future Predicted Noise Levels with
and Without Noise Abatement Wall ............................ 4-56
Plant Community or Land Cover Acreages ....................... 4-59
Proposed Impacts by Plant Community .......................... 4-61
Ethnicity Comparison ........................................ 4-76
Existing and 2020 Conditions - Road Segments ................... 4-80
Existing Conditions - Intersections ............................. 4-80
2020 Conditions - Intersections ................................ 4-81
Summary of Sound Wall Reasonability and Feasibility .............. 4-57
December 2001 157603
iv __ Environmental Assessment e Rancho Sam Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
The City of Carlsbad (City) proposes to realign and widen approximately 3.2 kilometers (2
miles) of Rancho Santa Fe Road as well as replace the existing Rancho Santa Fe Bridge at San
Marcos Creek. The proposed project would widen and realign Rancho Santa Fe Road from
two lanes to an ultimate six-lane prime arterial roadway from approximately 30 meters (100
feet) south of the La Costa Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection to approximately 30
meters (100 feet) north of the Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection in the City
of Carlsbad, Northern San Diego County. The proposed widening and realignment project
is part of the City’s General Plan to upgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road to a Prime Arterial
Roadway Designation. Potential benefits from this project will include reduced congestion,
improved traffic flow and increased safety for travelers on the roadway. Additionally, this
road realignment will provide a vital link in the region’s roadway network.
The City as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prepared
and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project in 1992 and prepared and
adopted an Addendum to the EIR addressing final design in March 2000. The EIR and
Addendum are available for review at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008.
Federal funding is proposed and as a result, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is
the federal lead agency responsible for ensuring National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
compliance. The California Department of Transportation serves as an agent for FHWA and
has oversight responsibility for the proposed project. Ths Environmental Assessment (EA)
has been prepared for the NEPA compliance process. Separate technical studies addressing
geotechnical, water quality, visual quality, hazardous waste, floodplain, acoustics, cultural
and biological resources have been prepared to address specific environmental issues
associated with the project. The results of these studies have been incorporated into the
analysis completed in ths EA. These techcal studies are available for review at the City of
Carlsbad and at the California Department of Transportation’s District 11 office, 2829 Juan
Street, San Diego, California 92186. Additionally, the EA is also available for review at the
Georgia Cole Library, 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 vel. 760-434-2870);
Carlsbad City Library, 1775 Dove Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92009 vel. 760-602-2049); City Hall
Library, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (Tel. 760-434-2820); City of
Encinitas Community Development Department, 505 S. Vulcan, Encinitas, CA 92024 and
City of San Marcos Planning Department, One Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069.
As part of the proposed project, a number of measures have been incorporated to reduce or
avoid potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operations of the
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement ES-1
c
I
proposed action (see Summary ofEnvironmenta1 Commitments section located at the beginning
of this EA). As described below, the analysis conducted in the EA concludes that upon
implementation of environmental commitments, no substantial adverse effects will occur as
a result of the proposed project.
Topography/Visual Resources: Phases 1 and 2 of the project would change the visual
quality of the immediate area from medium-hgh to medium-low and would change the
visual character of the viewshed from semi-rural to semi-urban. These changes would a result
of the conversion of natural open space to human features including a substantial increase
in paved roadway surface, cut and fill slopes, removal of mature riparian trees and eucalyptus,
and the introduction of urban built forms such as the proposed bridge and sound wall.
However, as provided in the “Summary ofEnvironmental Commitments’ section of ths EA, the
project has incorporated a number of measures to reduce impacts to visual resources.
Incorporation of landscaping, step/contour grading and special architectural treatments will
ensure that visual elements of the existing visual character of the project area will be carried
forward. Therefore, overall impacts to visual resources from implementing both Phases 1 and
2 of the proposed project are considered to be moderate.
Geologic Features/Hazards/PaIeontology: The proposed project would not increase the
exposure of people or property to substantial geologic or seismic hazards. Measures to avoid
geologic hazards such as slope instability and erosion and other geologic hazards have been
incorporated into the proposed project. The proposed project extends through the Santiago
Formation considered to have a hgh potential for paleontological resources. Measures
including the monitoring by a paleontologist during construction have been incorporated into
the project.
Hazardous Materials: Record searches and field assessments have revealed no hazardous
waste sites. In the event that grading or construction encounters hazardous waste, the City
shall ensure compliance with California State regulations and therefore, no impacts are
anticipated.
Floodplain Evaluation: The proposed bridge encroaches upon the base floodplain of the
San Marcos Creek. The floodplain encroachment would be associated primarily with the
bridge piers with only minimal effects on the floodplain.
Water Quality: The proposed project is located in the watersheds of the San Marcos Creek
and Encinitas Creek. The proposed project includes measures to avoid or minimize impacts
December 2001 1576-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement ES-2
r
i
RX€CUTIve SUMMARY
r r-
I:
r I
r a 1
I- !
r 1
r
to water quality from construction and operation including the provision of Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) to control stormwater runoff during construction and rip-rap
at s t ormdrain outlets.
Air Quality: Regional air quality impacts were evaluated relative to the Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) which is a component of the Regional Air
Quality Strategic/State Implementation Plan (RAQS/SIP). The 2020 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) was adopted by SANDAG on February 25,2000. On April 13,
2000, FHWA and FTA made a joint air conformity determination on the 2020 RTP that the
RTP complies with the Clean Air Act. On October 6,2000, FHWA and FTA approved the
2001-2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The Rancho Santa Fe
Road Bridge Replacement and Realignment Project is included in the 2000-2020 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) on page A-17; the RTP was found to be conforming by FHWA and
FTA on April 13, 2000. The project is also in the 2001-2004 Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP); the RTIP was found to be conforming by FHWA and FTA on
October 6, 2000. The design and scope of the project are also consistent with the project
description in the above RTP and RTIP.
Noise: Future noise levels would exceed FHWNCalifornia Department of Transportation
noise criteria at four homes located along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Mitigation measures for
the affected homes have been evaluated to provide noise abatement and design information.
With a 2.4-meter (8-foot) hgh sound wall located along western right-of-way, the future
peak hour average noise level would be mitigated to 61 to 62 dBA and would not approach
or exceed the FHWA/California Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC).
Biological Resources: The proposed project would result in the total permanent impact
to the following native habitats: 17.3 hectares (42.8 acres) of coastal sage scrub, including
coyote brush scrub, 2.2 hectares (5.4 acres) of southern mixed chaparral, 0.04 hectare (0.1
acre) of Valley needlegrass grassland, 0.18 hectare (0.44 acre) of southern willow scrub and
0.1 1 hectare (0.27 acre) of disturbed wetland. Additional temporary impacts would occur to
the following native habitats: 17.1 hectares (17.5 acres) of coastal sage scrub, 0.6 hectare (1.5
acres) of southern mixed chaparral, 0.3 hectare (0.8 acre) of Valley needlegrass grassland and
0.39 hectare (0.97 acre) of southern willow scrub. No plant species, which are listed or
proposed for listing as threatened or endangered by the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), was detected in the
project impact area. One animal species listed as threatened by USFVVS was determined to
use habitat within the project footprint, the coastal California gnatcatcher.
Decmbw 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridw Replacement ES-3
_-
IXtCUTIW SUMMARY
Because of the project’s conformance with the guidelines of the City of Carlsbad’s
Conservation PIan (HCP) including restricting vegetation clearing during the breeding season,
dedication of habitat credits, restoration of temporary impact areas and placement of the
project outside of planned conservation areas, impacts to upland habitat, sensitive plant and
animal species, and wildlife linkages and corridors are not considered to be substantial. The
project also includes avoidance and minimization of impacts to waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, and mitigation for unavoidable impacts pursuant to permit requirements of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, impacts to jurisdictional areas
are not considered to be substantial.
Farmland: There are no agricultural soils or farmlands defined as prime or of statewide
importance withn the project impact area. The proposed project would extend through an
area identified as farmland of local importance; however, no existing agricultural operations
are present withn the project area and therefore, impacts to farmland would not be
subs tan tial.
Social and Economic: The proposed project would not disrupt an established community
or adversely impact existing neighborhood character. The project is consistent with the
City’s General Plan and Coastal Zone Management Plan. No minority or low-income
populations have been identified that would be adversely affected by the proposed project.
Historic and Archaeological Resources: No significant cultural resources occur within
the project APE; therefore, no further cultural resource evaluations, mitigations, or conditions
are required in connection with ths undertalung.
Transportation and Circulation: The proposed project would implement the traffic
congestion relief anticipated by the City Circulation Element of the General PIan and the
FHWA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approved 2001-2004 Regional
Transportation Improvements Program (RTIP), approved October 6,2000. The proposed
realignment and widening is approved as a part of the City General Plan and is also identified
withn the SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) adopted by SANDAG on February
25,2000. Community benefits from ths proposed project will include reduced congestion,
improved traffic flow and increased safety for travelers on the roadway.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement ES-4
e-
-
I
SUMMARY OP €NVlRONM€NTAL COMMITMeNTS
The City of Carlsbad (City), proposes to realign and widen approximately 3.2 kilometers (2
miles) of Rancho Santa Fe Road and truck bypass lane as well as replace the existing Rancho
Santa Fe Bridge at San Marcos Creek. The City has incorporated as part of the proposed
project a number of measures to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts associated
with construction and operations of the proposed project. All measures required for the
project by the City’s Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - Rancho Santa Fe Road
Realignment and Mass Grading (April 1992), as well as measures recommended by
subsequent technical studies have been incorporated into the project design. These measures
are considered part of the project and are summarized in ths section. The City and Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) have the ultimate approval and responsibility for ensuring
that the measures listed below are implemented. The California Department of
Transportation (Department) serves as an agent for FHWA and has oversight responsibility
in ensuring the implementation of environmental commitments.
Hazardous Materials
In the event that grading or construction during both Phases 1 and 2
encounters onsite underground storage tanks or hazardous waste, the City
shall ensure compliance with Federal Regulations 40 CFR 261-268 and 29 CFR
1910.120 and with the State of California CCR Title 23 Health and Safety
Regulations as managed by the San Diego County Environmental Health
Department, Hazardous Materials Management Division.
Paleontological Resources
0 Prior to construction, the City shall provide certification that a qualified
paleontologist and/or paleontological monitor have been retained to implement
the construction monitoring program within appropriate geologic formations
(Santiago Formation).
The qualified paleontologist shall attend preconstruction meetings to make
comments and/or suggestions concerning the construction monitoring
program.
0 In the event that unanticipated resources are discovered, the paleontologist
shall have the City divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in
the area of discovery to allow evaluation of resources. The paleontologist shall
December 2001 1576-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement s- 1
SUMMARY Or €NVlRONM€NTAL COMMITMeNTS
contact the City at the time of discovery. The importance of the discovered
resources shall be determined by the paleontologist, in consultation with the
City, Department and FHWA. The City, Department and FHWA shall concur
with the evaluation before construction resumes.
0 A monitoring report and/or evaluation report, if appropriate, which describes
the results, analysis, and conclusions to the paleontological monitoring
program (with appropriategraphics) shall be submitted to and approved by the
City, Department and FHWA.
Air Quality
Measures incorporated into the proposed project to minimize air quality impacts include:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Using adequate water and/or other dust palliatives on all disturbed areas.
Washing down or sweeping streets from which construction access is taken to
remove dirt carried from the new alignment to the existing roadway to keep
vehicles from pulverizing the dirt into fine particles.
Terminating soil excavation, clearing or grading when wind speeds exceed 25
mph for an hourly average.
Covering/tarping all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways unless
additional moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during transport.
Requiring low-NO,-emission tuneups for all on-site construction equipment
at a minimum of ninety (90) days.
Providing rideshare incentives for construction personnel.
Minimizing obstruction of through traffic lanes from construction equipment
or activities.
Prohibiting engine idling whle waiting to load or unload if the expected wait
exceeds ten (10) minutes.
Scheduling partial of full street closures to off-peak traffic hours.
The contractor will preform street sweeping should silt be carried over to
adjacent public thoroughfares.
December2001 157643
s-2 Enwronmental Assessment Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement __
~~~ ~
I
c
c
SUMMARY OP €NVlRONM€NTAL COMMITM€NTS
During construction, the City shall require the contractor to:
- use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles
move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site
- wet down areas in thelatemorning and after work is completed for the
day
-
Bikeways shall be provided along Rancho Santa Fe Road as required by the
City standards; if required by the North County Transit District, bus shelters
and benches and street pockets shall be installed on Rancho Santa Fe Road;
bicycle storage facilities shall be provided at any park and ride sites as required
by the Department.
use low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment
Earth Resources
All improvements proposed shall comply with the City Grading Ordinance and
incorporate all requirements OF the geotechnical analysis completed for the
project (Woodward-Clyde 1989) and (Agra Environmental 1998) to avoid
geotechmcal hazards such as soil instability, erosion or dam instability from
blasting.
The contractor shall utilize straw, hydroseeding, mulching, or other suitable
materials or techniques during construction activities to reduce the erosion
potential for uncovered soils.
The contractor shall install temporary culverts, ditches, catchment basins, and
settling pools where needed during construction to collect excess water and
sediments carried from the construction site. Sediments collected shall be
disposed of onsite, unless contamination of sediment with hazardous material
occurs, which would require disposal at an appropriate disposal site for
hazardous materials.
Water Resources
All erosion control measures required by the City Grading Ordinance for
roadways shall be incorporated into the project.
153603
s-3
December 2001
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
SUMMARY Or €NVlRONM€NTAL COMMITM€NTS
a
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
Project design shall ensure that no additional runoff will drain into Stanley
Mahr Reservoir.
All refuse generated during grading shall be contained and removed.
Construction Phase: During the construction phase, the City’s Best
Management Practices (BMPs) shall be applied to control storm water runoff
and provide dust control. These measures include:
- - - -
The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as identified in the
construction activity permit from the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) shall be implemented and followed.
Gravel berms, filter fabric fences, lines of straw bales, to prevent erosion
Surfacing of roadways shall occur as soon as possible
Periodic watering of areas to keep dust down
Prompt revegetation of surrounding areas to prevent erosion
To minimize water quality degradation by sedimentation of the river channel
during construction, construction of the new bridge piers and demolition of
existing piers shall be limited to the dry season (March to October).
Operational Phase: The roadway design includes devices for storm water
treatment. These devices capture and treat the storm water prior to discharge
to San Marcos Creek. BMPs shall also be applied to reduce pollutant loads to
San Marcos Creek. These BMPs shall include use of rip-rap at stormdrain
outlets to reduce the velocity of runoff.
The City shall follow all recommendations made pertaining to erosion control
in the geotechnical analyses completed for the project (Woodward-Clyde 1989
and Agra Environmental 1998), the City of Carlsbad’s, Grading Ordinance, and
Landscape Manual.
When feasible, hauling by the developer shall be accomplished in a manner
that minimizes the spillage of soil onto roads in developed areas.
Refuse material such as oil, grease, and broken equipment generated during
grading shall be properly contained and removed offsite to a disposal site.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement s-4
_-
Biological Resources
0 The City has recently obtained and shall comply with the necessary permits
for wetland impacts. These permits, specifically obtained for the proposed
project, include a Nationwide Permit in accordance with Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), a Section 1600
Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG), and a Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB in
accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. (Appendix B provides a
copy of project permits.)
The new bridge and abutments have been designed to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and water of the United States to the extent
feasible. The proposed project impacts to southern willow scrub wetlands and
unvegetated stream channel shall be minimized as follows:
- For impacts to wetlands habitats, the proposed project shall include
habitat creation, restoration, enhancement or acquisition pursuant to
permit requirements of the ACOE and CDFG. A ratio of 3: 1 will apply
for permanent impacts to disturbed wetlands and southern willow
scrub.
- Following demolition of the old bridge over San Marcos Creek, this area
shall be restored to support southern willow scrub habitat.
Following temporary impacts necessary to construct the new bridge,
pre-construction contours shall be restored and those areas that can
support vegetation shall be revegetated with native riparian plants.
-
For permanent impacts to upland habitats associated with the roadway
realignment, the City purchased habitat credits in conformance with the 1996
Fieldstone Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The City has contributed
approximately two million dollars to the purchase of the mitigation property
identified as a part of the HCP for impacts associated with proposed project.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement s5
e
SUMMARY OP €NVlRONM€NTAL COMMITMLNTS
0
0
0
Noise
0
Vegetation removal that is needed to accomplish the proposed project shall be
conducted between 15 September and 15 February immediately prior to
construction. In compliance with the Executive Order on Invasive Species,
E.O. 131 12, and the subsequent guidance from the FHWA, the landscaping and
erosion control included in the project will not use species listed as noxious
weeds. In areas of particular sensitivity, such as San Marcos Creek, extra
precautions will be taken if invasive species are found in or adjacent to the
construction areas. These will include the inspection and cleaning of
construction equipment and eradication strategies to be deployed should an
invasion occur.
All work will be conducted during the daytime hours; night lighting shall not
occur except in an emergency situation.
During construction of the bridge and removal of the existing bridge withn the
San Marcos Creek, an area approximately 3 meters (10 feet) wide and hgh
with dry substrate, that has visual access from end to end, will be maintained
to allow wildlife movement.
A 2.4-meter (8-foot) high sound wall to be located along the western right-of-
way north of Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection is proposed to
be developed as part of the proposed project to abate noise for four residences.
The proposed 2.4-meter (8-foot) wall height is based on the acoustical
assessment prepared for the City of San Marcos to address the widening or
Rancho Santa Fe Road at thus location (DUDEK, July 2001). Development of
ths wall will ensure that future noise levels at sensitive receptors would not
exceed FHWA noise abatement criteria as set forth in the Department’s Trafic
Noise Analysis Protocol.
Preliminary information on the physical characteristics of potential abatement
measures (e.g., physical location, length, and height of barrier) is provided in
this report. If pertinent parameters change substantially during the final
project design, the preliminary noise abatement design may be changed or
eliminated from th final project design. The final design of barrier, if included
in the project, will be based on the final project design. The final design must
also be independently checked to confirm that it meets the requirements of
Chapter 1100 of the Department’s Highway Design Manual. In particular,
December 2001 157803
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement S-6 c
SUMMARY OIC €NVlRONM€NTAL COMMITMeNTS
0
0
0
0
0
the minimum and maximum height requirements specified in Section ,1102.3
of the manual must be independently checked as part of the final design. The
decision to include barriers in the project design will be based on this
information and other pertinent information received during the public review
process.
The City’s construction timing requirements (7 AM - 7 PM Monday through
Saturday) shall be adhered to as a part of construction. Construction will not
be allowed on Sundays and state and federal holidays.
Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away
from sensitive noise receivers such as residential areas.
Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from
occupied dwellings.
Every effort shall be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources
and receptors during construction operations.
All construction equipment, including trucks used for hauling roadbed
material, shall have exhaust and muffler systems in compliance with state
standards for emission and noise control.
Light and Glare
0 Directional street lighting shall be utilized to direct lighting away from existing
residences.
Median landscaping within specifications of the City’s Landscape Manual shall
be utilized to limit the effect of headlights to oncoming traffic.
All street lighting shall be street directed so as to limit excess light from
intruding into sensitive areas.
Project design shall use low pressure sodium street lights for preservation of a
“dark sky.”
0
0
0
Visual Quality/Landform Alteration
All grading shall conform with recommendations of the Carlsbad Grading
Ordinance and Hillside development regulations.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement s-7
--
I
I
SUMMARY Or €NVlRONM€NTAL COMMITM€NTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
Proposed manufactured slopes shall not exceed the maximum heights
anticipated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (maximum 30.5 meters
[lo0 feet]).
All temporary exposed manufactured slopes necessary to accommodate the
roadway shall be landscaped immediately with a hydroseed mix and jute
matting .
Step grading techniques where feasible shall be used in the construction of the
three cut slopes proposed south of the replacement bridge to simulate existing
terrain, as well as to better accommodate hydroseeding and planting efforts.
Grading techniques such as rounding the edges of the cut shall be used to blend
the slopes in the existing terrain.
All landscaping on manufactured slopes, as well as the roadway median shall
comply with the guidelines of the City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines
Manual.
The Rancho Santa Fe Road Project includes hydroseeding all slopes with a
native non-irrigated seed mix. Grading for the roadway project will occur prior
to grading for the adjacent land development project referred to as the Villages
of La Costa Development (VLC). The VLC grading operations will further
impact and re-grade the majority of the slopes graded as part of the roadway
project. The VLC developer is conditioned to meet the City's Hillside
Development Ordinance for all grading, and complete landscaping and
irrigating of the roadway parkways and slopes after grading is completed.
The VLC project is planned to be under construction by 2004. The City is
currently plan-checking VLC development plans for the areas adjacent to
Rancho Santa Fe Road whch is expected to be under construction concurrently
with the Rancho Santa Fe Road project. The VLC developer is required to
meet City standards; however, current plans show planting and irrigation that
exceed City standards including replacement of impacted trees at a 5:1 ratio
withrn the project impact area.
The VLC overall planting scheme will reflect a naturalized informal quality
through the use of random groupings of trees and irregular ground plane
treatments, with tree patterns near developed areas to provide a unique
identity. In the parkways, formal rows of Jacaranda will be used adjacent to
developments. Adjacent to the Jacaranda trees and farther away from the
roadway on the slopes, pine groups will be planted including Torrey and
157603 December 2001
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement s-8
.-
_-
Mondale Pines. Where the roadway passes through the conserved habitat area,
as identified in the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) associated with this
project, native shrubs, grasses and trees such as Holly Oaks will be planted.
Where Rancho Santa Fe Road crosses the San Marcos Creek, the City is
required to mitigate impacts per the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). These mitigations include
restoring the areas directly impacted by construction at a ratio of 1:l and
providing additional mitigations along the San Marcos Creek at a location
approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the roadway project at ratios of 2: 1 and
3:l.
Willow and sycamore trees will be planted at a 5:l ratio on the slopes graded
adjacent to the San Marcos Creek between the planned VLC project and
existing developments. This includes the east side of the roadway south of the
creek to existing San Elijo Road; and also the west side of the roadway north
to the existing residential area. Trees will be from 5- to 15-gallon container
stock. Irrigation will be provided to ensure the trees are established.
Planting and irrigation is included in all Rancho Santa Fe Road Project
medians. Planting and irrigation for median south of La Costa Avenue is
included in the Rancho Santa Fe Road plans and designed to City standards.
Medians in Rancho Santa Fe Road north of La Costa Avenue will be planted
and irrigated by adjacent developers conditioned to do so upon development
of the project referred to as the Villages of La Costa (VLC). The VLC project
was approved by the City Council on October 23,2001 and is planned to be
under construction by 2004. The City is currently plan-checking VLC
development plans for the areas adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road which is
expected to be under construction concurrently with the Rancho Santa Fe
Road project. The VLC developer is required to meet City standards; however,
current plans show planting and irrigation that exceed City standards. The
City has closely coordinated with the VLC developer for many design issues
including landscaping and irrigation. Rancho Santa Fe Road plans include
underground sleeves in the roadway at each median to accommodate for
irrigation piping and planting the developer is required to install.
Special attention will be given to the architectural style (color, texture and
pilasters) of the sound wall to ensure compatibility with community values
and guidelines and for graffiti abatement. Starting from the La Costa Avenue
intersection, the first 300 linear feet of the wall includes pilasters spaced
approximately 30 feet apart. The slump block is planned to be an earth tone
0
December 2001 157643
Envimnmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement s-9
.-
a
light brown color. This section of masonry wall is limited to tree and vine
planting only, on the east side of the wall adjacent to the roadway, due to the
limited space between the sidewalk and the sound wall. Modifications to the
sidewalk are required to accommodate the tree planters. The west side of the
wall, adjacent to the existing residential area, includes the replacement of an
existing 30-inch hgh wooden fence and grading along the 2:l slope. The
existing slope is currently covered with iceplant and will be replaced if
disturbed during construction.
The remaining sound wall (approximately 550 feet) will consist of a masonry
wall with pilasters spaced approximately28 feet apart with enclosures, or pop-
outs, that will provide a niche setback from the sidewalk to provide room for
planting trees on the east side of the wall adjacent to the roadway. This wall
will also consist of an earth tone light brown colored slump block, and will also
include vines trained to the wall. Additional ground cover and flower planting
and irrigation will be provided between the sidewalk and the sound wall. On
the west side of the sound wall adjacent to the existing residential area,
additional irrigation and planting will be provided on the 3: 1 slope that will be
graded with the roadway construction. Planting consists of trees, ground cover
and flowering plants. The existing 30-inch wooden fence will be protected in
place, or replaced wherever necessary.
Additional measures to restore native vegetation are provided under Biological
Resources above.
Traffic/Ci rculation
0 A configuration for the Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection has
been established by the Final Alignment that is consistent with circulation
element of the General Plan.
The project includes a signal at the Questhaven Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road
intersection.
0 The project provides for full signalization at the Rancho Santa Fe Road/
Cadencia Street intersection.
0 A traffic control plan shall be prepared for approval by the City and
Department. The traffic control plan shall show all signage, striping, delineate
detours, flagging operations, and any other devices which will be used during
construction to guide motorists safely through the construction zone. The
December 2001 157603
s-10 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
L
.-
SUMMARY OP €NVIRONM€NTAL COMMITMLNTS
traffic control plan shall also include provisions for coordinating with local
emergency service providers regarding construction times and locations of lane
closures as well as specifications for bicycle lane safety. The City’s
construction contractors shall coordinate traffic diversions, street and lane
closures, and obstruction of intersections with the City’s engineering
department prior to commencing construction activities through the
development of routing and detour studies.
December 2001 . 1576.03
s-11 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
S€CTlON 1.0
PURPOSt AND N€€D !=OR PROJeCT
1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The proposed widening and realignment project is part of the City’s General Plan to upgrade
Rancho Santa Fe Road to a Prime Arterial roadway designation. Potential benefits from this
project will include reduced congestion, improved traffic flow and increased safety for
travelers on the roadway. Additionally, this road realignment will provide a vital link in the
region’s roadway network and will replace the existing San Marcos Creek Bridge, which is
currently submerged during a 100-year storm event, with a new bridge designed to withstand
the 100-year storm event.
Rancho Santa Fe Road serves as a vital regional transportation link for North San Diego
County. Motorists from the inland areas, including the cities of San Marcos and Escondido,
utilize Rancho Santa Fe Road to reach the beaches, coastal communities and Interstate
Freeway 5. The existing road was designed and constructed as a two-lane road averaging
approximately 9 meters (30 feet) in width. The County of San Diego originally constructed
the road over 60 years ago. Since that time, the communities of North San Diego County
have experienced sustained growth, resulting in a substantial increase in the amount of traffic
using Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Currently, Rancho Santa Fe Road handles in excess of 26,000 average daily trips (ADT) per
day with traffic congestion occurring Monday through Friday from 6:OO AM to 9:OO AM and
3:OO PM to 6:OO PM. As shown in Table 1-1, Trafic Conditions, and further discussed in Section
4.3.4 of the EA, intersections and roadway segments withn the proposed project area either
currently operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) or are projected to operate at
unacceptable LOS. The Rancho Santa Fe Road project is designed to accommodate buildout
traffic, whch is projected to occur in 2020. Based on City of Carlsbad projected growth and
traffic impact fee analysis, the City is anticipated to be built out by the year 2020. Therefore,
traffic rates projected for the year 2020 would be equivalent to 2025 traffic projections.
Tabb 1-2 provides existing accident rates along Rancho Santa Fe Road which are anticipated
to increase as a result of forecasted traffic conditions under existing road conditions.
Accident data for Rancho Santa Fe Road from January 1999 to December 2000 indicates that
2.41 accidents per million vehcle miles traveled have occurred from the Carlsbad northern
city boundary to La Costa Avenue. The State average between 1997 and 1999 on two to
three lane roads was 2.01 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled, and during 1999 the
State average increased to 2.02 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled. As compared to
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 1-1
1 .o Purpose and Need
Primary Collision Factor
Exceeding safe speed
Ikgal lane change
Violation of right-of-way
Folbwing too cbsely
Total Accidents
Accidents Der million vehicle miles
the State average, the accident rate on Rancho Santa Fe Road is approximately 17% hgher
than the State average, whch is considered hgh. Table 1-2 indicates the primary collision
factors withn ths segment. As shown in Table 1-1, the 2020 No Project LOS projections on
Rancho Santa Fe between Melrose and La Costa Avenue are F and it is expected that the
occurrence and frequency of accidents, due to roadway deficiencies and severe congestion,
could reasonably be expected to increase.
Number
11
1
1
1
14
2.08
TABLE 1-1. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
PRESENT AND FORECASTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Primary Collision Factor
Exceeding safe speed
lmpmper turn
lmpmper parking
Folbwing too cbsely
Driving on mng side
Unknown
Total Accidents
c
Number
3
4
1
1
1
1
11
c
Accidents per million whkk miles
Source: City of Carlsbad, March 2001.
Villages of La Costa Traffic Report.
0.33
TABLE 1-2. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ACCIDENT RATES 8s REASONS
Source: City of Carkbad Accident Records, March 2001.
December 2001 157603
1-2 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
1 .o Purpose and Need
Accident Concentrations/Discussion: Over half of the accidents on Rancho Santa Fe
Road recorded from January 1999 to December 2000 occurred between the Melrose Drive and
the San Elijo Road intersections. A higher rate of accidents in ths 518-meter (1,700-foot)
stretch of roadway cold be attributed to the combination of the following factors:
0
0
Three intersections are located withn 1,000 feet or less from each other:
Melrose Drive, La Costa Meadows Drive and San Elijo Road.
This stretch of roadway is located at a low point. Vehcles traveling
southbound and northbound downhill tend to accelerate towards this section
of roadway.
Melrose Drive and San Elijo Road intersect with Rancho Santa Fe Road at
angles 45-degrees or less creating inadequate sight distance.
0
How Project Will Reduce Accidents: Accidents caused by excessive speed and inadequate
sight distances will be reduced with the widening and realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Currently, Rancho Santa Fe Road is used as a regional llnk in North County. The new
roadway will be constructed to current prime arterial standards more suited to regional link
roadway purposes. These standards increase safety for hgher traffic speeds. Standards
include:
0
0
0
0
0
0 Signalization of intersections
Multiple lanes traveling in each direction
A raised median to separate traffic traveling in opposite directions
Horizontal and vertical curves with adequate sight distance
Intersections spaced for adequate stopping and sight distance
Intersections configured at 90-degree intersections
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
The City proposes to realign and widen approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of Rancho
Santa Fe Road as well as replace the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge at San Marcos
Creek. Rancho Santa Fe Road would be widened from two lanes to an ultimate six-lane
Prime Arterial Roadway from the La Costa Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection to just
north of Melrose Drive. The City proposes to construct the project in two phases. Phase 1
will consist of the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of the San Marcos bridge
crossing. Phase 2 will consist of the bridge replacement and intersection improvements north
of the bridge. The project termini is based on tying into existing Rancho Santa Fe Road (a
Oecamber 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sam Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 1-3
Section 1.0 Purpose and Need for Project
six-lane facility) southerly of the intersection with La Costa Avenue at the south end and into
the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive intersection on the north end. Melrose Drive is a
six-lane prime arterial road in the City of Carlsbad.
1.3 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PLANS
The proposed project would implement the traffic congestion relief anticipated by the City
Circulation Element of the General Plan (1994) and the FHWA and Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) approved 2001 -2004, Regional Transportation Improvements Program
(RTIP), approved October 6,2000. The proposed realignment and widening is approved as
a part of the City General Plan and is also identified withn the SANDAG Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) adopted by SANDAG on February 25,2000. Community benefits
from the proposed project will include reduced congestion, improved traffic flow and
increased safety for travelers on the roadway. Additionally, ths road realignment will
provide a vital link between the coastal and inland communities of Encinitas, Carlsbad and
San Marcos in North San Diego County. Increasing the capacity of the roadway would bring
LOS at intersections in the project vicinity to acceptable levels and improve air quality by
reducing traffic congestion. The proposed project will also involve replacement of the
existing bridge over San Marcos Creek which is currently hydraulically inadequate and
cannot pass the 100-year storm without becoming submerged.
1.4 PROJECT HISTORY
The City as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prepared
and certified the 1992 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Mass Grading Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) (SCH # 90010850) to satisfy the requirements of CEQA for the
proposed project. The proposed project evaluated in the EIR set the preliminary alignment
and limits of grading for the roadway and the bridge replacement. Subsequently, the City
completed the final design for the proposed project. Final design for the roadway realignment
as well as the bridge replacement conform with the preliminary alignment and bridge
replacement evaluated in the EIR. The City prepared and adopted an Addendum to the EIR
evaluating the final design for the project in March2000. The Addendum addressing the final
alignment is incorporated by reference to ths document and is available for review at the
City.
c
Separate technical studies were prepared by the City to address specific environmental issues
associated with the project. The results of these studies have been incorporated into the
December 2001 1576-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 1-4
Section 1.0 Purpose and Need for Project
analysis completed for this Environmental Assessment (EA). A list of the separate techcal
studies completed for the proposed project are listed in the introduction to SECTION 3.0,
Environmental Evaluation of ths EA.
1.5 EXISTING FACILITY
The existing Rancho Santa Fe Road consists of two paved lanes with curb and gutter on the
west side and a combination of asphalt curb and gutter on the east side. A truck bypass route
extends from La Costa Avenue northeast to the existing two lane road and eventually
reconnects with the roadway immediately south of the existing bridge.
1.6 PROJECT FUNDING
The City proposes to construct the project in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of the
realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of the San Marcos bridge crossing with an
estimated cost of $19 million. Phase 2 will consist of the bridge replacement and intersection
improvements north of the bridge with an estimated cost of $14 million. Federal-aid funding
is proposed for a portion of the proposed project. As a result, the FHWA is the federal lead
agencyresponsible for ensuring National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. The
California Department of Transportation (Department) will act as an agent of FHWA and
review/process NEPA documentation accordingly. The City has requested $6,100,000 from
FHWA for construction of the Phase 1 portion of the project. Federal FHWA funding sources
for the project will include the Special Projects and Regional SurfaceTransportation Program
funds. The remaining funding for Phase 1 and 2 will be provided by the City through local
funds.
The proposed project is included in the 2001-2004 San Diego Association of Governments
RegionalTransportation Improvements Program (RTIP) (approved October 6,2000). Project
elements addressed by the RTIP include the proposed realignment, widening, and bridge
replacement. The project is accurately described in the cost constrained RTP/RTIP that was
found to be in conformity with federal air quality standards.
1.7 TRAFFIC
It was determined by the City as a part of the traffic analysis prepared for the EIR addressing
the proposed project that under the No Project Alternative intersections and roadways in the
December 2001 1576-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 1-5
--
Section 1.0 Purpose and Need for Project
project vicinity would operate at unacceptable levels at the then buildout year (2010). A
detailed discussion of the anticipated LOS at local intersections and roadway segments is
contained in Section 4.3.4, Transportation and Circulation, of ths EA. As discussed in Section
4.3.4, implementation of the proposed project would bring the local intersections and
roadway segments to acceptable LOS at the buildout year 2020.
1.8 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Ths EA identifies, describes and evaluates the potential environmental impacts that could
result from the proposed project. The EA identifies environmental permits relevant to the
proposed project. As appropriate, this document describes, in terms of regional overview or
a site-specific description, the affected environment and environmental consequences of the
action. The EA also identifies measures that have been incorporated into the proposed project
to prevent or minimize environmental impacts.
The rationale for the determination of issues to be covered by the EA is included in SECTION
3.0, Environmental Evaluation and SECTION 4.0, Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.
1.9 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
In accordance with the NEPA, a good faith effort has been made during the preparation of
this EA to contact affected agencies, organizations and persons who may have an interest in
thus proposed project. Coordination with agencies completed for this EA is discussed in
SECTION 5.0, Consultation and Coordination of ths EA. During preparation of ths EA, the
City, Department and FHWA have coordinated with the appropriate state and federal
agencies. Consultation with the ACOE, CDFG, RWQCB, and the National Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) was completed and permits received (see Section 1.8) for
impacts to wetlands in accordance with Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code
and Section 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Two lists of sensitive plants and
animal species were obtained from the WSFWS in 1999 and 2001 (see APPENDIXA). The City
of Carlsbad has completed formal Section 10 consultation with the USFWS for the roadway
project’s impacts to federally listed species (see APPENDIXB for Section 10[a] permit). With
the addition of federal funds to the project, FHWA has initiated formal Section 7 consultation
with the WSFWS because the project may affect designated critical habitat for the coastal
California gnatcatcher (see A~PENDIX A, WSFWS September 21, 2001 letter). Cultural
resources surveys have been prepared to comply with the requirements of the State Historic
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 1-6
Section 1.0 Purpose and Need for Project
Preservation Officer (SHPO) (see APPENDIX B, SHPO letter dated February 15,2001). Based
on the consultation with these agencies key issues were identified and evaluated in the EA.
1.10 DECISIONS TO BE MADE AND PERMITS REQUIRED
In the F E-lWA review of the proposed project, environmental considerations, economic and
social factors will be weighed to determine the most appropriate course of action, which may
include:
(a) Approval of the proposed project
(b) Approval of an alternative with specific conditions and mitigation measures
(c) Denial of the project
In addition to FHWA approval, additional state and local permits or approvals are expected
to be required for the proposed project, including the following:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
California Regional Water Quality Control Board - water quality certification
or waiver under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (received January 2001).
Army Corps of Engineers - Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(received authorization to use Nationwide Permit 14,8 and 33, August 2000).
California Department of Fish and Game - Streambed Alteration Agreement
Under Section 1600 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code
(received January 2001).
Compliance with Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit PRT-795759 pursuant to
Section lO(1) (1) (a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act received (June 1995).
Compliance with National Historic Preservation Act and SHPO requirements
(completed February 2001).
Compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General
Construction Activity Permit and dewatering certification from Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
Approval of Rancho Santa Fe Road Assessment District by City of Carlsbad.
Completion of Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act by
USFWS.
December 2001 157603
1-7 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
I-
S€CTlON 2.0
PROPOSeD PROJeCT DeSCRlPTlON
AND COMPARATlVe ANALYSlS OP ALT€RNATIV€S
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of Rancho Santa Fe Road would be widened and
realigned from two lanes to an ultimate six lane prime arterial roadway from approximately
30 meters (100 feet) south of the La Costa Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection to
approximately 30 meters (100 feet) north of the Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road withn
the City of Carlsbad in the County of San Diego. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 illustrate the location
of the proposed project in a regional and local context. Figure 2-2 also illustrates the project
impact area for Phases 1 and 2.
2 .2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Final design developed by the City is illustrated in Figure 2-2. As shown in Figure 2-2, the
final design includes specifics regarding grading including location and size of manufactured
slopes. The realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road would be constructed to the full width on the
east side of the median, with sidewalks, curb and gutter, and street lights from the bridge to
the north of Melrose Drive (see cross-section in Figure 2-3). The final design also includes
drainage facilities and drainage outlets to be constructed as a part of the proposed project.
Details of the final design are described further below:
2.2.1 Roadway Realignment
The proposed widening and realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road is part of the City’s
General Plan to upgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road to meet its designation as a Prime Arterial
Roadway. A Prime Arterial Roadway has a 38.4-meter (126 feet) right-of-way containing six
3.66-meter (12 feet) travel lanes, two 2.44-meter (8 feet) bike lanes, a 5.5-meter (18 feet)
raised median, curb and gutters and two3.05-meter (10 feet) parkways which contain a 1.52-
meter (5 feet) sidewalk. FQure 2-3 illustrates a typical road section. The design speed for a
Prime Arterial Roadway is 96 kph (60 mph). The anticipated posted speed limit will be 89
kph (55 mph). Rancho Santa Fe Road is not a designated bike route.
December 2001 157W3
2-1 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sam Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
FIGURE Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment 1 -4 I
L- I Regional Map I I
I
Index Map
:ITY OF
OCEANSIDE CITY OF I VISTA
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment 81 Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
R
I 38.40~1 .. (126')
R/W
PARK-
LANE
I
I 10.97n - - 5.4811 __ 10.97n
(36') (36') I -- (18') - -
TRAVEL LANES
1.52n (5') SIDEWALK1 CURB & GUTTER
PARK- WAY
LAC PAVEMENT OVER AGGREGATE BASE MEDIAN AC PAVEMENT OVERJ AGGREGATE BASE
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
I Rancho Sonto Fe Rood
Conc barricr
tubulnr hod
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment FIGURE
Typical Road and Bridge Cross Sections
2.0
Proposed Project Description and
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
As illustrated in Figure 2-2, the northerly roadway approach for the new bridge will be
approximately 0.7 kilometer (0.4 mile) long and includes the reconstruction of the La Costa
Meadows Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection, and reconstruction of approximately 91
meters (300 feet) of La Costa Meadows Drive east of the intersection.
As illustrated in Figure 2-2, the current alignment of Melrose Drive would be altered to
accommodate the proposed widening of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The Melrose Drive/Rancho
Santa Fe Road intersection would be moved approximately 122 meters (400 feet) to the north
of the present intersection. Melrose Drive would be realigned from Cornita Drive/Melrose
Drive intersection where Melrose Drive would extend to the northwest to the realigned
Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. Cornita Drive would be extended east to
connect with the realigned Melrose Drive.
As illustrated in Figure 2-2, the approach to the bridge from La Costa Avenue would consist
of a realigned 3.1-lulometer (1.9 miles) section of Rancho Santa Fe Road. As shown in Figure
2-2, the impact area for this section of the roadway includes disturbance associated with
construction staging areas as well as removal of the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road within
the vicinity of the new roadway.
2.2.2 Bridge Improvements
The new bridge over San Marcos Creek is planned to accommodate the Prime Arterial
Roadway. Ths proposed bridge replacement project would involve construction of a new
bridge in a location west of the existing bridge (see Figure 2-2). The existing bridge would be
demolished.
The bridge would consist of six lanes. The span over San Marcos Creek would extend for
approximately 114 meters (375 feet) and would range in height from 4.6 meters (15 feet) to
6.1 meters (20 feet) from the creek bottom to the bridge. The bridge would be supported by
manufactured fill slopes at the northern and southern termini of the bridge. A total of twelve
piers would support the bridge span. Each pier would be constructed by excavating a pit and
using driven iron piers to form and cast each individual concrete pier. Following construction
of the piers, the excavation area would be refilled and returned to original grade. Each pier
would include 1.2-meter (4-foot) x 1.8-meter (6-foot) columns and 3.7-meter (12-foot) x 3.7-
meter (12-foot) footings. Figure 2-3 illustrates a typical bridge cross section.
December 2001 1576-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 2-5
Proposed Project Description and
2.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
2.2.3 Project Phasing
The proposed project is divided into two phases (see Figure 2-2). Both Phase 1 and 2 would
be constructed by the City.
Phase 1 includes the realigned 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) approach bridge from La Costa
Avenue to immediately south of Questhaven Road as well as vacation of the existing Rancho
Santa Fe Road.
Phase 2 includes the proposed bridge improvements as well as the 0.7 kilometer (0.4 mile)
approach from Melrose Drive to approximately 183 meters (600 feet) south of the
Questhaven Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection.
2.2.4 Construction Activities
Construction of the project is scheduled to begin in 2002. Construction activities will begin
with the Phase 1 portion of the project. Construction of Phase 1 will take approximately 19
months. Construction of the Phase 2 portion of the project will begin in 2002 or 2003 and
will take approximately 18 months.
The proposed earthwork will be balanced between cut and fill. The area of impact shown
in Figure 2-2 will accommodate anticipated staging requirements during construction.
Blasting operations will be performed throughout the area where marginally rippable to non-
rippable rock exists.
2.2.5 Existing Roadway Vacation
In association with completion of Phases 1 and 2 segments of the realigned roadway, those
portions of existing Rancho Santa Fe Road that are no longer required as roads will be
vacated. Figure 2-2 illustrates the roadway vacation that will occur during construction.
Roadway vacation illustrated in Figure 2-2 includes removal of the existing bridge.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 2-6
Proposed Project Description and
2.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
2.3 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
2.3.1 No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would leave Rancho Santa Fe Road in its current location and
would not widen or otherwise improve the road. The bridge over San Marcos Creek would
not be replaced and would continue to be submerged during the 100-year storm event.
Comparative Analysis
This alternative would eliminate impacts to biological resources and landform alteration.
However, as discussed in Section 1.1, Project Purpose and Need, under the No Project
Alternative, the LOS would continue to decrease to unacceptable levels as traffic volume
increases due to approved and planned development. Rancho Santa Fe Road is a major link
between Encinitas, Carlsbad, and San Marcos and is planned as a prime arterial in the
Circulation Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. The retention of the existing alignment
as is (two-lane road) would directly conflict with ths General Plan designation. As such, as
the number of cars using the existing alignment increase from 26,000 ADT under existing
conditions to 50,000 ADT in 2020, the flow of traffic (LOS) would decrease, causing such
impacts as traffic jams, reduced ambient air quality from large numbers of cars traveling at
slow speeds, increased noise levels, and reduced safety along Rancho Santa Fe Road.
2.3.2 Alternatives Withdrawn from Further Consideration
The City of Carlsbad started planning this section of the Rancho Santa Fe Roadway corridor
in the mid 1980's and has completed several studies of the corridor over the last 15-years. The
studies include the 1986AcousticalAnalysis Study forAssessment District No. 86-5, the 1987Noise
Impact Analysis for the Widening of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road
Alignment Study, the 1992 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the California Environmental
Quality Act, the 1996 Habitat Conservation Plan and the 2000Amendment to the EIR.
In 1986, the City Council appointed a committee to review various alignments for Rancho
Santa Fe Road. The Committee reported their findings in the 1987 Rancho Santa Fe Road
Alignment Study Commiztee Report. The committee consisted of major property owners in the
area, residents adjacent to the roadway and City of Carlsbad Staff. Alignments were
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sam Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 2-7
2.0
Proposed Project Description and
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
developed and reviewed based on safety, environmental impacts, cost, community cohesion
and quality of life, and land use interface. The committee utilized the 1986 noise study and
prepared an additional noise study. An independent environmental consultant reviewed and
assessed alignment impacts on archeological, biological and paleontological resources.
The committee's criterion focused on community issues, as well as, environmental, funding
and safety issues. The community issues included community cohesion, quality of life, and
land use issues. Community cohesion focused on minimizing the isolation of residential
neighborhood, potential commercial areas and open space, and disruptions to the continuity
of landforms such as canyons and hillsides. The committee established that the quality of
life for residents in the area would be higher if community cohesion was maintained as much
as possible. The interface of land uses was also considered to be important to the quality of
life for residents in the area. Land uses and existing zoning were reviewed. The committee
considered severance of access to existing properties, buffer areas of open space between
residential areas and the roadway alignment, views of 'the alignment and open space areas
from residential areas, access to commercial areas, and the proximity of commercial areas and
residential areas to each other and the roadway.
Environmental, funding and safety issues and impacts were considered during and after the
completion of construction. Environmental issues included noise and pollution impacts to
residents from construction and also from projected traffic. Impacts to archeological,
biological and paleontological resources were also reviewed. The committee review of
funding for the various alignments considered the construction cost, mitigation costs, and
impacts to existing homes adjacent to each alternative and financing mechanisms. Safety
was considered for the drivers using the completed road and also for drivers and workers
during construction.
The Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Mass Grading EIR was approved by City
Council in 1992. The EIR further evaluated the alternative alignments presented in the 1987
Committke Report.
City Council, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and adjacent property owners approved the Habitat Conservation Plan in 1996.
During the studies performed for the HCP, the Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment
Alternatives were again scrutinized and modified. A 1,940-acre area surrounding and
including the roadway alignment alternatives was studied to determine areas for conserved
157603
2-8
December 201
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
Proposed Project Description and
2.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
habitat for plant and wildlife species and mitigations of impacts of anticipated urbanization.
The roadway alignments were slightly modified to reduce impacts to low quality wetland
areas and hgh quality coastal sage scrub habitat. The location where the alignments cross
the San Marcos Creek was reviewed confirming this location to be the best for minimizing
impacts to the creek bed.
An amendment to the EIR in March of 2000 reviewed the alternative alignments and
compared their merits to current standards. The amendment is incorporated into this EA by
reference.
The City of Carlsbad has completed a thorough review and analysis of the alternative
alignments for the Rancho Santa Fe Road project over the past 15 years. Criteria for the
alignment studies have ranged from community and City defined concerns, to State and
Federal Agency standards and requirements. The City has been careful tore-assess alternative
alignments as new laws and policies are adopted, and make modifications to the proposed
alternative to reduce and eliminate impacts.
2.3.2.1 Widenina Existing Alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road
c
The EIR and 1986 Committee Report evaluated widening the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road
from La Costa Avenue to Melrose Drive to 38.4 meters (126 feet) right-of-way and to six
lanes.
Comparative Anulysis
The EIR concluded that for all environmental impacts except noise, widening the existing
roadway would cause approximately the same level of impacts as the proposed project over
the long term. The potential impacts to earth resources, air quality, water resources,
biological resources (including sensitive habitat and sensitive species), light and glare, land
use, traffic circulation, public services, utilities, and landform alternation/visual quality
would be largely similar to those described for the proposed project. No significant reduction
or elimination of potential impacts would be acheved by developing this alternative.
The 1987 Committee Report found this alignment to have unacceptable noise impacts to
existing residents and felt the natural topography would be divided isolating part of the
community. The committee deemed the noise impacts unmitigable and unacceptable to
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 2-9
2.0
Proposed ProJect Description and
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
residents adjacent to the roadway. These issues are discussed in more detail below. The
Committee also felt that this alignment would sever the natural edge, or rim, of the series of
hills in the area because the alignment is located between hillsides. Both the topography as
well as the road alignment would isolate the area southeast of this alignment. The area
would be bound by La Costa Avenue to the south and east and by the top of a ridge to the
north and west. The committee valued the sense of "community" of the area and felt it was
important to the quality of life for residents in the area. Isolated areas are not conducive to
a cohesive community.
The 1987 Committee Report rejected the widening of the existing roadway because it would
result in increased levels of noise to nearby residents of the La Costa Vale subdivision. The
increased noise levels would be due to increased traffic traveling on the facility and to the
decrease in distance between the residential receptors and the roadway. Due to physical
constraints and impacts to private residences, a sound wall is the only feasible mitigation and
would not reduce the interior noise levels to below the'45 CNEL required by the City noise
ordinance. The existing residential area is approximately3.1 meters (10 feet) lower than the
roadway. A 2:l slope exists on private property between the roadway right-of-way and the
residential structures. This area is approximately 1.5 meters (5 feet) wide and does not
provide room for adequately sized natural sound barriers such as earthen berms without
substantial regarding and impacts to private properties. The City determined that
mitigations involving changes to existing homes was not cost effective due to liability. These
mitigations would include improvements and alterations to existing homes such as insulation
and the replacement of siding and windows. Therefore, ths alternative was rejected.
2.3.2.2 Alternatives Evaluated for MinimizindAvoidina Impacts to
Bioloaical Resources
Wetland Resources
During the preliminary alternative analysis completed in consultation with the ACOE,
CDF&G, RWQCB, USFWS and NRCS, several alternative alignments were considered to
avoid/minimize impacts to wetlands.
An alternative alignment to the west would have resulted in reduced impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands at the southern end of the alignment but would have created substantial noise
December 2001 1576463
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 2-10
c
r
Proposed ProJect Description and
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
impacts to a number of residents at the southern and northern end of the alignment. Based
on noise studies conducted in 1986, it was determined that predicted traffic noise generated
under this alternative could not be abated through the use of sound barriers to a level below
the City's standards for interior noise level (below 45 CNEL). The study found that exterior
noise levels could be mitigated with a sound wall ranging from 1.8 meters (6 feet) high to 3.1
meters (10 feet) hgh in somelocations. Noiselevels predicted for build-out traffic range from
73.6 to 61.6 CNEL. A sound wall would reduce noise levels to approximately 58.0 to 62.6,
however would not reduce interior noise levels below 45 CNEL.
Sound walls were the only mitigation considered feasible for the western alternative
alignment due to physical constraints at the site. The existing residential area is
approximately 3.1 meters (10 feet) lower than the roadway. A 2:l slope exists on private
property between the roadway right-of-way and the residential structures. Thus area is
approximately 1.5 meters (5 feet) wide and does not provide room for adequately sized
natural sound barriers such as earthen berms without substantial impacts to private
properties. The City determined that mitigations involving changes to existing homes was
not cost effective due to liability. These mitigations would include improvements and
alterations to existing homes such as insulation and the replacement of siding and windows.
Therefore, ths alternative was rejected.
An alternative alignment to the east was considered but would have resulted in direct
impacts to adjacent existing industrial uses at the northern end of the alignment including
access, existing parlung and existing structures. There are approximately 100 - 200 businesses
currently located in the La Costa Meadows Industrial Center located on the east side of
Rancho Santa Fe Road at La Costa Meadows Drive. The southern end of an eastern
alignment would bisect coastal sage scrub habitat identified as habitat for the endangered
California Gnatcatcher, and result in habitat fragmentation. The proposed project alternative
would skirt along the edge of the habitat, leaving more of the habitat in tact. Therefore,
because of impacts to businesses and sensitive biological resources, this alternative was
r ej ec t ed.
The proposed project alternative was designed, where feasible, to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Impacts to wetlands are either associated with the bridge
crossing, perpendicular crossings of unvegetated stream channels or temporary impacts
associated with construction (see APPENDIX Cy ACOE Jurisdictional Wetlands and Project
December 2001 1576-03
2-1 1 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Reptacement
i
I
r
r I
i
r
r
r 1
r r
r
r
I
r.
r
2.0
Proposed ProJect Description and
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Impacts.) The bridge crossing location was chosen to minimize impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands (San Marcos Creek is constricted at the proposed bridge location); to minimize the
length of additional roadway required to access the new bridge; and to avoid direct impacts
to adjacent existing industrial uses. Additionally, the proposed project alternative alignment
minimizes impact to jurisdictional, ephemeral stream channels by crossing perpendicular to
the stream channels were possible. These ephemeral stream channels are unvegetated and
either disturbed and/or low quality habitat. The total area of ephemeral stream channel
impacted by the proposed project alternative alignment was reduced to 0.09 hectare (0.22
acre) with slight adjustments to the alignment as suggested by the ACOE. The proposed
project alternative alignment would result in permanent and temporary impacts to 0.85
hectare (2.11 acres; 0.93 acre permanent and 1.18 acres temporary) of wetlands. These
impacts cannot be further minimized or avoided.
Sensitive Species
As discussed previously, widening of the existing alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road was
considered as an alternative to the proposed project. However, the EIR concluded that no
significant reduction or elimination of potential impacts to biological resources will be
acheved by developing ths alternative. The 1987 Committee report also concluded that
biological impacts would not be significantlyreduced with ths alternative. The City rejected
ths alternative because it would result in increased levels of noise to nearby residents of the
La Costa Vale Subdivision resulting from greater levels of traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Consultationwith the USFWS has been ongoing throughout the project for potential impacts
to proposed, threatened or endangered species (see APPENDIX A, USFWS letters 1999 and
2001). No species of plant listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered by the
CDFG or USFWS was detected in the project impact area. One animal species listed as
threatened by USFWS was determined to use habitat withn the project footprint, the coastal
California gnatcathcer. The City has completed formal Section 10 consultation with the
USFWS for proposed project’s impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher (see Appendix
B for Section 10[a] permit). As discussed in the USFWS’ September 21, 2001 letter (see
APPENDIX A), the USFWS has confirmed that the City is meeting the requirements of the
Incidental Take Permit No. PRT-795759, issued by the Service to the City, pursuant to
Section 10(a) (1) (a) of the Endangered Species Act. The project’s conformance includes
restricting vegetation clearing during the breeding season, dedication of habitat credits,
December 2001 157803
2-12 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
l-
l-
Proposed Project Description and
2.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
restoration of temporary impact areas and placement of the proiect outside of planned
conservation areas, pursuant to the City’s HCP.
With the addition of federal funds to the proposed project, FHWA has initiated formal
Section 7 consultation with the USFWS to address project impacts to the coastal California
gnatcatcher.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho SanIa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 2-13
S€CTION 3.0
€NVIRONM€NTAL €VALUATION
The FA is based on the Final EIR, Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Mass Grading (SCH
900lOSjU) , dated April 3, 1992, the Addendum to the Final EIR dated February 2000 as well
as a number of technical studies. The following technical study reports and documents are
incorporated by reference to this Environmental Assessment and are available for review at
the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92009.
Agra Environmental, 1998. Geotechnical Study.
Carlsbad, City of. 1992 as Addended, 1996 and 2000. Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Mass Grading
(SCH #900I0850).
0 Dudek & Associates, Inc., March 24,1997. Water Quality Study, Rancho Santa
Fe Bridge Replacement Project.
Dudek & Associates, Inc., November 2000. Visual Assessment of Rancho Santa
Fe Road Bridge Replacement.
0 Dudek & Associates, Inc., April 7, 1997. Phase I Environmental Assessment,
Rancho Santa Fe Bridge Replacement Project (Phase 2).
Dudek & Associates, Inc., January 12, 2000. Floodplain Evaluation Report,
Rancho Sanra Fe Bridge Replacement Project.
Dudek & Associates, July 2001. Acoustical Assessment Report Rancho Santa Fe
Bridge Replacement Project - Phase 2.
Dudek & Associates, November 2001. Acoustical Assessment Report - Rancho
Santa Fe Bridge Replacement Project -Phase I.
Dudek & Associates, November 2000. Biological Resources Report for Rancho
Santa Fe Roadway Realignment and Bridge Replacement Project.
Gallegos & Associates, November 2000. Cultural Resources Report for Rancho
Santa Fe Roadway Realignment and Bridge Replacement Project.
Giroux & Associates, March 2000, Air Quality Impact Analysis for Rancho Santa
Fe Roadway Realignment and Bridge Replacement Project.
Vista Info, March 2000. Site Assessment - Special Project Rancho Santa Fe Road
RealQnment (Phase I).
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 3- 1
r-
I 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Destroy, cover, or modify any unique geologic, paleontologic, or physical features?
Result in unstable earth surfaces or increase the exposure of people or property to
geologic or seismic hazards?
Result in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation (whether by water or wind)?
Result in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner?
Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource?
Result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource?
Violate any published Federal, State, or local standards pertaining to hazardous waste,
solid waste or litter control?
3.0 hvironmentai €valuation
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
No
No
No
No
I
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
11. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater, or public water
supply?
12. Result in the use of water in large amounts or in a wasteful manner?
13. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation?
14. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, 01 local water quality standards?
15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any climatic
conditions?
The following Department Environmental Evaluation Checklist was used to identify
physical, biological, social and economic factors whch might be impacted by the proposed
project. The FHWA Technical Advisory T6440.8a and the September 3, 1998 FHWA
Environmental Checklist for Draft Documents was used to determine the environmental
issues addressed in the EA. In many cases, the background studies performed in connection
with this project clearly indicate the project will not affect a particular item. A "NO" answer
in the first column documents ths determination. The discussion in SECTION 4.0 following
the checklist provides the rationale for the determinations made in the checklist.
Yes No
No
Yes No
No
No
I 1. Appreciably change the topography or ground surface relief features? No I
16. Result in an increase in air pollutant emission, adverse effects on or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
17. Result in the creation of objectionable odors?
18. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, or local air standards or control studies?
19. Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas?
20. Result in any Federal, State, or local noise criteria being equal or exceeded?
21. Produce new light. glare. or shadows?
Yes No
No
No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
I 9. Modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any inlet or lake? 1 Yes 1 No I I 10. Encroach upon a flood plain or result in or be affected by flood waters or tidal waves? I Yes I No I
December 2001 157803
3-2 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
c
36. Divide or disrupt an established community?
37. Affect existing housing, require the acquisition of residential improvements or the
displacement of people or create a demand for additional housing?
38. Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or
farms?
39. Affect property values or the local tax base?
40. Affect any community facilities (including medical, educational, scientific, recreational,
or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)?
41. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services?
42. Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
I
No
No
Yes No
Yes No
No
No
Yes No
3.0 €nvironmentaI €valuation
43. Generate additional traffic?
44. Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new parking?
22. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of plants (including trees,
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or micro
I I I
No
No 1 I _. I 45. lnvdve a substantial risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the
event of an accident or otherwise adverselv affect overall public safetv? I
Decambar Mol 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 3-3
*-
3.0 hvironmental €valuation
46. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
47. Support large commercial or residential development?
48. Affect a significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object, or building?
49. Affect wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks?
50. Affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
51. Result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e.g., noise, dust,
temporary drainage, traffic detours and temporary access, etc.)?
52. Result in the use of any publicly-owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge?
MANDATORY FINDINGS
53. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
wehistory?
54. Does the proict have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure
well into the future.)
55. Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. It indudes
the effects of other projects which interact with this project and, together, are
considerable.
56. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Yes I No
No I
No I
Yes 1 NO
I
No I I
No I
December 2001 157803
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Rephcement 3-4
c
-
,.-
I
c
-
S€CTlON 4.0
DISCUSSDON Or PNVIRONMtNTAL
€VALUATION AND MITIGATION M€ASUR€S
This section describes the proposed project’s environmental impacts using the Department’s
Environmental Checklist in SECTION 3.0, and the FHWA Technical Advisory T6440.8a and
the September 3, 1998 FHWA Environmental Checklist for Draft Documents to focus the
discussion. The number in parenthesis preceding each title refers to its number on the
Department’s Environmental Checklist.
4.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.1 .1 Topography/Visual Resources (#s 1,2,9,21,49,50)
The purpose of this study is to assess the visual impacts of the proposed project and to
propose measures to mitigate any adverse visual impacts associated with the construction of
phase 1 and 2 on the surrounding visual environment.’The evaluation of visual changes or
impacts was based upon an assessment of the existing visual character of the landscape seen
from selected key viewpoints and the degree to whch the project would change thoseviews.
The existing quality or character of views was determined by evaluating three visual
elements: vividness (the memorability of the visual impression received from contrasting
landscape elements as they combine to form a striking and distinctive visual pattern);
intactness (the integrity of visual order in the natural and built landscape, and the extent to
whch the landscape is free from visual encroachment); and unity (the degree to which the
visual resources of the landscape join together to form a coherent, harmonious visual pattern,
refers to the composition harmony or inter-compatibility between landscape elements).
Bridge improvements and grading necessary to construct the bridge as well as intersections
and roadways associated with Phase 2 will impact views from the roadway, existing
residences, and planned land uses as discussed below.
Project Description
The City of Carlsbad proposes to realign and widen approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles)
of Rancho Santa Fe Road as well as replace the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge at San
Marcos Creek. Rancho Santa Fe Road would be widened from two lanes to an ultimate six-
lane Prime Arterial Roadway from the La Costa Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection
to just north of Melrose Drive. The City proposes to construct the project in two phases.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-1
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Phase 1 will consist of the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of the San Marcos
bridge crossing. Phase2 will consist of the bridge replacement and intersectionimprovements
north of the bridge.
Applicable Planning Documents
Environmental consequences of the proposed project on the existing visual quality have been
evaluated for Phases 1 and 2 by the 1992 EIR and supplemented by additional visual analysis
to address design level information associated with the final design (DudeE &Associates Visual
Assessment ofRancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement Project, November 2000). This study is
incorporated by reference to ths document and is available for review at the City of Carlsbad.
The visual character of the area immediately surrounding the roadway will change with
buildout of the City of Carlsbad General Plan. Natural hllsides are planned to be developed
with a mixed-use development including residential and commercial uses (referred to as
Villages of La Costa). These uses would be developed adjacent to the roadway. Impacts of
the mixed use development as well as the visual impacts of the roadway were evaluated in
the EIR prepared by the City in 1992. These future developments are taken into
consideration for ths visual analysis.
The Villages of La Costa development (VLC) project was approved by the City Council on
October 23,2001 and is planned to be under construction by 2004. The city is currently plan
checking VLC development plans for the areas adjacent to Rancho Santa €e Road which is
expected to be under construction concurrently with the Rancho Santa €e Road project.
According to the City of Carlsbad General Plan, Rancho Santa €e Road is considered to be a
Community Scenic Corridor. Community scenic corridors interconnect major subareas of the
present and planned Carlsbad community and are subject to the Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
Guidelines Manual.
Assessment Method
The process used in this visual impact study generally follows the guidelines outlined in the
publication "Visual Impact Assessment for Hinhwav Proiects," Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), March 1981. Six principal steps required to assess visual impacts
were carried out:
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-2
~~ ~~~~ ~
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Define the project setting and viewshed.
Identify key views for visual assessment.
Analyze existing visual resources and viewer response.
Depict the visual appearance of project alternatives.
Assess the visual impacts of project alternatives.
Propose methods to mitigate adverse visual impacts.
Project Setting
The regional landscape establishes the general visual environment of the project, but the
specific visual environment upon whch this assessment will focus is determined by defining
landscape units and the project viewshed.
Landscape Units
A landscape unit is a portion of the regional landscape and can be thought of as an outdoor
room that exhibits a distinct visual character. A landscape unit will often correspond to a
place or district that is commonly known among local viewers.
Project Wewshed
A viewshed is a subset of a landscape unit and is comprised of all the surface areas visible
from an observer’s viewpoint. The limits of a viewshed are defined as the visual limits of the
views located from the proposed project. The viewshed alsoincludes the locations of viewers
ldcely to be affected by visual changes brought about by project features.
FHWA Method of Visual Resource Analysis
Identih) Visual Character - Visual character is descriptive and non-evaluative which means
it is based on defined attributes that are neither good nor bad in themselves. A change in
visual character cannot be described as having good or bad attributes until it is compared
with the viewer response to that change. If there is public preference for the established visual
character of a regional landscape and a resistance to a project that would contrast that
character, then changes in the visual character can be evaluated.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-3
e
-
c
Discussion of €nvi ronmenta i €va I ua tion
and Mitigation Measures
Assess Visual Quality - Visual quality is evaluated by identifymg the vividness, intactness
and unity present in the viewshed. The FHWA states that thus method should correlate with
public judgments of visual quality well enough to predict those judgments. This approach
is particularly useful in highway planning because it does not presume that a highway project
is necessarily an eyesore. This approach to evaluating visual quality can also help identify
specific methods for mitigating specific adverse impacts that may occur as a result of a
project. The three criteria for evaluating visual quality can be defined as follows:
Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they
combine in distinctive visual patterns. Intactness is the visual integrity of the
natural and man-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. It
can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural
settings. Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the
landscape considered as a whole. It frequently attests to the careful design of
individual components in the landscape.
4.1.1.1 Affected Environment
Existing visual Resources
As shown in Figures 2-2 and 4-2 through 4-5, the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road consists of
two paved lanes with an asphalt berm on the west side and a combination of asphalt berm
and concrete curb on the east side. A truck by-pass route creates a three-plane paved road
with asphalt berm on both sides in uphll areas of the stretch. San Marcos Creek is crossed
by an existing bridge which is located between the Questhaven Road intersection and the
Melrose Drive intersection. Rancho Santa Fe Road has two northbound lanes and one
southbound lane across the San Marcos Creek Bridge. The following discussion provides a
narrative accompanied by figures that describe the existing visual conditions for the Rancho
Santa Fe Road study area.
Existing visual Churucter
As shown in Figures 2-2 and 4-1/ the topography of the proposed project site is characterized
by undulating terrain that partially drains to San Marcos Creek. Large hulls surrounding the
existing roadway range from 213 meters (700 feet) above mean sea level (msl) to 427 meters
December 2001 1576.03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-4
FIGURE - Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
c Viewshed Boundary
i
SOURCE: Dudek 8 Associates, Inc. Proposed View
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
Bridge Replacement Visual Simulation
FIGURE
4-2
I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I i I
SOURCE: Dudek &Associates, Inc. Proposed View
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment 81 Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
View of Roadway and Bridge looking Southbound on Rancho Santa Fe Road
FIGURE
4-3
1
I
SOURCE. Dudek &Associates. Inc. Proposed View
FIGURE
14-41 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
View of Roadway and Manufactured Slopes looking Southbound on Rancho Santa Fe Road
$1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
, Inc. Proposed View SOURCE: Dudek 8 Assodetes
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
View of Roadway and Bridge from Existing Residences
FIGURE
4-5
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
(1,400 feet) above msl. The existing Rancho Santa Fe Road alignment extends through the
lower elevations and level terrain 91-183 meters (300-600 feet) above msl at the base of the
larger hdlsides.
'
The hills and drainages in the proposed project vicinity are predominantly natural open space
typically covered by dense chaparral vegetation. In 1996, a fire burned a majority of the area
immediately to the east and southwest of the proposed project site leaving the hllsides
generally clear of vegetation. Much of the burned vegetation has recovered, although it has
not regained its former density, the vegetation does contribute to the natural character of the
landscape.
Existing urban land uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed improvements include the
existing Rancho Santa Fe Road alignment, an industrial park, and two single-family detached
residential developments.
The existing visual character of the project area is typified by natural open space with
isolated pockets of semi-rural residential development and new semi-urban residential and
commercial development. The natural landscapeis the predominate visual feature on the east
side of Rancho Santa Fe Road within the project area. The landscape is composed of
moderate to steep hillsides and shallow valleys supporting native vegetation. With few
exceptions, development has occurred west of Rancho Santa Fe Road leaving the east side
relatively untouched except for isolated features such as a transmission line corridor, the face
of an earthen dam structure, and water tanks on distant hilltops.
Various land uses have been superimposed on this overall landscape structure west of the
existing Rancho Santa Fe Road. Older rural housing is adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road
north of the Melrose intersection. Multi-story commercial/industrial buildings are present
in the valley bottom in the vicinity of the existing bridge over San Marcos Creek. Newly-
built housing occurs west of Melrose that have obscured views of the existing bridge.
Additional housing was built in the 1990's along the west side Rancho Santa Fe Road from
the La Costa intersection extending north approximately 1/4 mile. Existing land use exhibits
a semi-rural character that results from discontinuous development that is separated and
surrounded by vacant lots and natural open space lands.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-10
4.0
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
Existing Visuul Quality
High ratings were assigned in areas where the landscape exhibits well-maintained, attractive
urban developments or which exhbit distinctive rural landscapes and natural open space.
This would include areas of existing undisturbed mature vegetation. Examples include
undulating terrain associated with San Marcos Creek and surrounding hllsides. Moderate
ratings were applied to areas which contain reasonably attractive development and natural
features, but which are not visually distinctive or unusual withm the region. These areas
would have some degree of landscape vividness, intactness, or unity present and include
single-family residential developments located adjacent to major roadways. Low visual
quality ratings were not assigned to the study area.
Visual quality throughout the viewshed is moderately-high due to the presence of extensive
natural open space east of Rancho Santa Fe Road that gives the feeling of being on the edge
of urban development within thus Landscape Unit. Landscape vividness for the project area
is rated moderate due to the lack prominent landmarks and natural features that standout
in the landscape. Landscape intactness is rated moderate due to increased encroachment by
tract homes, transmission towers, and the earthen dam associated with the Stanley Mahr
reservoir. Landscape unity is rated hgh throughout the project area due to the large
contiguous open space areas and compatible open space land uses along San Marcos Creek.
Development within the project viewshed does not detract from the overall landscape
character expressed by the sloping ridge lines, valleys, and native vegetation.
Methods of Predicting Viewer Response
Viewer response is composed of two elements: viewer sensitivity and viewer exposure. These
elements combine to form a method of predicting how the public might react to visual
changes brought about by a hghway project. Viewers are defined as those individuals that
are located inside the viewshed boundary for substantial periods of time. The sensitivity of
viewers is dependent upon the duration of viewing time, i.e., resident populations are
stationary and more sensitive to adverse visual change than are motorists who are mobile and
experience visual resources for far more brief periods of time. Figure 4-1 defines the viewshed
boundary for the project area.
December 2001 1576-03
41 1 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of €nvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
Viewer sensitivity is defined both as the viewers’ concern for scenic quality and the
viewers’ response to change in the visual resources that make up the view. Local values and
goals may confer visual significance on landscape components and areas that would
otherwise appear unexceptional in a visual resource analysis. Even when the existing
appearance of a project site is uninspiring, a community may still object to projects that fall
short of its visual goals. Analysts can learn about these special resources and community
aspirations for visual quality through citizen participation procedures, as well as from local
publications and planning documents.
Viewer exposure is typically assessed by measuring the number of viewers exposed to the
resource change, type of viewer activity, the duration of their view, the speed at whch the
viewer moves, and the position of the viewer. High viewer exposure heightens the
importance of early consideration of design, art, and architecture and their roles in managing
the visual resource effects of a project.
Existing Viewer Sensitivity
Viewer types in the project area viewshed include residents, recreationists, government
institutions, public facilities workers, commercial/industrial workers, shoppers, and
agricultural workers. Another viewer group is the Rancho Santa Fe Roadway user which
would include local travelers, commuters, and tourists with regional destinations.
Although open space views are hghly valued by local residents, the City of Carlsbad General
Plan anticipates additional residential development adjacent to the project area. The passage
and implementation of the general plan indicates acceptance by a majority of the voting
public for this level of development and the associated effects to visual resources. Additional
development will convert natural open space to semi-urban environments. Not onlywill this
alter the visual character of the area, such development will increase the number of project
viewers. However, the response of future residential viewers cannot be determined because
the change of visual quality is not observed by land users that arrive subsequent to project
construction.
December 2001 1576-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-12
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Existing Viewer Exposure
Approximately 80 residences are located near the project area and include varylng degrees of
visual access to the proposed project. Phase 1 contains 47 residences that are adjacent to the
project area and Phase 2 contains approximately 32 residences. Residents that occupy these
homes are engaged in everyday life and typically spend a large portion of their time in and
around these dwelling units resulting in long duration viewing periods of the local
environment.
Phase 1 residential viewers are, for the most part, screened from the new road with the
exception of 4 units that will have unobstructed views of the Phase 1 roadway. Two areas
of residential units are present in the Phase 2 area. Approximately nine residences located
between Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue are enclosed by an existing 5-foot
concrete block wall and wood fence that limits direct viewing of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Approximately 14 residences located on Corintia Stteet will have distant views of the
expanded Rancho Santa Fe Road and bridge. Approximately nine residences on Melrose
Avenue have views of the proposed Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersection.
The only other viewers with substantial views of the proposed projects will be motorists that
travel along the proposed roadway. Current daily traffic volume exceeds 26,000 average daily
trips (ADT). Traffic volumes are projected to increase in 2020 to 50,200 ADT. Traffic speed
is expected to minimize the duration of viewer observation of foreground features associated
with Rancho Santa Fe Road withm the landscape unit. Motorist attention is generally
focused on traffic flow patterns and vehicle operation. However, a general sense of the
landscape character and visual quality is achieved by motorists as these viewers pass through
an area.
4.1.1.2 Environmental Evaluation
Method of Assessing Projed Impacts
The visual impacts of project alternatives are determined by assessing the visual resource
change due to the project and predicting viewer response to that change.
Visual resource change is the sum of the change in visual character and change in visual
December 2001 1576-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-13
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
quality. The first step in determining visual resource change is to assess the compatibility of
the proposed project with the visual character of the existing landscape. The second step is
to compare the visual quality of the existing resources with projected visual quality after the
project is constructed. -
The viewer response to project changes is the sum of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity
to the project as determined in the preceding section. -
- The resulting level of visual impact is determined by combining the severity of resource
change with the degree to whch people are likely to oppose the change.
c Definition of Visual Impact Levels
- Low - Minor adverse change to the existing visual resource, with low viewer response to
change in the visual environment. May or may not require mitigation.
- Moderate - Moderate adverse change to the visual resource with moderate viewer response.
Impact can be mitigated within five years using conventional practices.
Moderately High - Moderate adverse visual resource change with high viewer response or
high adverse visual resource change with moderate viewer response. Extraordinary mitigation
practices may be required. Landscape treatment required will generally take longer than five
years to mitigate.
High - A high level of adverse change to the resource or a high level of viewer response to
visual change such that archtectural design and landscape treatment cannot mitigate the
impacts. Viewer response level is high. An alternative project design may be required to avoid
highly adverse impacts.
Analysis of Key Views
Because it is not feasible to analyze all the views in which the proposed project would be
seen, it is necessary to select a number of key viewpoints that would most clearly display the
visual effects of the project. Key views also represent the primary viewer groups that would
potentially be affected by the project. Key view points were selected to provide a range of
viewing experiences. Sites were selected that provided a balanced representation of the
December 2001 157603
4-14 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
project alignment in each area. Computer simulations have been prepared which show
planting as part of the landscaped roadway right-of-way( Figures 4-2 through 4-5).
Phase 1
The area immediately surrounding the length of the roadway within the Phase 1 impact area
is planned for multi-use development by the City. As illustrated in Figures 4-3 and 4-4, the
roadway is considered to be visually compatible with a mixed-use development planned for
the project area. Planned mixed use development along with development of the Phase 1
portion of the Rancho Santa Fe Road project would change the existing visual character from
semi-rural to semi-urban.
The project will create a new 6-lane roadway through natural open space. Roadway
construction requires several cut and fill slopes to cross uneven terrain. These features vary
in height from 6 meters (20 feet) to 18 meters (60 feet). Incorporation of landscaping and
step/contour grading into the Phase 1 portion of the project will ensure that some visual
elements of the existing rural character of the project area will be carried forward.
Views from the Planned Roadway
The existing Rancho Santa Fe Road offers views of the surrounding open space to the east in
the foreground, middle ground, and background. Views of residential housing are available
in the foreground to the west. Travel speeds vary from 72 kilometers (45 miles) per hour
(mph) during of-peak hours to single-digit speeds during peak traffic hours. Foreground and
middle ground views tend to be viewed at oblique angles. These views decrease in quality as
travel speed increases. Background views of the natural open space create the overall setting
for the project area and form the basis for the intactness and unity of ths landscape unit.
Uponimplementation of the proposed project, views from the road for north and southbound
travelers would includemanufactured slopes that extend for approximately489 meters (1,600
feet) along the western portion of the right-of-way and 366 meters (1,200 feet) of smaller (up
to 5 meters [16 feet] in height) cut slopes along the eastern portion of the right-of-way (see
Figure 2-2 for plan view of manufactured slopes).
Travel speeds of 72 kilometers (45 miles) per hour will be acheved throughout all hours of
the day through Phase 1 of this north-south hghway. This increased road speed will make
December 2001 157803
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-15
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
c
- ,
P
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
detailed elements of foreground and middle ground views less visible. Oblique views of
landscaped, contoured cut and fill slopes in the foreground and middle ground views will
replace existing views of natural open space. Roadway realignment will remove views to
residential housing, in the short term, to be replaced by future housing within the viewshed.
Views to more distant natural open space will remain unchanged for this project. However,
the planned conversion of natural open space to semi-urban land uses such as single-family
residential housing, commercial and retails business will change background views and the
overall character of the landscape as these developments proceed.
Daily traffic volume on the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road is estimated to be 27,800 ADT
between La Costa Avenue and Questhaven Road. Similar traffic volume can be expected to
use the new road. Viewer response to the new roadway is expected to be low because most
motorists using this road do not live withn the project area and the project will ease traffic
congestion and increase travel speed through all hours of the day.
As described in the “Summary of Environmental Commitment” section of ths EA, the
proposed project design incorporates measures to minimize potential impacts to existing land
forms and visual quality that are consistent with the Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines and
Hillside Development Regulations. These measures include landscaping manufactured slopes
and incorporating step/contour grading techniques to simulate natural terrain. The Project
includes hydro seeding all slopes with a native non-irrigated seed mix.
Grading for the roadway project will occur prior to grading for the adjacent land development
project referred to as the Villages of La Costa Development (VLC). The VLC grading
operations will further impact and re-grade the majority of the slopes graded as part of the
roadway project. The VLC developer is conditioned to meet the City’s Hillside Development
Ordinance for all grading, and complete landscaping and irrigating of the roadway parkways
and slopes after grading is completed. The VLC developer is required to meet City standards
for development adjacent to the project area. Current plans show planting and irrigation that
exceed City standards. Trees impacted will be replaced at a 51 ratio.
Traffic speed and landscape treatments will generally moderate adverse visual changes and
viewer response from motorists. A moderate level of adverse change to visual resources and
low viewer response are expected to occur from construction of the roadway.
December 2001 157863
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-16
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
+ Views from Existing Residences
As shown in Figures 2-2 and 44, the visual character of the area in the vicinity of the Phase
1 portion of the proposed project is characterized by natural open space east of the existing
roadway and single family residential uses located west of and adjacent to the existing
Rancho Santa Fe Road. The project is immediately surrounded by natural open space
comprised of rugged topography and drainages that extend from a larger hill located to the
east. The visual character of the hills as well as the drainages are characterized by native
vegetation that has recently grown back from a 1997 fire. Unobstructed views of the area
proposed for the roadway are available from these vegetated hllside areas as well as from
northernmost residences located north of the Rancho Santa Fe Road/La Costa Avenue
intersection. Most views of the project from residences extending north from the Rancho
Santa Fe Road/La Costa Avenue intersection will be blocked by a low ridge line.
Approximately 47 residences are located along the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road and have
the potential for views to the Phase 1 roadway. An intervening low ridge line will block the
views from 43 (92% of existing residences facing the Phase lproject area) of these residences
to the new roadway as it climbs up the opposite valley. No adverse change of visual quality
and a low viewer response from these residences is anticipated.
Approximately four residences (8% of existing residences facing the Phase 1 project area) that
occupy the highest land in the northernmost portion of ths tract will have unobstructed
views of the new roadway and cut and fill slopes. A high level of adverse change to visual
resources and high viewer response is expected from these residences. The character of views
from these vantage points will be hghly altered by the roadway, visual traffic during daylight
and nighttime hours, and land form alterations that will include cut slopes up to 18 meters
(60 feet) high.
The visual character of the area surrounding the southern portion of the proposed alignment
will change as the City General Plan is built out. As discussed above, the southern portion
of the roadway alignment is currently surrounded by natural open space. These natural open
space areas will eventually be developed with single family residential uses in accordance
with the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The General Plan designates Low Density
Residential (0-1.5 DU/acre) for the area to the east of the roadway. The natural open space
area immediately to the west of the roadway will eventually be developed with Low-Medium
Density Residential (0-4 DU/acre) uses.
December 2001 1s76-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-11
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
I 4.0 and Mitigation Measures
I
1 -
1 !
With only eight percent of residential viewers that will experience an adverse change to visual
quality, the effect of Phase 1 on existing residential viewers will result in a moderate level of
adverse change and low viewer response.
c
r
r
I
r-
Phase 2 includes the replacement of the bridge over San Marcos Creek, expansion of Rancho
Santa Fe Road from a two-lane to six-lane road, and relocation of the Rancho Santa Fe
Road/Melrose Avenue intersection. As illustrated in Figure 44, a majority of the area
immediately surrounding the site consists of naturally vegetated hllsides. Generally
unobstructed views of portions or all of the roadway are available from these hllsides. Views
of the site from the more level San Marcos Creek area to the east of the site are partially to
completely obscured by intervening topography, vegetation, and structures. As illustrated
in Figure 2-2, the site is visible from the eastern units located withm the residential
development adjacent to Corintia Avenue. Unobstructed views of the site are available from
the three industrial and office structures that are located adjacent to the existing roadway to
the east as well as from a portion of the residential development located between Melrose
Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road.
The grading that is necessary to construct the bridge design as well as the intersections
associated with Phase 2 would involve the use of fill and cut slopes. Two fill slopes rangmg
in height from 5 to 6 meters (15 to 20 feet) are proposed immediately to the south and north
of the proposed bridge. Minor fill slopes (c 3 meters [lo feet] in height) are proposed in
association with improvements to Questhaven and La Costa Meadows Drive. Grading along
the western portion of the road alignment would involve construction of three cut slopes of
5, 12 and 15 meters (16, 40 and 50 feet) in height.
Bridge improvements would include replacement of the existing bridge with a single bridge.
The new surface of the bridge would be approximately 2 to 4 meters (7-12 feet) taller than
the existing facility. The appearance of the bridge as well as grading associated with bridge
improvements is illustrated in Figure 4-2. The bridge facility would be relocated east of the
existing bridge and involve removal of existing mature trees. The existing bridge is
approximately 14 meters (45 feet) wide and 3 meters (11 feet) higher than the elevation at
the floor of San Marcos Creek drainage (approximately 100 meters [327 feet] above msl) at
the lowest point. Based on the conceptual roadway design, the surface of the proposed
facilities would be approximately38 meters (126 feet) wide and located at an elevation of 105
December 2001 151603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-18
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
to 107 meters (345-350 feet) msl, whch is approximately 6 to 7 meters (18-23 feet) hgher
than the lowest elevation of the San Marcos Creek drainage.
Views from the Planned Roadway
Views from the proposed roadway are illustrated in Figures 4-3 and 4-4. The vantage point
for the simulation in Figure 4-3 is from the proposed roadway approximately 152 meters (500
feet) north of the bridge looking south. The vantage point for the simulation in Figure 4.4 is
from the proposed roadway immediately south of the bridge loolung south.
The existing visual character of Phase 2 is typified by the valley through whch San Marcos
Creek flows. Ths shallow valley is surrounded by low rolling hills that support native
chaparral vegetation. The valley bottom is relatively wide and gently sloped. Commercial
office buildings are present with associated ornamental landscaping. San Marcos Creek
supports a band of mature riparian vegetation composed of native wetland trees (willow and
sycamore) and eucalyptus trees that merges with existing ornamental landscape. Two
residential developments of various ages occur in the valley near Melrose Avenue and Rancho
Santa Fe Road withm the project area. Two vacant lots of considerable size are present at the
Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. The overall character of the area is
semi-rural. Vividness is low due to the lack of distinctive landforms and buildings.
Intactness and unity are moderate base on the overall setting and the low density of
development withn the area.
Views of the proposed bridge improvements and associated manufactured slopes from
southbound travelers on Rancho Santa Fe Road are illustrated in Figure 4-3. Views of this
area from the roadway currently include industrial structures and the bridge and roadway
facilities. Wle the proposed bridge would represent an increase in scale from the existing
structure, the bridge structure would not block or obscure any views of natural features such
as the hillsides and the creek from motorists.
As described in the “Summary of Environmental Commitment” section of this EA, measures
have been incorporated into the design of the proposed project to reduce the impacts of fill
slopes including landscaping in accordance with City standards, contour grading of slopes to
simulate natural terrain and use of erosion control measures. The bridge design will increase
the scale of the structure while preserving the character of adjacent riparian vegetation and
valley topography. Installation of the bridge would involve removal of mature trees primarily
eucalyptus in vicinity of the bridge. Approximately 6-8 mature trees would be removed. All
157643
e19
December 2001
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
trees removed would be replaced at a ratio of 51 with willows and sycamore trees in
accordance with City of Carlsbad standards. Trees will be planted on the slopes graded
adjacent to the San Marcos Creek between the planned VLC project and existing
developments. This includes the east side of the roadway south of the creek to existing San
Elijo Road; and also the west side of the roadway north to existing residential area. Irrigation
will be provided to ensure the trees are established. As shown on Figure 4-3, some existing
mature trees surrounding the creek and located at the base of the hill to the northwest of the
creek in the area would remain following bridge construction. By replacing impacted trees,
some visual elements of the existing semi-rural character of the area will be carried forward.
Motorists on Rancho Santa Fe Road will achieve speeds up to 72 kilometers (45 miles) per
hour in Phase 2. Oblique views of cut and fill slopes and to more distant slopes surrounding
the valley will define the motorist experience. Low viewer response is anticipated due to the
hgh-speed character of the activity and level of visual changes adjacent to the roadway that
will be discernable by motorists.
Implementation of the bridge and slope improvements would have a moderate impact to
visual resources, changing the existing visual quality and character from medium to medium-
low.
+ Views from Existing Residences
Two housing areas are present that have views of the Phase 2 area. Approximately22 homes
in the residential area north of Corintia (seeFigure2-2 for location of existing residences north
of Corintia) overlooks the bridge and roadway. An additional 10 homes backed up to Rancho
Santa Fe Road north of Melrose Avenue have views toward the roadway only.
The visual character as viewed from these residences is a semi-rural landscape with vacant
lots in the foreground, the creek vegetation running through the valley bottom forms the
middle ground view, and open vegetated hillsides dominate background views. Five existing
industrial and office buildings located near the bridge reduce landscape intactness and unity.
The overall visual quality is moderate due to the presence of vacant, disced lots, and the
urban forms of industrial/office buildings that distract from the overall natural open space
landscape character.
The existing view includes a bridge and roadway facilities that are similar but smaller than
that proposed. Views of the bridge from the Corintia residential area would be partially
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-20
.-
e
I
4.0
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
obscured by existing project landscape trees, mature eucalyptus trees, and the riparian
vegetation associated with San Marcos Creek. Road grades will remain essentially the same
as the existing road through the valley resulting in no additional side slopes. Based on the
distance of the residential area from the bridge facilities (approximately 305 to 457 meters
[1,000 to 1,500 feet]), the change would affect only middle ground views of the valley
bottom.
Views for homes backing up to Rancho Santa Fe Road are situated slightly below the existing
roadway elevation. The road is partially screened from view by a wooden or concrete fence.
The project will not alter views from these houses because the road grades would remain
essentially unchanged and a new block wall would provide additional screening.
Construction of the bridge and roadway expansion will change the semi-rural character of
the valley to semi-urban. Moderate adverse effects to visual quality would result from the
increased paved area and bridge width. Protection of riparianvegetation and tree replacement
will preserve aspects of the rural character.
Approximately 32 residential units have views that will be altered to varying degrees by the
proposed project. Viewer response is expected to be moderate within Phase 2 residential areas
due to the distance of viewers from the bridge and existing limited views of the roadway.
The project would have a moderate impact to existing visual quality from medium to
medium-low with a change to the visual character from semi-rural to semi-urban
+ Visual Impact to Planned Surrounding Land Uses
Planned residential uses northeast of the Rancho Santa Fe Road/ Melrose Drive intersections
located in proximity to the roadway would have unobstructed views of the bridge
replacement and roadway. However, the foreground views from the planned residences
would be similar to the foreground and distant views from the residences and vehicles on the
roadway (see Figures 4-3 and 4-5).
Viewer response cannot be established for viewers that are not present before changes to
visual character and quality occur. However, a low viewer response to the roadway is likely
because the roadway is compatible with the character of future proposed development that
would house these viewers.
December 2001 157803
Environmental Assessment a Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-2 1
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Noise Sound Wall
According to the Noise Techcal Report prepared for ths project, a noise attenuation
measure that may be used to reduce project-generated noise is the construction of a sound
wall adjacent to three residences. The proposed location and height of the wall is described
in Section 4.4.8 ‘?Voise”of this EA and illustrated in Figure 4-8. The decision to construct a wall
or other measures achieving equivalent noise mitigation will be made during the final
approval of the project. Should the sound noise wall be incorporated into the project, special
attention will be given to the arclutectural style of the sound wall and planting and
irrigation, ensuring compatibility with community values and guidelines and for graffiti
abatement.
I
-
I
--
Tree and vine planting is included along the entire length of the wall and additional planting
will be located in areas where room allows. Starting from the La Costa Avenue intersection,
the first 91 meters (300 linear feet) of the wall includes pilasters spaced approximately 9
meters (30 feet) apart. The slump block is planned to be an earth tone light brown color.
This section of masonry wall is limited to tree and vine planting only, on the east side of the
wall adjacent to the roadway, due to the limited space between the sidewalk and the sound
wall. Modifications to the sidewalk are required to accommodate the tree planters. The west
side of the wall, adjacent to the existing residential area, includes the replacement of an
existing 0.9 meter ( 3 feet) hgh wooden fence and grading along the 2: 1 slope. The existing
slope is currently covered with iceplant and will be replaced if disturbed during construction.
The remaining sound wall, approximately 168 meters (550 feet) will consist of a masonry
wall with pilasters spaced approximately 8.5 meters (28 feet) apart with enclosures, or pop-
outs, that will provide a niche set back from the sidewalk to provide room for planting trees
on the east side of the wall adjacent to the roadway. This wall will also consist of an earth
tone light brown colored slump block, and will also include vines trained to the wall.
Additional ground cover and flower planting and irrigation will be provided between the
sidewalk and the sound wall.
Views immediately along the roadway would be obstructed should the sound wall be
incorporated into the project for a distance of approximately 137 meters (450 feet). As shown
in Figure 4-8, the proposed sound wall would represent a visual extension of existing sound
walls along the alignment and therefore is considered to have a moderate impact to visual
resources mainly due to the change of fence materials from wood to concrete block.
December 2001 1576.03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-22
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Summary of Project Impacts
Combined Evaluation for Phases 1 and 2
Phases 1 and 2 of the project would change the visual quality of the immediate area from
medium-hgh to medium-low and would change the visual character of the viewshed from
semi-rural to semi-urban. These changes would a result of the conversion of natural open
space to human features including a substantial increase in paved roadway surface, cut and
fill slopes, removal of mature riparian trees and eucalyptus, and the introduction of urban
built forms such as the proposed bridge and sound wall. However, as provided in the
“Summary of Environmental Commitments’ section of this EA, the project has incorporated a
number of measures to reduce impacts to visual resources. Incorporation of landscaping,
step/contour grading and special archtectural treatments will ensure that visual elements of
the existing visual character of the project area will be carried forward. Therefore, overall
impacts to visual resources from implementing both Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed project
are considered to be moderate.
Visual Mitigation
The Department and the FHWA mandate that a qualitative/aesthetic approach should be
taken to mitigate for visual quality loss in the project area. This approach fulfills the letter
and the spirit of FHWA requirements because it addresses the actual cumulative loss of visual
quality that will occur in the project viewshed when the project is implemented. It also
constitutes mitigation that can more readily generate public acceptance of the project.
Visual mitigation for adverse project impacts addressed in the key view assessments and
summarized in the previous section will consist of adhering to the mitigating design
requirements in cooperation with the District 11 Landscape Architect. These requirements
include contour grading, landscaped slopes and median, replacement trees at a 51 ratio to
those removed, preservation of riparian vegetation outside the bridge construction area, and
the use of sound walls to screen undesirable views. All visual mitigation will be designed and
implemented with the concurrence of the District 11 Landscape Architect.
157803
4-23
December 2001
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa>Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4-0 and Mitigation Measures
1-
4.1.2 Geologic Features/Hazards/Paleontology (#s 2, 3,4)
Affected Environment
Phases 1 and 2
Geotechnical analysis have been completed for both Phase 1 (Geocon, Inc. January 1990) and
Phase 2 (Agra Environmental, 1998). These studies are incorporated by reference to this EA
and are available for review at the City of Carlsbad.
Proposed project site topography is rolling terrain underlain by resistant volcanic rock on
uplands and alluvium in canyons. The geology of the site ranges from Jurassic aged Santiago
Peak Volcanics, Cretaceous-ages granitic rock and the Eocene-aged Del Mar Formation as
bedrock underlymg a majority of the proposed project site. Terrace deposits, alluvium
landslide debris and slope wash compromise local surficial deposits. The prominent soil
association located in the area is the Exchequer, rocky Blasingame association, with the
Diablo Altamont association existing in the northwestern portions of the proposed project.
Environmental Evaluation
Phases 1 and 2
Implementation of final design for both Phases 1 and 2 would not increase the exposure of
people or property to substantial geologic or seismic hazards or result in any impacts to
unique geologic features. The final design prepared for the proposed project complies with
the City Grading Ordinance and incorporates all requirements of the geotechnical analysis
completed for the project. Measures to avoid geotechcal hazards such as soil instability,
erosion or dam instability from blasting have been incorporated into final design.
Additionally, the contractor will utilize straw, hydroseeding, mulching, or other suitable
materials or techniques during construction activities to reduce the erosion potential for
uncovered soils. The contractor will also install temporary culverts, ditches, catchment
basins, and settling pools where needed during construction to collect excess water and
sediments carried from the construction site. Sediments collected will be disposed of onsite,
unless contamination of sediment with hazardous material occurs, which would require
disposal at an appropriate disposal site for hazardous materials.
December 2001 1576-03
Environmental ksessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-24
4.0
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
A majority of the Final Alignment for Phase 1 would extend through Tertiary Age Santiago
Formation. The Santiago Formation is considered to be a hgh sensitivity formation that is
known to contain paleontological localities with rare, well preserved, and critical fossil
materials. As provided in the “Summary of Environmental Commitments” section of this EA,
measures including the requirement that a qualified paleontologist be present onsite during
construction have been incorporated into the project in order to avoid potential impacts to
paleontological resources.
4.1.3 Energy/Natural Resource/Water Demand (#s 5,6, 7, 12)
Environmental Evaluation
Phases 1 and 2
Implementation of the proposed project for Phases 1 and 2 would not generate any long term
demand for energy, water, natural or nonrenewable resources. The proposed project involves
the realignment and widening of an existing roadway to reduce traffic congestion in the
proposed project area and to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The
Circulation Element provides for transportation elements necessary to accommodate both
existing demand and planned growth within the City. Considering that the proposed project
would not generate population growth no substantial demand for natural resources other
than for materials required to construct the road would be created.
Water would be required for construction activities including dust suppression. However, use
of water during construction activities would be temporary (each phase would require an
eighteen-month construction period), therefore implementation of the proposed project
would not result in the use of large amounts of water in a wasteful manner.
4.1.4 Hazardous Materials (#s 8,45, 56)
The following information was obtained from the Phase 1 Environmental Assessment
Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement Project (Dudek & Associates, 1997); Site
Assessment (Vista Information Solutions, 2000) and the EIR completed by the City for the
project. These reports are incorporated by reference to this EA and are available for review
at the City of Carlsbad.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment e Rancho Sanfa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-25
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Affected Environment
Phase 1
The Phase 1 project impact area with the exception of the existing roadway is vacant land
characterized by native vegetation and rugged topography. Land uses in the proximity
include single family residential uses to the west and south, and office professional and light
industrial uses to the north of San Marcos Creek. Vacant land planned for permanent open
space to the east.
A total of (43) sites were identified in the database search withn a 0.5 mile radius of the
Phase 1 project area (Vista Information Solutions, 2000). These sites included primarily the
light industrial uses north of San Marcos Creek. Many of the businesses have permits for
hazardous materials or storage such as generators and underground tanks. No hazardous
waste sites were identified withn the Phase 1 project impact area. The complete database
search document is available for review at the City of Carlsbad.
Phase 2
The Phase 2 project impact area with the exception of the roadway, consists of vacant land.
Existing urban land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project include the current Rancho
Santa Fe Road alignment work and an industrial park along the eastern side of Rancho Santa
Fe Road. Additional urban land use includes two single-family detached residential
developments as well as vacant land associated with San Marcos Creek and the surrounding
hills. The only industrial facility located with the western portion of the study area is the
Vallecitos Water Reclamation Facility, which is located on La Costa Meadows Drive,
approximately 335 meters (1,100 feet) west of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Historical aerial
photos for the site were reviewed for the time period 1953-1997. A majority of the study area
has remained undeveloped during ths time period. Moderate to heavy development has
occurred along the western and northwestern portions of the study area.
In March 1997, a field site assessment was performed. There were no signs of illegal dumping
onsite. Features whch would suggest illegal dumping include stained soil or pavement,
odors, or stressed vegetation. Stressed vegetation was observed onsite, however it was
attributed to recent brush fires. There were no drums or containers observed onsite. There
were no electrical impoundments observed onsite to suggest equipment containing PCBs. A
majority of the study area is in the public roads easements. Although the northwestern
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sa& Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-26
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
portion o€ the study area exists out of the road easement, this area is unoccupied and does not
contain any structures. There were no above or below ground storage tanks observed within
the study area.
The records search indicated ten facilities located along La Costa Meadows Drive identified
as being located within one-quarter mile from the study area and listed on the San Diego
County Department of Health Services database. These facilities have been identified as
being in noncompliance with general hazardous waste handling regulations and/or as being
small/large generators of hazardous waste. Two of these facilities are located withn and
adjacent to the project impact area. One of these facilities was identified as a non-tank
permitted site, the other facility has no available specific information. Both of these sites
have been closed.
Environmentul Evuluution
Phase 1
It is not anticipated that development of the roadway within Phase 1 would subject people
to impacts from hazardous materials. The site is currently characterized by vacant land with
the exception of the existing roadway. Based on the regulatory database search completed
for the Phase 1 project impact area, no hazardous waste site was identified and therefore, no
impacts are anticipated. However, as provided in the ‘Summary ofEnvironmental Commitments”
section of this EA, in the event grading or construction of the proposed project encounters
hazardous materials, measures including compliance with federal and state regulations have
been incorporated into the project to ensure that no impacts due to hazardous wastes will
occur.
According to the hazardous materials site assessment, no concerns appear to exist within the
Phase 2 project impact area. Hazardous or potentially hazardous materials are not currently
stored on site. According to interviews with previous and current owners, there has been no
substantial land use withn the northern portion of the study area. This suggests the
potential €or contamination to the soils or groundwater withn the study area as a result of
past use appears low to nonexistent. As the records search indicates, there are no active cases
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road ReaBgnmntand Bridge Replacement 4-27
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
involving lealung underground storage tanks or contamination of the groundwater up
gradient of the study area withm one-half of a mile. As a result, no impacts due to hazardous
materials are anticipated. However, as discussed above under Phase 1, measures have been
incorporated into the project to ensure that no impacts due to hazardous wastes will occur
during project construction.
Combined Evaluation for Phases 7 and 2
Hazardous waste sites have not been observed withm the project impact area. As a result,
it is not anticipated that people or property would be exposed to hazardous materials with
implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore, as provided in the ‘Summary of
Environmental Commitments” section of this EA, measures have been incorporated into the
project to ensure that no impacts due to hazardous wastes will occur during project
-
c construction.
4.1.5 Floodplain Evaluation (#lo)
Affected Environment
Phase 1 -
Within the Phase 1 portion of the project, the 100-year floodplain as defined by FEMA is
restricted to Encinitas Creek (see Figure 4-6). Encinitas Creek flows from the Stanly Mahr
reservoir southeast to a culvert within La Costa Avenue. A study completed by the City in
1994 indicates that the box culvert in La Costa Avenue is unable to adequately convey 100
year flows in Encinitas Creek. Other flow control facilities in the vicinity of Encinitas Creek
include the Stanly Mahr reservoir outlet works and emergency spillway.
Phase 2
A study completed by the City in 1988 shows that the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road
crossing over San Marcos Creek becomes completely submerged during the 100 year flood (see
Figure 4-6) (Hydraulic Report fir the San Marcos Creek at Rancho Santa Fe Road, Rick Engineering
April 4988). The existing flooplain flows for San Marcos Creek are listed below in Table 4-11.
December 2001 157693
4-28 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
FIGURE
14-6 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
Project Area Drainage
4.0
Flood Recurrence Interval
25-year
50-year
1 00-vear
Discussion of €nvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
Projected Peak Flows
127 crns [4,500 cfsl
227 crns (8,000 cfsl
368 crns [13.000 cfsl
TABLE 4-1
PEAK FLOWS EXISTING RANCHO SANTA FE BRIDGE
Source: Rick Engineering, 1988, 1996.
Environmental Evaluation
Phases 1 and 2
Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain management) directs all federal agencies to refrain from
conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable
alternative. The FHWA requirements for compliance are outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A.
The Phase 1 project impact area would not encroach withn the 100-Year Floodplain of
Encinitas Creek. Therefore, no impacts due to development in a floodplain are anticipated.
The proposed bridge replacement (Phase 2 portion of the project) encroaches upon the base
floodplain of San Marcos Creek as defined by the FEMA defined regulatory flood way. The
floodplain encroachment would be associated primarily with the bridge piers. The bridge
would consist of six lanes and an overall 38 meters (126 feet) right-of-way. The span over
San Marcos Creek would extend for approximately 114 meters (375 feet) and would range
in height from 5 to 6 meters (15 to 20 feet) from the creek bottom to the bottom of the
bridge. The bridge would be supported by manufactured fill slopes at the northern and
southern termini of the bridge. A total of twelve piers would support the bridge span. Each
pier would be constructed by excavating a pit and using driven iron piers to form and cast
each individual concrete pier. Following construction of the piers, the excavation area would
be refilled and returned to original grade. Each pier would include 1.2-meter (4-foot) x 1.8-
meter (6-foot) columns and 3.7-meter (12-foot) x 3.7-meter (12-foot) footings.
December 2001 157653
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-30
4.0
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
and Mittgation Measures
The City completed an analysis of potential impacts of the proposed bridge replacement on
the 100-Year Floodplain of San Marcos Creek (Floodplain Evaluation Report, Rancho Santa Fe
Bridge Replacement Project, Dudek €2 Associates, January 2000). Ths report is incorporated by
reference to ths EA and is available at the City of Carlsbad. The results of the study are
summarized below.
Risks Associated with implementation of the Action
Because only minor permanent intrusion into the base floodplain by supporting piers for the
bridge structures will occur, the project would not substantially change the water surface
elevation. There will be no increase in potential for upstream or downstream property
damage from flooding. The project will not increase the risk of loss of life from flooding, and
the hghway operations will not be affected by flooding.
Impacts on Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values
Direct physical effects of the project on the floodplain at the San Marcos Creek crossing will
be limited to temporary construction impacts and the permanent, but not substantial, effects
of the placement of supporting piers in the floodway. For further discussion of impacts on
natural and beneficial floodplain values, see discussion under Section 4.2, Biological Resources.
Support of Probable Incompatible Floodplain Development
The project will not support incompatible development. No new access and no direct access
to the affected floodplain will be provided by the project. Access to Rancho Santa Fe Road
will be controlled, and the road will cross the floodplain on a bridge above the floodplain
elevation.
Measures to Minimize Floodplain Impacts
The design of the San Marcos Creek bridge will result in only minimal effects on the
floodplain. Routine construction procedures required by the City will minimize impacts
during construction. These procedures include limiting the area affected by construction,
using barriers or fences to protect sensitive areas, employing BMPs to control erosion and
runoff, and designating and restricting access to designated environmentally sensitive areas
(ESAs) where appropriate. No additional measures to minimize impacts are required.
December 2001 157803
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-3 1
c
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Measures to Restore and Preserve the Natural and Beneficial Floodplain
Mitigation measures for impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values from the project
have been identified and are discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, as well as the
Summary of Environmental Commitments section of thus EA and in supporting technical
documents prepared for the project.
4.1 -6 Water Quality (#s 1 1, 1451)
Affected Environment
Phase 1
Surface Water. As illustrated in Figure 4-6, the proposed project site is located in the
watersheds of the San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek. Surface water drains through
several tributary canyons and watercourses towards the south and the west. Encinitas Creek
is located at the south end of the proposed project withn Phase 1 and drains to the south.
Both San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek enter the Batiquitos Lagoon before entering the
Pacific Ocean.
Groundwater. Groundwater basins exist primarily in the two largest valleys: 1) The San
Marcos Creek Basin and, 2) in a tributary to Encinitas Creek that partially originates from
the Stanly Mahr Reservoir and follows a southwesterly course. The groundwater table is 3
to 9 meters (10-30 feet) deep in the Encinitas Creek Basin.
Phase 2
The Phase 2 project impact area includes a San Marcos Creek crossing just south of the
intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Meadows Drive in the City of Carlsbad
(see F@re 4-6). San Marcos Creek lies within Batiquitos Hydrologic Subarea (HSA) 4.51 of
the San Marcos Hydologic Area (HA) 4.50, of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (HU) 4.0. The
most prominent water feature upstream of the proposed project area is San Marcos Lake.
Surfuce Water. San Marcos Creek drains an approximately 1 19-square kilometer (46-square
mile) area north of the San Dieguito Rwer Basin. The creek originates in the coastal range
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-32
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
mountains north and east of San Marcos. The drainage basin ranges in elevation from sea
level to slightly more than 518 meters (1,700 feet) in the Merriam Mountain range northeast
of San Marcos. The creek drains to Batiquitos Lagoon approximately 4.2 kilometers (2.6
miles) into the Pacific Ocean.
The stream gradient ranges from an average of 3 meters (10 feet) per mile near the mouth to
about 183 meters (600 feet) per mile near the headwaters. The creek has a small, poorly
defined channel up stream from Lake San Marcos. Downstream of Lake San Marcos, the
channel is more defined, steep and rocky to the La Costa development where it changes from
well-defined to small and ill-defined to the Batiquitos Lagoon. In the immediate area of the
proposed project, the stream is broad and well-defined.
Groundwater. San Marcos Creek is a perennial stream. The depth to groundwater in the
alluvium area is between 0.6 to 2 meters (2 to 5 feet) below ground surface. The alluvium
thickness generally ranges from 1 to 3 meters (4 to 10 feet) below ground surface.
Environmental Evaluation
Phase 1
The final design for the roadway includes the following measures to protect water quality.
0 Project design will ensure that no additional runoff will drain into Stanley Mahr
Reservoir.
All refuse generated during grading will be contained and removed.
During the construction phase, BMPs will be applied to control storm water runoff
and provide dust control. These measures include: - Gravel berms, filter fabric fences, lines of straw bales, to prevent erosion - Surfacing of roadways will occur as soon as possible - Periodic watering of areas to keep dust down - Prompt revegetation of surrounding areas to prevent erosion
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-33
Discussion of hvironmental evaluation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
c
P
c
a
0
a
a
0
The SWPPP as identified in the construction activity permit from the RWQCB will
be implemented and followed.
To minimize water quality degradation by sedimentation of the river channel during
construction, construction of the new bridge piers and demolition of existing piers will
be limited to the dry season (March to October).
The roadway design includes devices for storm water treatment. These devices
capture and treat the storm water prior to discharge to San Marcos Creek. BMPs will
also be applied to reduce pollutant loads to San Marcos Creek. These BMPs will
include use of rip-rap at stormdrain outlets to reduce the velocity of runoff.
The City will follow all recommendations made pertaining to erosion control in the
geotechnical evaluation completed for the project, the City of Carlsbad’s, Grading
Ordinance, and Landscape Manual.
Refuse material such as oil, grease, and broken equipment generated during grading
will be properly contained and removed offsite to a disposal site.
A majority of the drainage from the roadway would be outletted to existing drainages
adjacent to the roadway. All drainage outlets would contain rip-rap filters to slow the
velocity of the runoff and minimize offsite erosion. Eventually all drainage outlets associated
with the roadway would be connected to systems associated with planned urban
development in the area. It is concluded, therefore, that with measures incorporated into the
proposed project design the proposed Phase 1 portion of the proposed project would not result
in substantial impacts to surface or groundwater quality.
Phase 2
A separate technical study has been prepared by the City to evaluate potential effects of the
bridge design on hydrology and water quality in San Marcos Creek (Water Quality Study,
Rancho Santa Fe Bridge Replacement Project, Dudek & Associates, March 1997). This study is
incorporated by reference to this EA and is available for review at the City of Carlsbad. The
report concluded that with measures to protect water quality as described above (Phase 1
portion of the project) included in the design of the bridge, that the hydrology and water
quality of San Marcos Creek would not be substantially impacted. The conclusions of the
Study are discussed further below.
157603
4-34
December 2001
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sam Fe Wad Realignment and Bridge Rephcement
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Construction Phase. The construction of the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road and
bridge replacement, including grading and cut and fills, would entail the movement of
approximately 202,607 cubic meters (265,000 cubic yards) of earth and the creation of
manufactured cut and fills. The maximum height of cut slopes is estimated to be about 15
meters (50 feet) and the maximum amount fill slope is estimated to be 6 meters (20 feet).
Ths movement of sediment and grading of the alignment will create potential for sediment
increases to San Marcos Creek.
The demolition of the existing bridge would most likely involve the removal of abutments
and piers. The construction of the new bridge will also include the installation of new piers.
The removal and installation of the piers will create disturbance of the river channel.
Sediment loading to the river could be substantial, depending on the season when
construction occurs.
The report concludes that with implementation of BMPs to control the storm water runoff
and to provide dust control construction of the bridge and associated roadway improvements
would not create substantial adverse impacts to either ground or surface water quality.
Operational Phase. The proposed project would create approximately 3 hectares (8 acres)
of paved surface area which is almost 3 times the amount of the current paved area of the
roadway within the Phase 2 project impact area. Increases in surface runoff and pollutant
loads may be expected. Pollutants associated with runoff from the roadway include lead,
zinc, dissolved solids, and nitrogen. However, the amounts of pollutants from runoff
associated with the increase in the capacity of the roadway are minimal and are well below
the RWQCB objectives for the basin. In addition, measures have been incorporated into the
design of the proposed project as previously described, including provision of BMP’s such as
rip-rap at storm drain outlets. Considering that runoff from the proposed project would
contain minimal pollutant load and that BMP’s have been incorporated into the proposed
project design, implementation of the Phase 2 portion of the proposed project would not
create substantial adverse impacts to water quality.
Combined Evaluation for Phases 1 and 2
Measures required by the water quality study for Phase 2 as well as the City Grading
Ordinance have been incorporated into Phases 1 and 2 the proposed project to avoid or
minimize potential impacts to water quality from construction and operation.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-35
4.0
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
4.1.7 Air Quality (#s 15, 16, 17, 18)
Affected Environment
Phases 1 and 2
+ Meteorology and Climate
The climate in Carlsbad is controlled by the semi-permanent, high pressure system near
Hawaii and the moderating effects of the nearby oceanic thermal reservoir. The San Diego
North County climate is characterized by cool summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall,
abundant sunshine, and comfortable humidities. Temperatures average 17 degrees Celcius
(62 degrees Fahrenheit) annually. Rainfall withn the area averages 28 centimeters per year
(1 1 inches per year). Winds are generally light until mid-afternoon, when the daily sea breeze
reaches maximum strength. Unfortunately, the same factors that create a hghly desirable
living climate combine to limit the ability of the air to disperse the air pollution generated by
the population attracted, in part by the climate.
-
c
-
The daytime sea breeze typically has its origin over open waters and thus brings clean air
across North County. This pattern does not allow locally generated emissions to undergo
photochemical reactions and form smog. Similarly, the winter drainage winds blow down
from nearby open hgher terrain and thus arrive relatively ‘clean” in the local area. While
daytime winds are typically strong enough to rapidly ventilate the local area, nocturnal winds
often are nearly calm and thus do allow for the possible localized stagnation of air pollutants
near traffic intensive sources such as Highway 78 or Interstate 5. With low background
pollution levels and a relatively low overall emissions density in inland areas upwind of
Carlsbad during nocturnal offshore flow, the potential for any air pollution “hot spots” under
stagnation conditions is minimal in the Carlsbad area.
One wind pattern that does lead to occasional unhealthful air quality is when offshore winds
at night in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) blow onshore across North County the next
day, containing day-old air pollutants that already contain high levels of ozone and other
irritants. This pollution recycling which sometimes occurs in late summer and early fall, may
create some of the most unhealthful air quality that is observed in the otherwise typically
healthful North County air quality environment.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sank Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-36
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
4-0 and Mitigation Measures
+ Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)
In order to assess the air quality impact of the proposed bridge reconstruction and roadway
realignment, that impact, together with baseline air quality levels, must be compared to the
applicable AAQS. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an
adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to
protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection such
as asthmatics, the very young, the elderly, people weak from other illness or disease, or
persons in heavy work or exercise called sensitive receptors. Healthy adults can tolerate
occasional exposure to air pollution levels somewhat above these standards before adverse
health effects are observed.
The Clean hr Act amendments of 1970 established national AAQS with states retaining the
option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. Because
California already had standards in existence before federal AAQS were established, and
because of unique meteorological problems in California, there is considerable diversity
between state and federal standards currently in effect in California, as shown in Table 4-2.
Further amendments to the Act promulgated in 1977 specified that all areas of the country
must attain all national AAQS by 1982, with a possible extension to 1987 if reasonable
further progress had been demonstrated by the 1982 interim deadline. By the end of 1987,
national air quality standards for Dzone (0,) and carbon monoxide (CO) were still being
violated in San Diego County. State standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO,) and for respirable
particulate matter (PM-10) also exceeded their allowable maxima with the airshed. A new
air quality planning cycle was initiated to develop an air quality plan for the San Diego Air
Basin (SDAB) in response to an EPA call for a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Preparation of an air quality plan was also mandated by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA -
AB-2595) which required completion of a plan to also meet State AAQS.
The Clean PLlr Act Amendments of 1990 ordered EPA to periodicallyreview all AAQS in light
of the most current health effects information. After extensive review, two additional
national clean air standards were adopted in 1997. These standards included an 8-hour ozone
exposure, and a new particulate standard for ultra-small diameter particulates of 2.5 microns
or less called “PM-2.5.” EPA’s authority to promulgate national clean air standards without
specific direction from the U.S. Congress was challenged as a =state’s rights” issue and
enforcement of the new standards was stayed by a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals. A
December 2001 157603
~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-37
c
4.0
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
TABLE 4-2
AIR QUALITY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
I Federal Standards Pollutant Averaglng Caliiornia Standards I Cancentratian Method 1 Primarv I Secondary I Method
Sulfur
Dioxide
. (SO,)
Federal
Standards
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment a Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-30
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
request for a rehearing by the Department of Justice on behalf of EPA was denied. Unless the
issue is heard in the U.S. Supreme Court, or Congress modifies the Clean Air Act to
specifically incorporate these standards, any planning efforts on behalf of these standards are
indefinitely on hold.
+ Baseline Air Quality
Air quality in Carlsbad is best documented from measurements made at a monitoring station
in Oceanside operated by the San Diego Ar Pollution Control District (APCD). Data from
the last six years, as published by the California Air Resources Board show that the State
standard for 10-microns diameter or less particulate matter is exceeded approximately 10
times per year. The State standard for ozone is exceeded approximately 6 days per year on
average. The only federal standard exceeded in Oceanside in the last six years was an average
of one day with ozone levels above the national clean air standard. Standards for carbon
-
-
' monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO,) and nitrogen dioxide (NO,) are not exceeded.
- + Air Quality Management Planning
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of
updating the 1991 state plan. During the planning process and smog formation modeling,
it was discovered that the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) could meet the federal ozone standard
by the year 1999 without the creation of any new control programs. All progress towards
attainment, including offsetting the effects of growth, is expected to derive from existing
local, state and federal rules and regulations.
Environmentul Evuluution
Phases 1 and 2
An air quality impact analysis of the proposed project that covers both Phases 1 and 2 was
completed for purposes of thus EA (Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Rancho Santa Fe Roadway
Realignment andBn'dgeReplacement Project, Giroux &Associates, March 2000). The air quality
analysis is incorporated by reference to this EA and is available for review at the City of
Carlsbad. The report concluded that implementation of the roadway is intended to
implement the General Plan Circulation element and accommodate existing and planned
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santd Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-39
c
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
traffic generation in the area. As a result, widening the roadway would not generate traffic
in the area and, therefore, would not cause a substantial long-term adverse impact to regional
air quality. The results of the study are summarized further below.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Short-term impacts will result from dust generated by surface disturbance to construct the
bridge and realigned roadway. Such dust will create potential soiling nuisance to parked cars,
landscaping, vegetation and other surfaces. Heavy equipment (mainly diesel-powered) will
generate exhaust emissions from on-site activity and on-road hauling of dirt, concrete and
other construction materials. As described further below, the air quality analysis concluded
that with implementation of dust suppression and emission reduction measures incorporated
into the proposed project short-term air quality impacts would be avoided.
Fugitive Dust. Dust emissions were calculated based on the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) estimate that each acre under construction disturbance generates about 45 kilograms
(100 pounds) of dust per day, if no dust control measures are implemented. Dust control
measures incorporated into the proposed project design including frequent watering, paving
of access roadways, and periodic street washmg near construction access, as required by San
Diego APCD rules, will reduce the dust generation rate by approximately 50 percent.
Equipment Combustion Emissions. The maximum equipment activity level was assumed
by the air quality analysis to occur during clearing, grading, delivery and dumping of base
rock and compaction of the roadway subgrade. The study combined the equipment
inventory with representative load factors during typical grading/compaction activities and
determined the pollutant load per day generated by the construction equipment. According
to the study, none of the pollutant loads generated by the proposed project would exceed the
daily thresholds established by the San Diego APCD. Therefore, total daily construction
activity impacts, from equipment exhaust and from fugitive dust, would not create a
substantial air quality impact.
Indirect emissions increases could result during construction in public roadways if lane
closures, detours or other interference with local traffic measurably worsened congestion on
already heavily traveled roadways. Through measures incorporated into the proposed project
design including limited lane closures during the a.m. and p.m. peak travels periods, and use
of the existing roadway for access during construction, substantial indirect impacts to air
quality from detours and lane closures are not anticipated.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-40
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
+ Long-Term Operation Impacts
Proposed project operations will create changes in the location of automotive pollution
sources, in the number of vehicles using the roadway, and in the degree of congestion that
will occur. Roadway improvements may also affect patterns of growth that were previously
constrained by access limitations.
Localized changes in air pollution patterns may create elevated levels of primary (unreacted)
air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO). Localized violations of CO standards are often
called “hot spots.” With low background CO levels in the proposed project vicinity, and with
continuing reductions in CO emissions from the average vehcle, hot spot formation is highly
unlikely. A screening level analysis was conducted to confirm this finding.
Microscale Impact Analysis. In order to assess any microscale air quality implications of
proposed project implementation, a roadway air pollution dispersion calculation was
performed near three intersections along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Carbon Monoxide (CO) was
used to evaluate the potential for any microscale “hot spots.” Worst-case meteorology and
peak hour traffic conditions were combined in a Department roadway air pollution screening
model. People who are highly sensitive to air pollution exposure are called %ensitive
receptors.” Typical sensitive receptor locations include residences, health care facilities,
schools, parks, etc. Within the proposed project area, sensitive receptors consist
predominantly of residential users. A description of the eight sensitive receptor locations
selected for roadway emissions impact analysis include:
0 Child Care Facihties within Industrial Park (Phase 2)
0 Residence - Espera Court (Phase 1)
0 Residence - Cadencia (Phase 1)
0 Residence - Mulso/Fosca (Phase 1)
0 Residence - Caboflrigo (Phase 1)
0 Residence - Del Rio Court (Phase 1)
0 Residence - Dorado Place (Phase 1)
0 Residence - Cuesta Place (Phase 1)
The microscale air quality impact analysis demonstrated that the existing maximum local
CO increments at the shoulder of any proposed project area roadway are well with
acceptable standards. The maximum predicted one-hour CO concentration (7 ppm) would
occur at Receptor 4, a single-family home on the corner of Fosca Way and Mulso Lane. The
December 2001 157603
. .. Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-41
c
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
local exposure of 7 ppm does not exceed the most stringent California standard of 20 ppm
and the federal standard of 35 ppm.
Maximum eight-hour CO levels generated by the proposed project would also not exceed the
State and/or federal; standard of 9 ppm. The maximum opening daily worst-case, eight-hour
CO levels at buildout conditions would decrease to 4.1 ppm, or 46 percent of the standard.
Air Qudity Conformity Analysis. Regional air quality impacts were evaluated relative to
the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP} which is a component of the
Regional Air Quality Strategic/State Implementation Plan (RAQS/SIP). The 2020 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) was adopted by SANDAG on February 25,2000. On April 13,
2000, FHWA and FTA made a joint air conformity determination on the 2020 RTP that the
RTP complies with the Clean Ax Act. On October 6,2000, FHWA and FTA approved the
2001-2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The Rancho Santa Fe
Road Bridge Replacement and Realignment Project is included in the 2000-2020 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) on page A-1 7; the RTP was found to be conforming by FHWA and
FTA on April 13, 2000. The project is also in the 2001-2004 Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP); the RTIP was found to be conforming by FHWA and FTA on
October 6, 2000. The design and scope of the project are also consistent with the project
description in the above RTP and RTIP.
Cumulative. Construction activities for Phases 1 and 2 may briefly overlap. However, the
peak equipment/soil disturbance level during the limited cumulative overlap period will be
less intense than from mass grading during Phase 2 whch was found to not create a
substantial impact to air quality.
4.1.8 Noise (#s 19,20,51)
Affected Environment .
Noise Criteria (Local, State and Federal)
The City of Carlsbad required that the maximum acceptable exterior noise level for new
residential development shall not exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA. The County of San Diego’s
maximum acceptable exterior noise level for new residential development is that the CNEL
should not exceed 60 dBA. However, proposed projects that are federally funded are to
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-42
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Activity
Category
A
B
C
D
E
*-
L (hl
57
(Exterior)
67
(Exterior) churches, libraries and hospitals.
72
(Exterior) - - Undeveloped lands.
52
Description of Activitv Cateaorr
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and
where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools,
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums.
comply with applicable FHWA standards. The FHWA/Department follows the noise
abatement procedures established in the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772). The
Department also follows the noise abatement procedures as well as policies established in the
Department’s Highway Design Manual Chapter 1100. For purposes of the following
analysis, the Department’s 1998 Noise Protocol was used.
The FHWA considers that a traffic noise impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise levels
approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) shown below. Noise abatement
criteria for sensitive receptors such as residential and school uses is 67 dBA for Category B.
The FHWA specifies that the NAC, when approached, exceeded, or when there is a
substantial increase (> 12 dBA) , requires the consideration of traffic noise abatement
measures. The FHWA indicates that local State Highway Agencies should use a definition
of approach that is at least one dBA less than the NAC. The Department defines approach
as being one dBA lower than the NAC.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL - DECIBEL (dBA)
Existing Conditions - Phase 1
c
c
Sensitive Noise Receptors. Existing noise sensitive receivers in the project vicinity include
approximately 50 residences located along the western portion of the project site along
Rancho Santa Fe Road. Existing noise levels currently exceed the Federal Highway
Administration’s Noise Abatement Criteria at some of the residences along Rancho Santa Fe
Road.
December 2001 157603
4-43 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of hvironmenta! €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Site Description Daterrime 1 Cars MT' HT2
M1 Approximately 30 to center line of road 1011 810 1 73dBA 446 7 1
1250- 1~10 PM
M2 Approximately 45' to center line of road 1 0/18/01 7OdBA 466 9 3
12:20 -12~40 PM
1 M3 Approximately 40 to center line of road 1 01 1 810 1 71 dBA 505 7
c
I I
Noise Measurements, Three noise measurements were conducted at the residential area
located along the western portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road (Sites M1, M2 and M3, Figure 4-
7). The primary noise source at the measurement sites is traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
The noise measurement sites were selected to provide an unobstructed view of the Rancho
Santa Fe Road (Le., no intervening walls, buildings, topography etc.). The measured average
sound levels were 73 dBA at Site 1,70 dBA at Site 2 and 71 dB at Site 3. Table 4-3 depicts the
results of the noise measurements adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road.
11~40 AM - 12:w) PM I I I I
TABLE 4-3
Short-Term Measured Average Noise Level and Concurrent Traffic Volumes
Notes: '
* Medium trucks ' Heavytrucks
Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (timeaverage sound level)
The existing noisiest hourly average sound level was determined based on the existing peak
hour traffic volume (City of Carlsbad, 2001a). When adjusted to the peak hourly average
noise level, the modeled noise level ranges from approximately 53 to 73 dBA at the backyards
of the existing homes (i.e., Sites 4-14). The existing (noisiest) one-hour average sound levels
for various receiver locations are depicted in Table 4-4. The noise level at the homes adjacent
to Rancho Santa Fe Road varies due to factors such as the amount of noise attenuation
associated with intervening topography (i.e., graded slopes) as well as the distances from the
homes to the road. The intervening topography is generally more effective at shielding the
traffic noise for the homes located at the bottom of the slopes.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-44
Scale in Fwt
FIGURE Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
Phase 1 - Noise Measurement and Receptor locations
4.0
~ ~ ~~ ~
7 Dorado PI. (Backyard) 3 55 B (67) None
8 Dulce Ct. (Backyard) 3 57 B (67) None
9 Del Rio Ct. (Backyard) 6 65 B (67) None
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
15 Undeveloped (Zoned Residential) 51 0 (-4 None
16 Undeveloped (Zoned Residential) 51 D (4 None
i 17 UndeveloDed (Zoned Residential) 49 D (4 None
TABLE 4-4
Existing Noise Levels
, 18 I Undevdoped(2oned Residential) I I 48 1 D (-1 I None
M1
M2
M3
4
5
6
Rancho Santa Fe Road (right-of-way) 76 D (4 None
Rancho Santa Fe Road (Utility 73 D (-1 None
easement)
Rancho Santa Fe Road (Undeveloped 73 D (-1 None
Land)
Cuesta PI. (Backyard) 2 53 B (67) None
Cuesta PI. (Backyard) 2 54 B (67) None
Dehesa Ct. (Backyard) 4 54 B 167) None
10
11
Trigo Lane (Backyard) 5 68 B (671 None
Trigo Lane (Backyard) 6 73 B (67) None
12 Muslo Lane (Backyard) 8 70 B 1671 None
13
14
Existing Conditions - Phase 2
Casca Way (Backyard) 5 67 B (67) None
Esfera Ct. (Backyard) 3 64 B (67) None
Sensitive Receptor Locations. Adjacent to the project site are approximately 18 residences
located within three residential areas (see Figure 4-8). One residential area is located along the
western portion of the site near the intersection of Melrose Drive and Corintia Street. These
residences are located within the City of Carlsbad. The second residential area consists of
four homes located on the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road immediately south of
Meadowlark Ranch Road. These homes are located within the County of San Diego. The
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-46
FIGURE Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
Phase 2 - Noise Measurement and Receptor locations
Discussion of €nvfronmentaI €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
4
5
6
7
8
9
third residential area is the Meadowlands single-family development located in the City of
Carlsbad near the northwest intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive.
Meadowlark (Backyard) 71
Meadowlark (Backyard) 70
Rancho Santa Fe Rd. (Children Play Area) 61
Rancho Santa Fe Road (Office Lunch Area) 66
Corte Ramon (Backyard) 58
Meadowlark (Backyard) 70
Noise Measurements. The following is taken from the Acoustical Assessment Report
prepared for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Project (Dudek & Associates, July 2001). The
acoustical study has been incorporated by reference to this document and is available for
review at the City of Carlsbad.
Figure 4-8 illustrates the location where noise measurements were taken and Table 4-5
provides existing noise levels at these locations. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken at
Site A, located near the southeast corner of the La Costa Meadows/Rancho Santa Fe Road
intersection. Site A was chosen as an existing conditions measurement site because it
provided an unobstructed view of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The peak (noisiest hour) average
noise level was 70 dBA and occurred both during the morning commute and the evening
commute hours. As seen in Table 4-5, existing noise levels range from 56 dBA to 71 dBA
within the residential areas measured. The majority of the sites are below the FHWA/
Department NAC threshold of 67 DBA with the exception of three sites whch have an
existing noise level of 70 and 71 dBA along Meadowlark. The child care facility (Site 7) and
the outside office lunch area (Site 8) have existing noise levels of 61 dBA and 66 dBA,
respectively. Both sites are below the FHWA/Department NAC requirements for their land
use category.
TABLE 4-5. EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
I 1 I Via Verano (Backyard) I I 1 2 1 ViaVerano(Backvard1 I 58 I I 3 1 ViaVerano(Backyard1 I 58 I
I 10 I Cortc Ramon (Backyard] I 60 I I 11 1 CorteRamon(Backyard) I 61 I
12 Corte Ramon (Backyard) 60'
A Rancho Santa Fa Rd. (Office) 70
B Melrose Rd. (Landscane Easement) 66
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-48
4.0
Discussion of €nvironmentai €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
A short-term noise measurement (Site B) was also conducted at the residential area located
at the northwest intersection of Melrose Drive and Corintia Street. The traffic noise at these
residences is primarily associated with Melrose Drive, and to a lesser extent, Rancho Santa
€e Road. The homes at ths area have existing sound walls approximately 1 to 2 meters (3
to 6 feet) in height. The noise measurement, conducted approximately 3 meters (10 feet) in
front of the sound wall (Le., the sound level meter was positioned between the road and
sound wall) resulted in an average sound level of 63 dBA.
The Meadowlands residential project has been recently constructed with single family homes
adjacent to the northwest intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive. The
single-family development is surrounded by approximately 1.8-meter (6-foot) hgh sound
walls along Rancho Santa €e Road and Melrose Drive.
Environmental Evaluation - Future Conditions
Phase 1
To determine future noise levels and the significance of potential noise impacts at land uses
adjacent to the project site, future peak hour buildout (assumed to occur in the year 2020)
noise levels were calculated using the SOUND32 model. The noise modeling included the
future peak hour buildout traffic information (City of Carlsbad, 2001b) and the physical
improvements shown on the design plan for the road widening and realignment
improvements.
The proposed project would realign the road away from the existing homes, thereby reducing
the traffic noise exposure at the residences. With implementation of the project, the future
peak one-hour average noise level is projected to range from approximately 49 to 58 dBA at
the backyards of the existing residences located along the west side Rancho Santa Fe Road
This noise level would complywith the FHWANuise Abatement Criteria. The predicted future
buildout peak one-hour average noise levels at the receivers is depicted in Table 4-6.
Future residential development has been approved for single family homes along the east side
of Rancho Santa Fe Road (Sites 15-18). The tentative map for these homes indicates that the
residences would be located approximately 15 to 30 feet below the elevation of Rancho Santa
€e Road. The future peak hour average noise level at these future residences would range
from approximately 53 to 58 dBA.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-49
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
5
6
7
8
9
L
Cuesta PI. (Backyard) Yes 54 56 +2 B (67) None
Dehesa Ct. (Backyard) Yes 54 53 -1 B (67) None
Dorado PI. (Backyard) Yes 55 51 -4 B (67) None
Dulce Ct. (Backyard) Yes 57 49 -8 B (67) None
Del Rio Ct. (Backyard) Yes 65 58 -7 B (67) None
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
13
14
15
16
17
TABLE 4-6
Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts
Casca Way (Backyard) Yes 67 53 -14 B (67) None
Esfera Ct. (Backyard) Yes 64 53 -1 1 B (67) None
Undeveloped (Zoned Residential) 51 57 +6 D (-1 None
Undeveloped (Zoned Residential) 51 55 +4 D (-4 None
Undeveloped (Zoned Residential) 49 53 +4 D (-4 None
M1 1 Fhiho Santa Fe Road (right-of-
18 1 Undeveloped (Zoned Residential) I 1 48
Rancho Santa Fe Road (Utility
M2 I easement)
54 +6 D (-1 I None
Rancho Santa Fe Road ’
M3 I (Undeveloped Land)
4 I Cuesta PI. (Backyard) I Yes I 53 1 57 I +4 I B(67) I None
10 1 Trigo Lane (Backyard) I Yes I 68 1 58 1 -10 I B(67) I None
11 I Trigo Lane (Backyard) I Yes 1 73 I 56 I -17 I B(67) I None
12 I Muslo Lane (Backyard) I Yes I 70 I 53 I -17 I B(67) I None
The future worst-case one-hour average noise level at the homes located near the northwest
corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue (Sites 4-7) would range from
approximately 51 to 55 dBA. This noise level complies with FHWA/Caltrans Noise Abatement
Criteria of 67 dBA, Leq(h) for Activity Category B land uses.
Future noise levels would comply with the FHWA/Caltrans noise criteria at all the existing
homes located along Rancho Santa Fe Road Phase 1 project area. Therefore, noise abatement
features are not required to complywith theNoise Abatement Criteria. However, as part of the
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-50
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
engineering design plans for the project, the City will construct a six-foot high sound wall
along the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road at the southern portion of the project site. The
location of the proposed noise barrier is depicted on Figure 4-9.
The homes adjacent to the proposed privacy wall are located at the bottom of a slope and
would be approximately25 to 50 feet below the elevation of realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road.
The intervening slope will provide significant noise attenuation at the adjacent residences.
As previously stated, the proposed privacy wall is not required to comply with the
FHWA/Caltrans criteria, but, is a design feature of the project. The City recognizes that the
privacy wall is not required per FHWA/Caltrans criteria. Therefore, the City will not seek
reimbursement from the FHWA for construction of this sound wall (City of Carlsbad 2001).
Phase 2
The acoustical report prepared for the proposed project analyzed 14 receptor sites withn the
Phase 2 area of the project. Table 4-7 summarizes the results of the acoustical report. As
Table 4-7 shows, no receptor sites would experience noise increases greater than or equal to
12 dBA, and therefore, no receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise as
defined by 23 CFR 772. For all receptor sites, except 4, 5, and 6, the predicted noise level
would not approach or exceed the FHWA/Department NAC, meaning that these sites will
not be impacted by noise. As Table 4-7 shows, the existing noise levels at sites 4,5 and 6 (70
- 71 dBA) already exceed the NAC (67 dBA). Whle the proposed project will not increase
the noise level currently existing in the Meadowlark area, the residences represented by
receptor sites 4, 5 and 6 would be considered impacted by noise. The conclusions of the
acoustical report and proposed noise abatement measures are discussed below.
The peak hour average noise level at the homes located on the west side of Melrose Drive
would be approximately 60 to 64 dBA associated with traffic noise (Sites 1,2 and 3, Figure
4-8). Thus includes the noise attenuation associated with the existing 1.5 to 1.8-meter (five
to six-foot) high sound wall at these residences. This noise level complies with the FWA/
Department NAC of 67 dBA for residential uses; therefore, no noise impact to this residential
area would occur.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-5 1 -
FIGURE Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
Phase 1 = Sound Wall location
c
7
8
9
10
Discussion of Rkvironmental €valuation
Rancho Santa Fe Rd. (Children YW 61 62 +1 B (671 None
Play Area)
Rancho Santa Fe Road (Office YeS 66 66 0 C (72) None
Lunch Area)
Corte Ramon (Backyard) No 58 62 +4 B (671 None
Corte Ramon (Backyard) No 60 63 +3 B (671 None
-
i
12 I Corte Ramon (Backyard)
I
No l60l 65 +5 1 B (671 I None
F
I
A
B
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Rancho Santa Fe Rd. (Office) YeS 70 69 -1 C (72) None
Melrose Or. (Landscaoe Easement) .. 66 70 +4 0 (-1 None
TABLE 4-7. PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
I 11 I CorteRamon (Backyard) I No I 61 1 64 I +3 I B(67) I None
r-
r
t
P I
r-
r
+ AIE - ApproachlExceed
The future worst-case one-hour average noise level at the homes located within the
Meadowlands residential development would range from approximately 62 to 65 dBA (Sites
9-12, Figure 4-8). Ths noise level includes the noise attenuation associated with the existing
sound wall along the backyards of the homes. The future noise level complies with FWA/
Department NAC of 67 dBA for residential uses; therefore, no noise impact to the
Meadowlands residential area would occur.
The business industrial park includes several outdoor lunch areas. Most of the lunch areas
are located along the east sides of the buildings which provide noise attenuation from the
traffic noise. However, a lunch area is located on the south side of the southern most
building in the industrial complex. The peak one-hour average noise level at this location
would be approximately66 dBA, which is no change from the existing conditions. Ths noise
December 2001 1576-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fa Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-53
Discussion of €nvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures 4.0
level does not approach or exceed the FHWA/Department NAC of 72 dBA for commercial
uses; therefore, no noise impact to the business industrial park would occur.
A chdd care facility is located at the business industrial park along La Costa Meadows Drive
east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The facility is partially shielded from traffic noise by
intervening buildings. The future peak hour average noise level at thus location would be
approximately 62 dBA. Ths noise level does not approach or exceed the €HWA/Department
NAC of 67 dBA; therefore, no noise impact to the child care facility would occur.
-
.-
i-
a
.-
Future noise levels would exceed FHWA/Department noise criteria at four homes located
along Rancho Santa Fe Road (see Figure 4-10). Mitigation measures for the affected homes
have been evaluated to provide noise abatement and design information. With a 2.4-meter
(8-foot) hlgh sound wall located along western right-of-way, the future peak hour average
noise level would be mitigated to 61 to 62 dBA. The location of the proposed noise barrier
is depicted on Figure 4-10.
The length of the sound wall including the wrap around would be approximately 146 meters
(480 feet). A comparison of the noise reduction provided by various barrier heights is shown
in Table 4-23 A 1 .&meter (6-foot) hgh sound wall would attenuate the noise so that traffic
noise would comply with the NAC. However, it should be noted that a 2.4-meter (8-foot)
high sound wall has been included in the project (see Environmental Commitments section of
thls EA).
With the 2.4-meter (8-foot) high and 146-meter (480-foot) long sound wall proposed by the
project to be located along the western right-of-way north of Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa
Fe Road intersection, the future peak hour average noise level would be 61 to 62 dBA and
therefore would not exceed €WA/Department NAC of 67 dBA at the four homes located
along Rancho Santa €e Road.
Reasonable/Feasible Analysis
The proposed 2.4-meter (8-foot) hlgh and 146-meter (480-foot) long noise barrier are subject
to review under FHWA and Department “reasonable and feasible” criteria. These criteria
involve analysis of economic and engineering considerations to determine if the barrier will
be constructed with Federal funds. The “reasonable” portion of this analysis includes a cost
December 2001 157W
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-54
I. ..
-.
.I
-1
-. ...
,_.'
I I . ., .... .. .-. , .. .
0 Receiver Location Sites Composed of 4 Homes - Proposed Sound Wall = = = Existing Sound Wall
.I ,,'
0 13 *
." Scale in Feet ... .
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment FIGURE
Phase 2 - Sound Wall location
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
3
4
5
6
7
TABLE 4-8. FUTURE PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS WITH
AND WITHOUT NOISE ABATEMENT WALL
64' 64 NIA 64 NIA 64 NIA
71 63" 8 62"' 9 61" 10
71 62"* 9 61"" 10 60" 11
71 62" 9 61" 10 59" 12
62 62 NIA 62 NIA 62 NIA
Leq (hl I.L. Leq(h1 I.L. Leq(h1 I.L.
1 60" 60 NIA 60 NIA 60 NIA
2 62' 62 NIA 62 NIA 62 NIA
10 63' 63 NIA 63 MIA 63 NIA
11 64' 64 NIA 64 NIA 64 NIA
12 65' 65 NIA 65 NIA 65 NIA
A 69 69 NIA 69 NIA 69 NIA - B 70 70 NIA 70 NIA 70 NIA
.-
I
t81 66
191 62'
per allowance per benefitted residence, and has been calculated based on the noise
attenuation associated with a 2.4-meter (8-foot) hgh barrier. The total reasonable allowance
for abatement is $132,000. Utilizing a $14 per square foot construction cost for a noise
barrier results in a total cost of approximately $53,760 for the noise barrier. The estimated
cost of the noise barrier is withm the allotted total reasonable allowance. Therefore, the cost
of the noise barrier is considered reasonable. The barrier is feasible because it attenuates the
noise by at least five dBA. Table 4-9 summarizes the feasibility and reasonability of the 2.4-
meter (8-foot) hgh barrier.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-56
4.0
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
TABLE 4-9
SUMMARY OF SOUND WALL REASONABILITY AND FEASIBILITY
I B1 4 I $132,000 1 $53,760 1
Combined Evuluotion for Phases 7 and 2
As discussed above, measures have been incorporated into phases 1 and 2 to ensure that noise
impacts will not approach or exceed the FHWADepartment NAC.
4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (#S 9,13,22 - 29,49,52 - 54)
Coordination with the USFWS, the CDFG, the ACOE, and other agencies regarding the road
realignment and bridge replacement has been ongoing since 1990 (see APPENDIX A, USFWS
Correspondence, and APPENDIX B for approved permits). On June 6,1995, the USFWS issued
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the incidental take of the coastal California
gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and 60 other species due to
the City of Carlsbad’s Fieldstone/La Costa Housing development and Rancho Santa Fe Road
project. Simultaneously, an incidental take permit pursuant to Section 10(a) (1)(B) was also
issued. These prior actions were supported by field surveys and studies conducted for the
City of Carlsbad Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-species Plan (HCP/OMSP); the
studies and environmental documentation for the HCP/OMSP were completed in 1994. On
June 7,1995, the USFWS issued an incidental take permit for the project pursuant to Section
10(4 (1) (B) *
On August 25,1999, an updated species list was received from the USFWS (seeAPPENDIXA).
Biological surveys addressing the USFWS species list have been conducted within the
proposed road realignment area and adjacent development areas. The results of these surveys
(1997 to 2000) are discussed extensively in the Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-51
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement Project (Dudek & Associates,
November 2000) and are summarized below. This report is incorporated by reference and
concludes that there have been no newly listed species in the project area or changes in the
proposed project since the issuance of the Section lO(a)(l)(B) permit.
With the addition of federal funds to the project, FHWA has initiated formal Section 7
consultation with the USFWS because the project may affect the coastal California
gnatcatcher and its designated critical habitat (see APPENDIXA, USFWS letter dated September
21,2001). The USFWS issued a letter on September 21,2001 that acknowledged the start of
formal Section 7 Consultation and stated that the City of Carlsbad is meeting the
requirements of their Section 10(a) (1) (B) permit (see APPENDIX A).
Affected Environment
Phases 1 and 2
Prior to the October 1996 fire, according to the Carlsbad HMP/North County MHCP, the
project impact area supported six vegetation communities/land cover types: Diegan coastal
sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, southern willow scrub, annual (non-native) grassland,
disturbed habitat, and developed. The current survey mapped five additional habitat types
in the project impact area: disturbed coyote brush scrub, Valley needlegrass grassland,
freshwater marsh, disturbed wetland and eucalyptus woodland. The existing vegetative
conditions in the proposed project study area whichincludes the proposed project impact area
and adjacent habitat, and the acreage of each type is presented in Table 4-10. No wild or
scenic rivers as defined by the USFWS are located withn the project study area.
+ Floral Diversity
A total of 205 plant species was detected in the surrounding area including 133 (65%) native
species and 72 (35%) non-native species. Many of the species detected in the project impact
area are annual forbs that have flourished as a result of the October 1996 fire.
December 2001 157603
4-58 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sank Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
L
Discussion of €nvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
*
TABLE 4-10
PLANT COMMUNITY OR LAND COVER ACREAGES
Natural Plant Communities
Coastal Sage Scrub (burned)
Coastal Sage Scrub (disturbed)
Coyote Brush Scrub (disturbed)
Total Coastal Sage Scrubs
Southern mixed chaparral
Southern Mixed chaparral (burned)
Total Southern Mixed Chaparrals
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Valley Needlegrass Grassland/CSS
Total Valley Needlegrass Grasslands
Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Disturbed Wetland
Total Wetland Habitats
Altered Land Covers
Eucalyptus Woodland
Annual Grassland (Ruderal)
Disturbed habitat
Developed
Total Altered Land Covers
14.2 hectares (35.1 acres)
9.5 hectares (23.5 acres)
0.8 hectare (1.9 acres)
24.4 hectares (60.4 acres)
0.6 hectare (1.4 acres)
5.8 hectares (14.4 acres)
6.4 hectares (15.8 acres)
0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)
0.9 hectare (2.2 acres1
0.94 hectare (2.3 acres)
0.17 hectare (0.43 acre)
0.69 hectare (1.72 acres}
0.11 hectare (0.27 acre)
0.98 hectare (2.42 acres)
1.09 hectares (2.7 acres)
6.96 hectares (17.2 acres)
4.98 hectares (12.3 acres)
10.20 hectares (25.2 acres)
23.23 hectares (57.4 acres)
GRAND TOTAL 55.97 hectares (138.3 acres)
NOTE: The biological resources map contained in the Biological Resources Survey Report
(Dudek & Associates, November 2000) illustrates plant communities and project
impacts.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment e Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-59
Discussion of €nvfronmental €valuation
4-0 and Mitigation Measures
+ Wildlife Habitats
Wildlife habitats of greatest value are those that are (1) rare in San Diego County, (2) highly
productive, or (3) capable of supporting sensitive species. Wildlife habitats present onsite
include shrublands, riparian habitat, annual grassland, eucalyptus woodland and disturbed
habitat. A total of 134 wildlife species were observed or detected in the project impact area,
including 84 birds, 14 mammals, three amphibians, nine reptiles, and 24 butterflies. A
complete list of wildlife species observed is contained in the Biological Resources Survey
Report (Dudek 87 Associates, November 2000).
+ Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive plants, wildlife and habitats withn the project impact area are discussed in the
Biological Resources Survey Report (Dudek & Associates, November 2000). For purposes of
the EA, resources are considered sensitive if they have been: (1) species that have been given
special recognition by federal, state, or local conservation agencies and organizations due to
limited, declining, or threatened population sizes; (2) species and habitat types recognized by
local and regional resource agencies as sensitive; (3) habitat areas or plant communities that
are unique, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife; and (4)
wildlife corridors and habitat lmkages. Sources used for determination of sensitive biological
resources are as follows: wildlife -- USFWS (USFWS 1989, 1991), California Natural
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), CDFG (CDFG 1980, 1986), Remsen (1978), and Murphy
(1990); plants --USFWS (1990), CDFG (1987), CNDDB, and Skinner and Pavlik (1994); and
habitats -- CNDDB and Hix (1990). The USFWS provided a list of federally-listed
threatened and endangered species and proposed species that may occur in the project impact
area. The USFWS letter has been addressed in the biological resources analysis for the
proposed project and is included in APPENDIXA to ths EA.
Environmentul Evuluotion
Phases 1 and 2
+ Impacts to Plant Communities
This analysis assumes direct, permanent impacts to all habitats within the limits of grading
for Phases 1 and 2, including connecting access roads, storm drains, detention basins, etc.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-60
L
L
I
Coastal Sage Scrub (Total)
burned CSS
disturbed CSS
disturbed coyote brush scrub
Southern Mixed Chaparral (Total)
SMC
burned SMC
VGL
VGUCSS
Valley Needlegrass Grassland (Total)
Southern Willow Scrub
Freshwater Marsh
Disturbed Wetland
Waters (unvegetated waters of the U.S.)
4.0
17.3142.8 7.1117.5 16.6140.9 7.1117.5 0.811.9 -
10.W25.5 3.819.4 10.3/25.5 3.819.4 0.041c0.1 -
6.V15.4 3.38.1 6.2l15.4 3.318.1 - -
0.711.9 - - - 0.711.9 -
22/54 0.611.5 - 0.Q1.5 2.85.4 -
0.0810.2 0.411 .O - 0.411 .O 0.0810.2 -
2.115.2 02/05 - 0.80.5 2.115.2 -
0.0410.1 0.310.8 0.04/<0.1 0.30.8 0.0410.1 -
0.0410.1 0.04/<0.1 0.04IcO.1 0.04/<0.1 0.0410.1 -
0.04/<0.1 0.30.8 0.04/<0.1 0.30.8 0.041<0.1 -
0.1810.44 0.3910.97 - - 0.1610.44 0.3910.97 - - - - - -
0.1110.27 - 0.1110.27 - - -
0.0910.22 0.02/0.04 0.0310.08 0.004/0.01 O.OQ0.15 0.0110.03
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
Eucalyptus Woodland
Disturbed Habitat
Developed Land
Implementation of the proposed project will result in direct and indirect impacts to native
and non-native plant communities and habitats. Direct impacts are the primary result of the
activity, such as grading or filling, whereas indirect effects are the secondary result, such as
noise effects, changes in drainage, etc. and therefore are difficult to quantify. Temporary
impacts would also occur in Phases 1 and 2 of the project. These temporary impact areas
include staging areas, rock-crushmg areas and demolition of the old bridge. Permanent
impacts cause a permanent removal of habitat, such as by filling or the “shade effect” of the
new bridge, whereas temporary impacts wdl allow habitat function or species to return after
those areas are restored. Table 4-1 I summarizes the permanent and temporary impacts of the
proposed project for each phase and the proposed project as a whole.
0.411 .O - - - 0.4/1 .O -
3.W8.1 1.513.6 2.9fl.1 1.3813.4 0.411.0 0.0410.1
5.1112.7 1.0/2.5 1.714.3 0.4511.1 3.418.4 O.Ql.4
TABLE 4-11
PROPOSED IMPACTS BY PLANT COMMUNITY
Vegetation Type
Phase 2 I I Total Project Area I Phase 1
Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. I (halac) 1 (halac) I (halac) I (halac) I (halac) 1 (halac)
Annual Grassland I 22/55 I 3.0i7.5 1 1.1312.8 1 1.1W.8 1 1.112.7 I 1.914.7
I TOTAL 1 30.W6.4 I 14.0134.5 I 22.4155.4 I 11.0/27.2 I 8.5121.0 I 3.017.3
December 2001 157W3
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-61
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
The USFWS, as part of the Section 10(a)( 1) (B) process, has approved a HCP proposed by the
City of Carlsbad, in association with Fieldstoneb Costa Associates, that covers 785 hectares
(1,940.2 acres) of land in southeast Carlsbad including the proposed project. The HCP
provides conservation and mitigation requirements that comply with the Cali€ornia Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The NCCP is a state-wide habitat conservation
program aimed at planning future development so as to preserve threatened habitats and
species. Impacts to upland habitats associated with the realignment and expansion of
Rancho Santa Fe Road as well as a bridge replacement over San Marcos Creek were addressed
as a part of the HCP. It is not anticipated that any additional mitigation will be required for
impacts to upland habitats under the Section 7 consultation process.
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub ad Coyote Brush Scrub: Implementation of the proposed
project will result in the permanent loss of 16.6 hectares (40.9 acres) of coastal sage scrub and
0.8 hectare (1.9 acres) of disturbed coyote brush scrub and temporary impacts to 7.1 hectares
(17.5 acres) of coastal sage scrub. The City has purchased habitat credits and will restore
impacts to construction staging areas in order to conform with the HCP requirements for
upland habitats.
Southern Mixed Chaparral: Implementation of the proposed project will result in the
permanent loss of approximately 2.2 hectares (5.4 acres) and temporary loss of 0.6 hectare
(1.5 acres) of southern mixed chaparral. Ths represents an incremental reduction of the
habitat in the region. Measures have been incorporated into the proposed project design to
conform with the HCP requirements for upland habitats (see Summary of Environmental
Commitments section of ths EA).
Valley Needlegruss Grassland: Implementation of the proposed project will result in the
permanent loss of 0.04 hectare (0.1 acre) and temporaryloss of 0.3 hectare (0.8 acre) of Valley
needlegrass grassland. Valley needlegrass grassland is recogruzed locally as important to the
maintenance of raptor populations, other sensitive wildlife and sensitive plants, and is a
declining habitat type within the coastal areas of southern California. Withn the project
impact area, the patch of Valley needlegrass grassland north of the creek is very small in
extent, isolated from other grasslands, and does not represent an important botanical or
wildlife resource. The larger area of grassland along Questhaven Road probably would be
isolated by the development of the proposed University Commons project. Measures have
been incorporated into the proposed project design to conform with the HCP requirements
for upland habitats (see Summary ofEnvironmental Commitments section of ths EA).
December Mol 157603
4-62 Environmental Assessment e Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of €nvironmentai €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Annual (Non-native) Grassland: Implementation of the proposed project will result in the
permanent loss of 2.2 hectares (5.5 acres) and temporary loss of 3.0 hectares (7.5 acres) of
annual grassland. Although non-native grasslands typically do not support sensitive plant
or wildlife species, they may represent important raptor foraging habitat. The overall acreage
of non-native grassland is diminishing regionally, but non-native grassland remains a
relatively abundant habitat type in San Diego County. The permanent and temporary loss
of non-native grassland resulting from proposed project implementation would have a minor
local impact.
Eucalyptus Woodland: Implementation of the proposed project will result in the permanent
loss of 0.5 hectare (1.1 acres) and temporary loss of less than 0.04 hectare (0.1 acre) of
eucalyptus woodland. Although eucalyptus woodlands typically do not support sensitive
plant or wildlife species, they may represent important raptor nesting habitat. The overall
acreage of eucalyptus woodland is diminishing regionally, but eucalyptus woodland remains
a relatively abundant habitat type in San Diego County. The permanent and temporary loss
of eucalyptus woodland resulting from proposed project implementation would have a minor
local impact.
Disturbed Ha&itat/Developed Land: Disturbed habitat and developed land do not support
a substantial number of native plants and therefore proposed impacts would have minor local
impact to biological resources.
+ Impacts to Wetland/Riparian Habitats
The proposed project would affect 0.85 hectare (2.1 1 acres) of wetlands and waters through
construction of the road and bridge. Construction of the road and associated slopes would
result in the permanent impacts to disturbed wetland and unvegetated channel as well as
temporary impacts to unvegetated channel (see APPENDIX C, ACOE JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS, and project impacts). These temporary impacts are associated with construction
activity necessary to construct the road and associated slopes. Replacement of the bridge over
San Marcos Creek would impact wetlands and waters in the following ways: permanently
by filling and dredging for construction of abutments arid bridge piers; permanently by the
“shading effect” of the bridge structure; permanently by construction of a storm drain outfall
structure southeast of the new bridge; and temporarily by certain construction activities
December 2001 157603
__ 4-63 Environmental Assessment e Rancho Santa Fe Road Reabgnment and Bridge Replacement
I
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
within the streambed adjacent to the bridge including demolition of the old bridge. Total
permanent impacts to wetlands include 0.18 hectare (0.44 acre) to southern willow scrub,
0.1 1 hectare (0.27 acre) disturbed wetland, and 0.09 hectare (0.22 acre) to unvegetated waters
of the U.S. Total temporary impacts to wetlands include 0.39 hectare (0.97 acres) to
southern willow scrub and 0.02 hectare (0.04 acre) to unvegetated waters of the U.S.
Permits in accordance with Section 1601 of the CDFG, Section 401 of the federal Clean Water
Act and Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act are required in association with project
impacts to wetlands. A Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement has been obtained
from the CDFG and a Section 401 Certification or Waiver has been obtained from the
RWQCB. Authorization to use Nationwide Permit 14,8 and 33 has been obtained from the
ACOE.
For impacts to wetland habitats, the proposed project will include habitat creation,
restoration, enhancement or acquisition pursuant to permit requirements of the ACOE,
CDFG, and RWQCB. The following ratios will apply for permanent impacts: 3:l for
disturbed wetlands and 3: 1 for southern willow scrub. Following demolition of the old bridge
over San Marcos Creek, this area will be restored to support southern willow scrub habitat.
Following temporary impacts necessary to construct the new bridge and road, pre-
construction contours will be restored and, where wetlands currently exist, southern willow
scrub will be revegetated. In view of proposed mitigation and receipt of regulatory permits,
both permanent and temporary project impacts to wetlands are considered to be fully
mitigated. Additionally, the proposed project alternative was designed, where feasible, to
avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. The bridge crossing location was
chosen to minimize impacts to jurisdictional wetlands (San Marcos Creek is constructed at
the proposed bridge location); to minimize the length of additional roadway required to
access the new bridge; and to avoid direct impacts to adjacent existing industrial uses.
Additionally, the proposed project alternative alignment minimizes impact to jurisdictional
ephemeral stream channels by crossing perpendicular to the stream channels where possible.
These ephemeral stream channels are unvegetated and either disturbed and/or low quality
habitat. The total area of ephemeral stream channel was reduced to 0.09 hectare (0.22 acre)
with slight adjustments to the alignment as suggested by the ACOE.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-64
4.0
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species
No state or federally-listed rare, threatened or endangered species were observed onsite. Three
species recognized as locally sensitive by the California Native Plant Society (Skinner and
Pavlik 1994) were detected in San Marcos Creek: San Diego golden-star, California adolphia
and southwestern spiny rush.
A small population of spiny rush occurs within the project impact area and could be affected
by provision of temporary access and construction of bridge abutments. Potential impacts
to ths portion of the large San Marcos Creek population would not be considered substantial.
This species is widespread in San Diego County and Baja California, Mexico, and is under no
threat of extinction at thus time. It is locally common in alkaline wetlands, many of whch
are either in permanent open space or in areas where activities are regulated by the ACOE and
CDFG. Spiny rush is frequently used successfully in wetland revegetation schemes.
An undetermined number of California adolphia and approximately 1,500 individuals of San
Diego golden-star would be permanently impacted by the proposed project. Ths impact is
mitigated through provisions of the HCP.
Impacts to Listed and Sensitive Wildlife Species
Wildlife species recognized as threatened by the USFWS and several species recognized as
USFWS lkensitive species" and/or as 'lspecies of special concern" by CDFG occur or could
potentially occur in the project impact area. Direct and indirect impacts to each of these
species are discussed below. It should be noted that based on focused field surveys conducted
for the project in 1995 and USFWS'2001 Final Critical Habitat Map for the Southwestern Arroyo
Toad, the arroyo toad is not located within the project vicinity.
The California gnatcatcher, a threatened species, is known in the project vicinity; several
historic locations (pre-fire) locations are present in the coastal sage scrub east of Rancho
Santa Fe Road. No gnatcatchers were detected during the eight site visits for the least Bell's
vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher in the northern portion of the project study area.
[Note: focused field surveys conducted for the least Bell's vireo and southern willow flycatcher
determined that these species are not present within the project study area.] Recent vegetation
surveys in other portions of the project study area fail to produce anecdotal observations of
December 2001 157643
4-65 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sank Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of Environmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
gnatcatchers. However, due to the presence of recovering coastal sage scrub and the number
of historical locations, it must be assumed that the species is present withn the coastal sage
scrub habitat.
Impacts to the California gnatcatcher have been mitigated by the City's purchase of
mitigation credits in conformance with the HCP and timing of construction outside of the
gnatcatcher breeding season in order to avoid disruption of nesting and rearing. Vegetation
removal will be conducted between 15 September and 15 February. APPENDIX B contains all
project permits received from the permitting agencies, including the 10a permit.
A pair of Cooper's hawks was observed foraging withn the project study area. Their nest
was located in the southern willow scrub approximately 15 meters (50 feet) outside the
project study area to the east. Two pairs of loggerhead shrike were observed withn the
project study area.
Impacts of the proposed project to the Cooper's hawk and loggerhead shrike would not be
considered substantial. These species are still relatively widespread and common nesting
species in many types of woodlands and grasslands in San Diego County, including suburban
environments. As described in the proposed project description, vegetation removal that is
needed to accomplish the proposed project will be conducted between about 15 September
and 15 February immediately prior to construction; therefore, direct loss of a nesting site
would not occur.
Prior to the fire in 1996, 13 to 20 pairs of Bell's sage sparrows were observed within the
project study area; the southern California rufous-crowned sparrow was common withn the
coastal sage scrub as well. Impacts to Bell's sage sparrow and southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow are not considered substantial due to their low sensitivity. In addition,
adequate habitat for these species would be conserved per the HCP and construction would
not take place during the breeding season.
Potential impacts to two-striped gartersnake, San Diego horned lizard, western spadefoot,
coastal whiptail, red-diamond rattlesnake and rosy boa would not be considered substantial.
These species are still relatively widespread species. It is anticipated that the bridge structure
would allow continued movement and persistence of species currently in San Marcos Creek.
In addition, the HCP allows for conservation of habitat occupied by these species.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sank Fe Road Reatignment and Bridge Replacement 4-66
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts to the Dulzura California pocket mouse, northwestern pocket mouse,
desert woodrat and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit would not be considered substantial.
These are relatively widespread and common species in southern California and adequate
habitat is conserved for these species per the HCP.
Construction activity is expected to reduce wildlife use in the areas contiguous with the
proposed project. Elevated noise levels are anticipated to occur as a result of grading,
excavation, and driving piles. The wildlife agencies typically find that noise levels in excess
of 65 dBA Leg are detrimental to wildlife, and for example, result in ”take” of endangered or
threatened bird species. Because no endangered or threatened wildliEe species are known to
occur in the proposed project vicinity or onsite, the indirect effects of construction activity,
including noise, are not expected to be substantial provided all habitat removal is conducted
between 15 September and 15 February as discussed above.
+ Summary of Impacts to listed Species
No state or federally-listed plants would be impacted by the proposed project. One federally-
listed threatened animal species was determined to use habitat within the project impact
area: California gnatcatcher. In compliance with the Section 10a permit, impacts to the
California gnatcatcher have been mitigated by the City’s purchase of mitigation credits in
conformance with the City’s HCP and timing of construction outside of the gnatcatcher
breeding season. The FHWA and USFWS are in formal Section 7 Consultation.
Impacts to Local and Regional Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
San Marcos Creek at Rancho Santa Fe Road serves as a regionally-important habitat
linkage/wildlife corridor for a variety of wildlife, including larger species such as mule deer
and mountain lion, between the University Commons/San Elijo Ranch proposed project areas
in the City of San Marcos and the Bank of America property in Carlsbad. The linkage that
facilitates access across University Commons/San Elijo Ranch has been identified by the
resource agencies as essential to connectivity through the San Marcos Landfill area and
eventually to the San Dieguito Rwer near Lake Hodges.
Construction of the proposed bridge as a part of Phase 2, followed by demolition of the
existing bridge and road section, will temporarily affect wildlife usage of the San Marcos
December 2001 1576-03
Ac7 , YO1 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Reabnment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of €nvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
Creek. However, the project has committed that during construction, an area approximately
3 meters (10 feet) wide and hgh with dry substrate, that has visual access from end to end,
will be maintained to allow for wildlife movement. Upon completion of the project, wildlife
would be expected to resume patterns of travel through the area in the manner and at levels
that existed before, resulting in no net impact to wildlife movement. Realignment of the
roadway would not substantially affect wildlife movement because of the lack of important
habitat west of Rancho Santa Fe Road and therefore limited wildlife usage of ths area as a
linkage or corridor.
+ Invasive Species
On Februaxy3,1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 131 12 requiring Federal
agency action to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States.
The order defines invasive species as “any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other
biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem
whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to
human health.” FHWAguidance issued August 10,1999 directs the use of the state’s noxious
weed list to define the invasive plants that must be considered as part of the NEPA analysis
for a proposed project. None of the species on the California list of noxious weeds is currently
used by the City of Carlsbad for erosion control or landscaping. However, a number of
invasive exotic species are present within the project APE (see Biological Resources Report -
Appendix A, Dudek &? Associates, Inc., November 2000). No invasive exotic species will be
allowed to become established in the project APE following construction. Invasive exotic
species to be prohibited are listed in Exotic Pest Plant Species ofGreatest Ecological Concern in
California (CalEPPC 1999).
In compliance with E.O. 13112 and the subsequent guidance from the FHWA, the
landscaping and erosion control included in the Rancho Santa Fe Road project will not use
species listed as noxious weeds. In areas of particular sensitivity, such as San Marcos Creek,
extra precautions will be taken if invasive species are found in or adjacent to the construction
areas. These may include the inspection and cleaning of construction equipment and
eradication strategies to be deployed should an invasion occur. As a result, no adverse
impacts associated with invasive species impacts to sensitive habitat are anticipated as a
result of the project.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-68
e
c
c
c
4.0
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
4.2.1 Farmland (#25)
Environmentul Evaluation
Phase 1 and 2
There are no prime agricultural soils as defined by the Soil Conservation Service or any
Farmlands defined as prime or statewide importance as defined by the California Department
of Conservation important farmland mapping program. The proposed roadway would
extend through approximately 244 meters (800 linear feet) of area identified as farmland of
local importance by California Department of Conservation. However, no existing
agricultural operations are present within the project impact area for either Phase 1 or 2. As
a result, implementation of the proposed project would not reduce the acreage of important
farmland or impact any existing agricultural operations.
4.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
4.3.1 Community Disruption/Land Use/ Property Values (#s 30 -
39,47)
Affected Environment
Phase 1
Existing land uses within the Phase 1 project impact area consist of vacant land with the
exception of the existing roadway (see Figure 2-2). Single family residential uses are located
approximately244 to305 meters (800-1,000 feet).to thewest and southof the Phase 1 project
impact area. The area to the east also consists of vacant land associated with a large hill.
Existingland uses to thenorthwest of the Phase 1 project impact area include the SanMarcos
Creek and light industrial uses.
The City is currently processing a planned development within the Phase 1 project impact
area (referred to as Carlsbad Village). The mixed use development would consist of
December Mol 1576-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-69
4.0
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
residential, commercial and office uses that would be developed throughout the Phase 1
project impact area. The development studies currently being processed at the City
incorporate the realigned and widened Rancho Santa Fe Road as approved by the City
General Plan circulation element.
Phase 2
As shown in Figure 2-2, existing land uses within the Phase 2 project impact area include the
existing roadway and a mix of urban uses. Residential uses are located approximately 244
meters (800 feet) to the west of the existing roadway and immediately adjacent to the
roadway at the northern border of the project impact area. Light industrial uses are located
adjacent to the east of the roadway.
Residential units have recently been constructed to the west of the existing roadway withn
the Phase 2 project impact area (referred to as the Meadowlands Development). The single
family residential uses are located immediately to the north and south of the existing Melrose
Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection.
Environmental Evoluution
Phases 1 and 2
Impacts to Existing Land Uses/Property Values
Construction of the roadway would not disrupt an established community or adversely
impact existing neighborhood character. The final design and roadway realignment for the
Phase 1 portion of the project would extend through vacant land. In addition, the City chose
the alignment within Phase 1 to maximize the distance from existing residences located
immediately north of La Costa Avenue. No business or any special interest groups including
elderly, handicapped or transit dependent would need to be relocated with implementation
of the Phase 1 portion of the project.
No extensive realignment of the roadway within Phase 2 portion of the project is proposed.
Improvements within the Phase 2 portion of the project would involve intersection and
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-70
Discussion of €nvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
widening improvements to the existing roadway. As a result, no businesses or residences or
any special interest groups would need to be relocated with implementation of the Phase 2
portion of the proposed project.
Realignment of the roadway within the Phase 1 portion of the project may improve property
values of existing residences located north of La Costa Avenue by increasing the distance of
these properties from the roadway and associated noise issues. The bridge replacement and
roadway widening proposed within the Phase 2 portion of the project adjacent to existing
light industrial uses is not anticipated to adversely impact these industrial uses considering
that industrial uses are not typically considered to be sensitive receptors to increased noise,
and traffic associated with a roadway widening project. In addition, the area surrounding
both the Phase 1 and 2 portion of the project has been anticipated by the City as a part of the
General Plan to change from primarily vacant land to a mixed use urban development area.
Consequently, the proposed roadway realignment and widening is necessary to accommodate
planned growth in the area and no General Plan land use designations or zoning restrictions
on adjacent vacant properties that may affect property values would change with
implementation of the proposed project.
Impacts to Planned Land Uses/Growth Inducement
The proposed project is necessary to implement the alignment approved by the Circulation
Element of the City General Plan. The Circulation Element provides for transportation
elements necessary to accommodate both existing demand and planned growth withn the
City. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce growth other than that anticipated
by the General Plan or create any inconsistencies with policies, elements or goals of relevant
land use planning documents.
Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect planned lifestyles or
planned neighborhood character. The planned mixed use development with Phase 1 has
accommodated the alignment for the roadway called for in the City General Plan.
Considering that the final design for Phase 1 would implement the alignment approved in
the City General Plan, implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the
planned development and neighborhood character. Improvements withn the Phase 2 portion
of the project include roadway widening and intersection improvements and do not involve
a realignment that would disrupt any existing development or the planned Meadowlands
residential development.
December 2001 157803
17. Environmental Assessment Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-1 I
.-
I
-
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
+ Coastal Zone Management Plan
Both Phases 1 and 2 are located outside of the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the proposed project
would not be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management Plan.
Environmental Justice
In 1994, President Clinton signed E.O. 12898: “Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations.” The executive Order requires
that each federal agency, to the greatest extent allowed by law, will administer and
implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect human health or the environment
so as to identify and avoid “disproportionately high and adverse” effects on minority and low-
income populations. The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed toembracing the
objectives of EO 12898 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by promoting
enforcement of all applicable planning and environmental regulations and by promoting non-
discrimination in its programs, policies and activities that affect human health and the
environment.
The final strategy for implementation of E.O. 12898 was published in the Federal Register
on June 29, 1995. The objectives can be summarized as: (1) improve the environment and
public health and safety in the transportation of people and goods, and the development and
maintenance of transportation systems and services; (2) harmonize transportation policies
and investments with environmental concerns, reflecting an appropriate consideration of
economic and social interests; (3) consider the interests, issues, and contributions of affected
communities, disclose appropriate information, and give communities an opportunity to be
involved in decision making.
The primary elements of the Department of Transportation strategy include: (1) public
outreach for implementation of the strategy; (2) creation of a DOT Order on Environmental
Justice whch [a] will review existing policies and programs, [b] develop guidelines for
determining whether or not an action is llkely to have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on low income and minority communities, and [c]
develop consistency between Environmental Justice objectives and the requirements of other
statutes; and (3) train program managers to incorporate the Environmental Justice policies.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-72
Discussion of hvironmenta! €valuation
and Mitigation Measures 4.0
The Department of Transportation and FHWA have subsequently issued the Department of
Transportation Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Population and Low-
Income Populations (published in the April 15, 1997 Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 72) and
FHWA Actions to address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (6640.23, December 2, 1998) to ensure compliance with E.O. 12898.
“Low-income” and “minority populations” are defined as any readily identifiable group of
low-income or minority persons who live in geographc proximity, and, if circumstances
warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons who would be similarly affected by a
proposed FHWA program, policy, or activity. The City of Carlsbad must collect and evaluate
data on minority and income characteristics, increase public participation in decision making,
and provide mitigation and enhancement measures to avoid or minimize the adverse effects
of the federal action.
Census and recent SANDAG data collected establishes that the entire project corridor has an
income far above the County’s median income, and a far lower percentage below the poverty
level as well as a low percentage of “minority populations.” Field observations were
conducted in March 2001 to validate census and SANDAG data. Field observations
determined that land surrounding the project consist primarily of vacant land proposed for
newer housing, single-family residences and light industrial uses, typical of census and
SANDAG demographc data describing the social and community-related characteristics of
the City of Carlsbad.
The proposed Rancho Sante Fe Road widening project would take place in areas that have
been identified as having a high income (see Figure 4-11), e.g., 22 to 100% of the surrounding
population (SANDAG 1998). According to SANDAG, high income population is defined as
any household whose annual income exceeds $75,000 (average household size in San Diego
County is approximately 3 persons). Further analysis indicated that within areas
immediately adjacent to the proposed roadway widening, 0 to 21% of the population was
categorized as having a low income. Immediately northeast of the proposed project location,
households categorized as having a low income increases slightly to 21 to 31% of the total
population. Low income population is defined by SANDAG as a household whose annual
income does not exceed $25,000 (see Figure 4-12). The percentages are based on the entire
polygon and not solely on the population immediately adjacent to the proposed project
location. According to the Department of Health and Human Services definition, which
e
December Mol 157603
4-73 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
High Income Population
I
.-
FIGURE Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Environmental Assessment
low Income Population
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Population
Percent of
Population
Median Age
FHWA uses to define low-income for purposes of environmental justice, a three-member
household with an annual income of $13,003 or less is considered to be living in poverty.
Therefore, the SANDAG definition of low-income would include more of the population as
low-income. No low income populations were identified in the project area. Overall, the
median household income for the City of Carlsbad is $60,107, while the County of San
Diego’s median household income is $46,503. The median price for homes that were for sale
during the 1999-2000 fiscal year within the City of Carlsbad was $370,000.
13,8711722,377 66911 73,551 3,2761276,876 62,21411,738,664 82,03012,911,468
17/25 116 411 0 78160 100/100
296125.3 31.5127.3 35.1131.5 41.4138.1 39133.6
Census data “regarding ethrucity of the population living immediately adjacent to the
proposed project location was unavailable. However, census data regarding ethnicity for the
City of Carlsbad as a whole was available. Table 4-12 shows a comparison of ethnicity
between the City of Carlsbad and San Diego County.
TABLE 4-12
ETHNICITY COMPAkISON
’ CB = City of Carlsbad
SD Co. = San Diego County
Review of census data as well as field observations show that no minority or low income
populations have been identified that would be adversely affected by the proposed project as
specifically required by E.O. 12898 regarding environmental justice.
December 2001 1576.03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-76
4.0
Discussion of hvironrnentai €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
4.3.2 Public Services and Utilities (#s 8,40,41)
Environmental Evaluation
Phases 1 and 2
Adoption of the proposed project would not generate demand for sewer, water, natural gas,
electrical utilities or for public services such as fire, police, schools or solid waste disposal.
It is anticipated that utilities such as sewer, water, gas and electricity necessary to serve
future development would be located within the alignment proposed for the roadway.
However, adoption and construction of the roadway itself for both Phases 1 and 2 would not
include any utility connections. In addition, the proposed project would implement the
Circulation Element of the General plan and, therefore, would not generate population
growth that would increase demand for public services or any new utilities.
Disposal of solid waste would be required during construction activities for both Phases 1 and
2. As discussed in SECTION 2 .O, the proposed grading quantities would be balanced between
cut and fill materials. As a result, soil or rock would not need to be exported from the site.
Solid waste would consist primarily of some construction materials for the roadway. These
materials would be taken to a local landfill. Considering that no export of soil is required,
disposal of construction materials would be minimal and would not adversely impact local
landfills.
4.3.3 Historic and Archeological Resources (#48)
The following analysis is abstracted from the following primary documents: HistoricProperty
Survey Report - Negative Findings (December 1997), and First Supplemental: Rancho Santa Road
Bridge Replacement Project, Historic Property Survey Report [HPSR] (November 2000). Both
documents were prepared by Gallegos & Associates. These studies involved literature
reviews, record searches, and field surveys to document cultural resources that might be
located within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed project.
Because of federal involvement in this project, the cultural resources studies were done to
comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and
its regulations, as promulgated in36CFRg800. The purpose of these studies under federal law
is to determine whether there are any resources located within the project APE that are listed
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-77
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and under state law, for
the California Register of Historical Resources. No resources listed on or eligible for listing
on either Register were identified withn the project APE, Phases 1 or 2, for this undertaking.
The HPSR is incorporated by reference to this EA and is available for review at the City of
Carlsbad.
AfFected Environment
Studies conducted for Phase 1 were completed in September 1997. No resources were
identified withn the Phase 1 project APE other than the existing San Marcos Creek Bridge,
numbered 57C-278 in the statewide inventory. The bridge was built in 1978 and was
determined by the Department in 1987 to be not significant and not eligible for the National
Register. Under normal circumstances, a bridge must be at least 50 years old before it can be
considered eligible for the National Register. As the San Marcos Creek Bridge wdl not reach
50 years of age until 2028, it falls well short of the minimum criterion for evaluation, and it
does not qualify under any of the categories for exceptional significance. The Section 106
process for Phase 1 was completed on December 23, 1997, when Federal Highway
Administration Senior Transportation Engineer, Jeffery S. Lewis, reviewed and signed the
document ation.
Phase 2
Two archaeological sites were noted within or adjacent to the APE for Phase 2:
Prehistoric archaeological site CA-SDI-11,440 was identified as a lithic scatter. Lithic scatters
generally represent areas where raw materials were either gathered for stone tool production
elsewhere, or where tools were made or roughed out for immediate use or for transport for
later use. These sites lack subsurface deposits, diagnostic artifacts, tool variability, and
Native American heritage values. And because they cannot be precisely data, lack research
potential because they cannot be placed within the prehistoric context for San Diego County.
The site was evaluated for its significance to the California Register through an evaluation
program conducted for a proposed Questhaven housing development. The studies for that
project were conducted by ERC Environmental and Energy Co. in 1990. Based on their
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-78
Discussion of hvironmentai €valuation
c
Y
c
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
findings, site CA-SDI-11,440 was determined to be not important under CEQA. Those
findings were also used to provide the significance evaluation for the current project.
Archaeological site CA-SDI-942 has been known for over 60 years, and consists of an
prehistoric habitation or campsite. Extensive tests conducted at the resource over the years
for various adjacent development projects ultimately resulted in its being determined not
important under CECA. As originally plotted in the files at the San Diego Museum of Man
the site was shown extending into the APE for the Phase 2 project. A review of the previous
site evaluations, and field survey conducted specifically for this project, however, showed that
the site did not extend into the project APE. Even though the site was previously evaluated
in 1991 by RECON and determined to be not significant, it was subsequently shown to be
outside the project APE for this bridge replacement project. The Section 106 process for Phase
2 was completed on March 2,2001, when the Federal Highway Administration transmitted
the State Historic Preservation Officer's (SHPOs) concurrence (dated February 15,2001) that
there are no sites located within the Phase 2 APE that are listed on or qualify for listing on
either the National or California Registers. SHPOs concurrence letter is included in Appendix
B to this EA.
Environmental Evaluation
Phases 1 and 2
No significant cultural resources occur within the project APE for either Phase 1 or 2,
therefore, no further cultural resource evaluations, mitigations, or conditions are required in
connection with this undertaking.
4.3.4 Transportation and Circulation (#s 42,43,44,46, 51)
A traffic analysis was completed for the project that addressed existing conditions and
evaluated the impacts of the proposed roadway realignment and widening on roadway and
intersection LOS. The traffic study is included as an Appendix to the EIR and is available for
review at the City of Carlsbad. The City has updated projected traffic conditions for theyear
2020 as provided below.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-79
Discussion of €nvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
December 2001
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
--
157643
4-80
.-
Affected Environment
Phase 1 and 2
Under existing conditions and planned 2020 buildout traffic levels, roadway
the proposed project area either currently operate at unacceptable levels
operate at unacceptable LOS in 2020 (Table 4-43). Existing conditions
segments and intersections are summarized in Tables 4-13 and 4-14.
TABLE 4-13
EXISTING AND 2020 CONDITIONS - ROAD SEGMENTS
I Costa Avenue I I I I II
~~ Rancho Santa Fe Road between 27800 0.77(C) 38900 1.07(F) 0.43(A)
Melrose Or. & Questhaven Road
Rancho Santa Fe Road n/o Melrose Drive 31200 0.92(E) 41200 1.12(9 0.42(A)
Questhaven Road e/o Rancho Santa Fe Road 6400 0.21 (A) 39200 0.91 (E) 0.46(A)
Melrose Drive Between Rancho Santa Fe Road and 11000 0.12(A) N/A 0.31 (A) 0.42(A)
Alga Road - Rancho Santa Fe Road do La Costa Avenue. 22900 0.33(A) 41300 0,34(A) 0.37(A)
Source: City of Carlsbad, March 2001.
Villages of La Costa Traffic Report.
TABLE 4-14
EXISTING CONDITIONS - INTERSECTIONS
Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Meadows Drive B C
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Questhaven Road C D
B c - Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue
Source: City of Carlsbad, March 2001.
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
Environmental Evaluaf ion
Phases 1 and 2
Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed project would implement the traffic congestion relief
anticipated by the City circulation element of the General Plan and the FHWA and FTA
approved 2001-2004 RTIP (October 6,2000). The proposed realignment and widening is
approved as a part of the City General Plan and is also identified within the SANDAG RTP
(February 2000). Community benefits from ths proposed project will include reduced
congestion, improved traffic flow and increased safety for travelers on the roadway.
Additionally, ths road realignment will provide a vital link in the regions roadway network.
Increasing the capacity of the roadway would decrease the average delay that a vehicle would
expect to experience at each signalized intersection in the project vicinity (in seconds as
shown in Table 4-15). Any decrease in delay indicates an improvement to the level of service
of the intersection. Final design includes signals at the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Questhaven
and Rancho Santa Fe Road/Cadencia intersections as well as the final configuration for the
Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. In addition, as shown in Tables 4-13 and
4-15, implementation of the proposed roadway realignment, widening and bridge
replacement are necessary to bring service at roadway segments and intersections withn the
project vicinity to acceptable levels. As shown in Table 4-15, with implementation of the
project, all roadway segments would operate at a LOS of A at the 2020 buildout traffic
volumes; whereas without the project, three segments analyzed would operate at LOS F and
one segment at LOS E.
TABLE 4-15. 2020 CONDITIONS - INTERSECTIONS
Rancho Santa Fe Road/Corintia Street & Melrose Drive 45.6 (0) 47.3 (0) 45.1 (D) 44.0 (0)
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Questhaven Road 58.8 (E) 35.7 (D) 39.9 (0) 39.8 (0)
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Melrose Drive 13.6 (6) 19.9 (61 18.9 (6) 24.5 (CI
ancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue I 22.3(C) 1 23.7 (C) I 23.6 (C) I 24.2 (C)
Source: City of Carlsbad, March 2001.
December 2001 157603
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realiinment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
During construction, the City will implement a traffic control plan to avoid adverse short
term impacts to traffic. The traffic control plan will show all signage, striping, delineate
detours, flagging operations, and any other devices which will be used during construction
to guide motorists safely through the construction zone. The traffic control plan will also
include provisions for coordinating with local emergency service providers regarding
construction times and locations of lane closures as well as specifications for bicycle lane
safety. The City’s construction contractors will coordinate traffic diversions, street and lane
closures, and obstruction of intersections with the City’s engineering department prior to
commencing construction activities through the development of routing and detour studies.
Construction of the proposed project would not affect existing parlung facilities or require
extensive use of detours. During each phase the existing roadway and the existing bridge
would remain open for traffic.
Considering that with Phase 1 the road would be realigned to vacant land and Phase 2 would
involve primarily road widening, existing parlung structures and lots would not be affected.
All staging areas would be accommodated withm the Phase 1 and 2 impact area shown in
Figure 2-2 and no existing parlung lots or structures would be impacted. In addition, no
alterations to airborne, rail or air traffic would be required.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to the
availability of bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The realigned roadway withm Phases 1 and 2
would incorporate a designated bicycle lane, designed in conformance with City standards.
Although the realigned roadway would not include a designated pedestrian access lane,
existing pedestrian access opportunities would not be adversely impacted considering that
the existing roadway does not include a designated pedestrian trail. In addition, signals will
be provided at the Questhaven and Melrose Drive intersections to accommodate pedestrian
access.
4.4 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT TERM USES OF MAN‘S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY ( # 54)
The short-term effects of the proposed project are those associated with the construction of
the proposed project. As discussed in SECTIONS 4.1 through 4.3, construction issues are
related to noise, air quality, traffic and water quality. However, as discussed in SECTIONS 4.1
December 2001 157603
4-82 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sank Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
through 4.3, measures have been incorporated into the design of the proposed project in
accordance with City, State and federal requirements to avoid or minimize these short term
construction impacts.
Implementation of the proposed project would, however, enhance thelong term productivity
of the region. As discussed in SECTION2.0, the proposed realignment, bridge replacement and
widening are intended to implement City General Plan and regional transportation plans.
The proposed project would implement the realignment and widening approved for the
roadway as a part of the City General Plan Circulation Element and the SANDAG Regional
Transportation Improvement Plan. All improvements incorporated into the City Circulation
Element are necessary to address existing traffic congestion issues and accommodate planned
growth in the City. Considering the proposed project would implement the Circulation
Element of the General Plan, the local short term effects from construction would be
consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity for the local
area.
4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF RELATED PROJECTS (#55)
Cumulative effects associated with the development of the proposed project have been
evaluated in the Rancho Santa Fe Realignment and Mass Grading Project EIR. The EIR’s
cumulative project list contains over 50 projects, covering an approximately 30 square-mile
area. As concluded in the previous discussion for each environmental category, no substantial
environmental impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Measures
are incorporated into the proposed project in accordance with that required by the EIR to
. avoid adverse impacts to air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources,
noise, light and glare, visual qualityfiandform alteration and traffic/ circulation. Therefore,
in the absence of substantial impacts, the proposed project would not substantially
contribute to cumulative impacts associated with ongoing development.
The Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Mass Grading Project EIR as well as the
University Commons Specific Plan Supplemental EIR (City of San Marcos, 2001) and the
Final Program EIR for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (City of Carlsbad, 2001) provide
an updated overview of numerous proposed, approved or approval-pending projects in the
project vicinity that would contribute to the cumulative regional loss of biological resources
including effects to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat. In addition to the proposed
December 2001 157803
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-a3
c
4
c
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
and Mitigation Measures
project, development projects that are proposed or approved to be constructed withn the
project vicinity, would result in approximately 640 acres of impacts to coastal sage scrub and
other sensitive upland vegetation communities.
It is anticipated that the above-mentioned projects would extend into undeveloped areas
characterized by coastal sage scrub habitat whch is potential habitat for the coastal
California gnatcatcher. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to the
cumulative loss of sensitive biological resources, including 17.3 hectares (42.8 acres) of coastal
sage scrub, in addition to the loss of habitat associated with the development of the above-
mentioned projects.
Cumulative impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher habitat as well as other biological
resources within the region are most effectively mitigated by a comprehensive plan that
addresses regional growth on wildlife and habitat. The cumulative loss of sensitive biological
resources with the City of Carlsbad is addressed through the City’s Habitat Management
Program (HMP) for Natural Communities. The City‘s HMP establishes a framework to
develop a preserve system that provides for the continued existence of sensitive species and
the maintenance of natural diversity.
As stated in the HMP, the purpose of the plan is to identify how the City of Carlsbad, in
cooperation with federal and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and
protect sensitive biological resources withn the City whle allowing for additional
development consistent with the City’s General Plan and its GrowthManagement Plan. The
HMP also serves to define the City’s contribution to regional efforts to conserve coastal sage
scrub habitat and species under California’s Natural Communities Conservation Planning
(NCCP) Program.
As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EA and in the Summary ofEnvironmenta1 Commitments,
mitigation for the proposed project’s impacts to the California gnatcatcher would be
consistent with the HMP. Mitigation will include dedication of habitat credits and timing
of construction outside the California gnatcatcher breeding season in order to avoid
disruption of nesting and rearing.
The cumulative loss of sensitive biological resources with the City of San Marcos is
currently being addressed through the development of the City of San Marcos’ NCCP/
Subarea Plan. The NCCP/Subarea Plan identifies focused planning areas where preservation
December 2001 1576.03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sam Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-84
Discussion of €nvironmentaI €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
of habitat for conserved wildlife and plant species will be concentrated in the City of San
Marcos. The focused planning areas will provide for conservation of sensitive habitat,
including coastal sage scrub, as well as sensitive plant and wildlife species on a citywide basis.
Participation in regional conservation planning such as the City of Carlsbad’s HMP or the
NCCP is recommended to coordinate regional resource conservation efforts, and to reduce
cumulative impacts to sensitive species and habitats. Preservation OE significant vegetative
associations in the project vicinity in a configuration that links these habitats to other open
space areas is necessary to reduce these cumulative impacts to vegetation. The project is in
conformance with the City of Carlsbad’s HMP planning efforts.
4.6 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Topography/Visual Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing character of Rancho Santa Fe Road and the
view present from surrounding viewsheds would not be altered. The existing bridge over San
Marcos Creek would remain unchanged. Existing views from the industrial establishment
located at the junction of Melrose Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road would remain unchanged.
The existing views of the creek present to travelers on both north and southbound Rancho
Santa Fe Road would remain. The No Project Alternative would not require concurrence
with the City of Carlsbad’s Scenic Corridor Guidelines Manual.
Hazardous Materials
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing roadway would be utilized. As a result, no
change to existing conditions would occur and no exposure of people or property to
hazardous materials would occur.
Floodplain
Under the No Project Alternative the existing bridge would remain. Water surface elevations
as well as calculated peak flows for 25,50 and, 100 year floods would remain under the No
Project Alternative. During a 100-year storm event, the existing bridge would be completely
submerged .
December 2001 1576-03
4-85 Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realifgment and Bridge Replacement
Discussion of hvironmental €valuation
4.0 and Mitigation Measures
The structural integrity of the existing bridge would remain in jeopardyin the event of a 100-
year storm event. However, under the No Project Alternative, no impacts to the existing
floodplain would occur. No further benefits or liabilities would exist to natural and beneficial
floodplain uses.
Water Quality
Under the No Project Alternative, existing Rancho Santa Fe Road run-off quantity and
quality would continue to flow into San Marcos Creek. Expanding the surface area of the
roadway associated with phases 1 and 2 and the resulting increase in stormwater runoff
would not occur.
Air Quality
The No Project Alternative will leave the existing roadway in place. Long-term impacts to
air quality will result with or without roadway widening and realignment, due to increased
emissions over time. The No Project Alternative will eliminate air pollution emissions
generated by construction of the project. However, due to the poor circulation expected on
the existing roadway, the No Project Alternative will result in more traffic-generated air
pollution emissions being contributed to the basin than with widening and realignment of
the roadway as proposed.
Noise
Under the No Project Alternative, existing noise conditions would remain. The area near the
junction of La Costa Meadows Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road would continue to have a
peak average noise level of 70 dBA during both the morning and evening commutes. The
residential area located at the northwest intersection of Melrose Drive and Corintia Street
would continue to have an average sound level of 63 dBA approximately 3 meters (10 feet)
from existing noise attenuation walls. Rancho Santa Fe Road traffic noise levels would
continue to range between 52 and 58 dBA with the vicinity of this residential area. Under
ths alternative, no noise related impacts would occur.
Adverse traffic noise levels at the La Costa Avenuehncho Santa Fe Road intersection would
remain under the No Project Alternative. Existing residences currently are subjected to traffic
noise from the existing alignment which extends adjacent to the existing subdivision. The
Decembr 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-06
Discussion of hvironmental €vaiuation
4-0 and Mitigation Measures
proposed project would involve realignment of the roadway and an increase in the distance
of the roadway and subsequent traffic noise from these residences.
Biological Resou rces
Under the No Project Alternative, no impacts to plant communities or to sensitive wildlife
species such as the Cooper’s Hawk, two-striped garter snake and Dulzura California Pocket
Mouse would occur. Additionally, short-term impacts to wildlife movement during
construction withm the San Marcos Creek would not occur.
Historic Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, no grading or disturbance would occur. Therefore, no
impacts to cultural resources would occur.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement 4-87
SECTION 5.0
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Coordination During Preparation of the EA
Issues raised by the public and interested agencies during the proposed project development
process have been given consideration which is reflected in the proposed project features
listed in the Summary of Environmental Commitments section of ths EA. Environmental
commitments included into the final design have resulted from comments and concerns
raised during public review of the EIR prepared for the project as well as coordination with
local, state and federal agencies in obtaining regulatory agency permits and approval (see
Section 4.8 for list of permits).
The following agencies, organizations and/or individuals were consulted and coordinated
with during proposed project development.
United States
Federal Highway Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Army Corps of Engineers
State of California
Department of Fish and Game
Regional Water Quality Control Board
State Office of Historic Preservation
local Aaencies
City of Carlsbad: Doug Helming, City Project Manager
Don hdeout, Planning Department
In accordance with the requirements of NEPA and the Federal Endangered Species Act, the
Department, acting as agents for FHWA and the City, requested a list of threatened and
endangered species present in the proposed project area from the USFWS. The concerns of
the USFWS were incorporated into the biological resources report prepared for this document
(USFWS letter dated August 1999 included in APPENDIX A).
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment 8 Bridge Reconstruction 5-1
5.0 Consultation and Coordination
With the addition of federal funds to the project, FHWA has initiated formal Section 7
consultation with the USFWS because the project may affect designated critical habitat for
the coastal California gnatcatcher (USFWS Zetter dated September 200.1 included in APPENDIX
A> *
The City of Carlsbad Engineering and Planning Departments were consulted on issues related
to ongoing and planned development projects within the vicinity. The City of Carlsbad also
provided information on the appropriate statutes and planning documents relevant to the
proposed project.
The cultural resources report prepared for the proposed project was prepared in accordance
with the requirements of the SHPO and Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. The
FHWA and SHPO signed off on the HPSR documenting completion of the Section 106
process in March 2001. The cultural resources report concluded that the proposed project
would not contribute to the loss of cultural resources. As discussed in Section 4.3, Historic
Resources, implementation of the proposed project would not directly impact any known
cultural sites of importance. In addition, environmental commitments of the proposed
project allow the proposed project to be postponed in order to accommodate the testing and
study of any cultural resource discovered during construction.
-
--
-
I
The City has also consulted with the ACOE, the NRCS, CDFG and the RWQCB related to
wetland impacts in accordance with Section 404 and 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and
Section 1600 of the CDFG Code and has received regulatory permits as discussed in Section
1.8 of this EA.
December 2001 1576-03
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment 8 Bridge Reconstruction 5-2
S€CTION 6.0
€NVIRONM€NTAL €VALUATION PeRSONNtL
The following people were principally responsible for preparing the EA or significant
background papers:
D. Gallegos - Cultural Study
Contract Archaeologist; Gallegos & Associates; B.A. and M.A. in Anthropology
H. Giroux - Air Studies
Contract Air Quality Specialist; Giroux & Associates; M.S.
1. Harry - Environmental Planner/Document PreParation
Contract Environmental Planner, Dudek & Associates, Inc. ; B.S. in Environmental
Planning
D. Helmin9 - Project Manager
Project Manager, City of Carlsbad; P.E., B.S.
M. Komula - Noise Study
Contract Acoustician; Dudek & Associates, Inc.; B.A. Geography, M.S. Acoustics
G. Masutani, Ph.D. - Water Quality
Contract Water Quality Specialist, Ph.D., Engineering Registered P.E.
S. Miller - Biology Studv
Contract Biologist; Dudek & Associates, Inc., B.S. and M.S. in Biology
I. Porteous - Senior Proiect Manager
Contract Environmental Planner, Dudek & Associates, Inc.; B.A. Environmental Studies
and Geography; M.A. in Geography
P. Quinlan - Hazardous Materials
Contract Hazardous Materials Specialist; Dudek & Associates, Inc.; M.S. Hydrogeology
M. Sweesv - Visual Resources
Contract Landscape architect; Dudek & Associates, Inc., M.S. Landscape Architecture;
Registered Landscape Architect ASLA.
December 2001 157643
Environmental Assessment 0 Rancho Sam Fa Road Realignment 1 Bridge Replacement 61
USWS Correspondence
c
c
c
I .. I
-.
. .1 :-. j .. . . ..i -4 .. _. .... . .. .:- . ..;. . . . .. - -+.,.-I . . . , , i
.I
..
..
United States Department of the Interior
FIsHANDwILD~sER..a
Gcobpgialsavioes
RE: R~~forcandidate~prapO~~orEndangeiredSp~~forth+Rancho SantaFe Road Bridge Replacement ka@ment in the City of carlsbad, Nortfrwestern
SanDiegO Co*, - (1-6-99-TA-71)
DearMr. Haq
TheU.S. Fish and Wildlifb Senice (Service) has revid the infbn;nationpravidedmyour
letter dated Jdy 21,1999, which requested bfbrmation on the potential fbr MeraUy listed
-ed or endangered species at the proposed project site. We do not &we &specific
infomation fixthe project a~e8, cons-the attac6edlistis ageaeral fist of species that
havethepotentidto occurintheviCinityoftheS~FeRoadBn~~~R~~
m the City of Carlsbad, Northestem San Dkgo'County, califbrnia We recoxmnd that you
seek ass'lstance fkom abiologistkuiliarwiththe project site andwiththe listed species m
assessing the actual potential for
proposed activity. You huLd also CoDSact the CSfixnk Dqarbnent of Fkh and Game for State
listed species whichmay occur mthe area ofthe proposed pja State listed species are
pratectedundertheprovisionsofthe~~~ettdSp~~Act.
indk.ect and amrulatrv * eimpactslikelytodhmthe
-’I
’.* .- r..-
Mr. SU~ Harrg (1-6-99-TA-71) 2
homed lLzard (Pmm coronafum bMk], coast-patchnosed slake (Sdvadbra . kuhpisvirgulfea)), and two-striped garter make (ThamnOphishununomi%ff. Althoughthese
species are d5xcleclno f4dprotectioq consemationmeasures couldhelp mahtain stable
populations and predude the need fbr firtrpe bthgs.
. ’.
..
i
Mr. Jbl (1-6-9P.TA-71)
Common Name
DeLMarIrUKanb
ScicntificName
3.
7
United States Department of the Int
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Field Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad. California 92008
In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-2015.2
Mr. Michael G. Ritchie, Division Administrator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
California Division
980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, California 958 14-2724
SEP 2 12001
Attention: Mr. Jeff Lewis
RE: Initiation of Fonnal Section 7 Consultation on the Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment
and Widening project, Carlsbad, California (1-6-0 1-F-2015.2)
Dear Mr. Ritchie:
This letter acknowledges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) August 21,2001, receipt
of your August 15,2001 letter requesting initiation of formal section 7 consultation under the
Endangered Species Act (Act). We initiated consultation upon the date of receipt of the letter.
The consultation concerns the possible effects of the proposed realignment and widening of
Rancho Santa Fe Road on the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
califomica califomica).
Section 7 allows the Service up to 90 calendar days to conclude foimal consultation with your
agency and an additional 45 calender days to prepare our biological opinion (unless we mutually
agree to an extension). Therefore, we expect to provide you with our biological opinion no later
than January 10,2002. We have assigned log # FWS-SDG-2015 to this consultation. Please
refer to that number in future correspondence regarding this consultation.
We would like to confirm for you that the City of Carlsbad (City) is meeting the requirements of
the Incidental Take Pexmit No. PRT-795759, issued by the Senice to the City and Fieldston&
Costa Associates, pursuant to section lO(a)(l)(a) of the Act. The City has been coordinating with
the Service throughout the planning process for this project, and we anticipate that we will
continue to work together to ensure compliance with the permit, and implementation of all
conservation measures associated with the Rancho Santa Fe Road realignment and widening
project described in the Habitat Conservation Plan associated with the aforementioned permit,
throughout the execution of this project.
.
Mr. Michael G. Ritchie (FWS-SDG-2015.2) - 2
If you have any questions or concerns about this consultation or the consultation process in
general, please feel free to contact John Martin of my staff at (760) 431-9440. -
Sincerely,
NancyGilbert
Assistant Field Supervisor
Carrie Loya-Smalley, City of Carlsbad
- United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services
Carlsbad Field Office -
2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008
In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-20 15.1
-- 'r-? - ' f ' e 7. .. 9 Chris White, Chief
Environmental Resource Studies
California Department of Transportation District 11 ,\' "'1
P.O. Box 85406
Sm Diego, California 92186-5406
Re: Request for list of Candidate, Proposed, Threatened, or Endangered Species for the
Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement Realignment in the City of Carlsbad,
Northwestern San Diego County, California
L_
--
e
Dear Mr. White:
-
SEP 2 12001
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
August 17,2001, letter to assess the potential presence of federally listed threatened, endangered,
or proposed species at the proposed project site. Focused surveys for federally listed species
were conducted in the area of potential impact in 1990-1992 by Helix Environmental, Inc., and in
1997-1999, and 2001, by Dudek and Associates. These surveys confirmed the presence of the
coastal California gnatcatcher (PoZioptiZa californica californica; gnatcatcher) on the project site. The site also contains an area of designated critical habitat for the gnatcatcher. No other
federally listed species were detected on the site in the course of focused surveys or other
biological reconnaissance.
Should you have any questions regarding the species listed or your responsibilities under the Act,
please call John Martin of my staff at (760) 43 1-9440.
Sincerely,
Nancy Gilbert
Assistant Field Supervisor
cc: Canie Loya-Smalley, City of Carlsbad Planning Department
c
Project Permits
SHPO
USMS 1Oa
ACO€ 404
RWQCB 401
permit
Permit
Permit
CDPG 1601 Agreement
106 Concurrence Letter
r r
P
F
I. *.y vow OF C~CIHL 0- P #, I4 brmry) Fieldsrone: John Barone, Asst. Secretary
City: Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
FEDERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE PERMIT
9. TYPE oc CLIlYn
Incidental Take PRT-795759
1. ClmTII
Fieldstone/LaCosta Associates '
San Diego, California 92121 - 5465 Morehouse Drive, X250
ana
City of Carlsbad
2975 Las Palms Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
16/7/1995 j 6/T,
SEE ATTACHED
..
.:.
G ~~uD.vnolrpmo*.orr ~~.uouCLV
L - acoutntmrm
See Habitat Conservation Plan/On-going Multi-species Plan and Implementation Agreement. Also see permit Condition I
TITLE 1 Regional Director I -6/ 7 / 9 5 -.r
J
n PRT-795759 Conditions, cont’ d.
J. A copy of this permit must be in the possession of the permittees and
designated agents while conducting taking activities.
permit number in all correspondence and reports concerning permit activities.
Any questions you may have about this permit should be directed to the Field
Supervisor, Carlsbad Field Office.
Phase refar to the
. .. .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVlCE
Porciand. oqtm 9312324 I8 I
911 NEllth~~~
.* GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR NATIVE ENDANGERED
AND THREATENED WILDLIFE SPECIES PERMITS'
All sections of Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Pan 13 are conditions of the permit.
All applicable foreign, State, local, or Other federal laws, including tresoass laws and Other laws reowiring
permits, must be observed.
fht permittee must carry a copy of the permit while conducting authorized activities.
The permit number must be legibly printed on all documents and advertisements involving activities
conducted under a permit.
Unless otherwise authorized on the fact! of the Dermit. the wildlife must be immediately released at or
near me capture site after the permtifed activity.
Living specimens must be handled and shipped SO as to minimize risk of inlury, damage to health of cruel
treatment.
The container in which authorized wildlife is Shipped must be plainly marked with names and addresses
of shipper and consignee and an accurate description of the contents including common and scientific
* name and number of each within.
Any dead or injured specimens of the authorized wildlife found may be salvaged or cared tor.
BIRD BANDING, marking, radio tagging, etc.. must be conducted in accordance with a Federal Bird
Marking and Salvage Permit.
10. At the discretion of the Service, a Service employee may inspect the fadlitics or accompany tht
perminee during any activity conducted pursuant to this permit. The perminee shall allow Service
personnel complete and immediate access to any materiais and information generated as a resdt_ot this
permit. Any refusal, obstnmion, or hindrance of Service panicipation in such work shall be growrds for
suspension or revocation of this permit in accordance with 50 CFR 13.27 or 50 CFR 13.28, respectively.
THE FOUOWNG CONDITIONS APPLY UNTIL AUTHORIZED DISPOSAL OF THE WILDLIFE (UVE OR D-01.
AND THEIR PROGENY, REGAROLESS Of THE EXPIRATION DATE Of THE PERMIT:
11. The authorized wildlife may NOT be sold. donated, or transferred without written authorization from tht
Service.
12. Any dead authorized wildlife shall be preserved according to standard museum practices and held for
scientific ournosas whenever practical.
Any live SEA TURW held must be maintained in accordance with the 'Standards for Care and
Maintenance of Sea Tunlca Held in Caotivity' specified by the Service.
."
13. -
5 13.1 50 CFR Ch. I (IO- 1-93 Edlllon)
rlpnee, the Sollcltor or Servlce slinll I# U.S.C. 4% 19 U.S.C. 1201; E.O. iigii. 41 FR lssiis a latter or other docurttent nil- IW3; 31 1J.S.C. 9101. thorlzlng Its return. Thlr letter or YOIIIICE: 39 Fn 1161. .Inn 4. 1971 IIIIICSJ oth- other document shall be delivered per- crwlar clotell. rotially or rent by rewlstered or cer. tlrled mall, return recelpt requested. and rhall ldentlry tlie owner or con- . Subpart A-lnlroductlon
slgnee. the rslred property, 6nd. If ap- proprlate. the balles of the relred prop erty. It rhall also provlde that upon preesntatlon of the letter or other doc- ument 6nd propar Identlflcrtlon, and the rlgnlnp ol a recelpt provlded by the Servlce, the relzed property la uuthor- Ired to be relensed, provlded It In prop erly marked In &ccorclancr wlth rppll- cable 8hte or Federal requlrements.
PART 13-GENERAL PERMIT
. PROCEDURES
Subporf A-hlroduclfan
113.1 Geocrml.
Each perron Intencllng to engage In an rctlvlty for whlch a permlt Is re- qulred by thla suhchapker E shall. be- fore commenclng such nctlvlty. obtaln a valld pernilt aiitliorlzlnp such actlv-
ICY. Each person who dcslres to obtaln the permlt prlvlleges autliorlzed by thlr rubchapter must make appllcatlon lor ouch parmlt In nccordnnce wlth the requlrementa of thlr part I3 and the other regulatlonr In thla rubchapter whlch ret forth the addlllonal repulre- menta lor the rpeclrlc permltr deslred. If the aetlvlty lor whlch Derinlrslon Ir
I3 I1 Appllcrtloo proordurrr. 8 133 Furpore of regirlntlonr. 13.11 Ornrrrl lnlormrtlon rrqulrrmrn~r on rppllcrtlonr lor permits. The rcgulntlons coiitalned In thls
Subpi C-PormW Admlnlrlrollon
Irrurncr ol pormlu. . llmrrrl 01 permite. Amrndmrnt of pormlu. Rlrbr el ruacrrrlon by crr~la parronr. Prrmlb not tranrlorrblr; rgrnu. Dl~contlnurocr ol wrmlt activity. Prrmlt rurponrlon. Prrmlr rrraertlon. Rrvlrw procrdorrr.
Subpon D-Corrdlllon~
13.41 Ilumanr ooadltlonr. 13.42 Prrmltr aro rpeclfla. 13.4) Altrrrtlon or prrm~rr. 13.44 Dlrplry ol pormlt. 13.0 FJllnr of rrports. 13.46 Hrlnbnrncr ol rocordo. lS.4l tnrpectlos rrpulrrmr8l 13.41 Campllrncr rltb candltlonr of pormlt. 13.0' Ourrrndrr or prrmlt. 13.60 Accrptrnco ol Ilrblllty.
AVCIIOIVI'I: 10 U.8.C. Mh; IO U.8.C. 7a. 711; IO U.8.C. 7421-1; 14 U.8.0. 13% I6 U.8.C. IWld): I4 U.B.C. 1m. IMdrfk II I1 II (? m4- .
part provlde uallorrn riilcs. condlllons. aiid procediires lor the appllcatlon lor and the Irreance. deiilal. subpenalon. revocallon. and genernl sdmlnlrtrrtlon ol 111 permltr lssuecl pursuant to tlrlr rubchapter 8.
(64 FR 30141. SrpC. 14. lM9l
8 13.3 &ope of regulatlonr.
The provlrlonr In thlr part ern In ad- dltlon to, and ire not In lleu or. other permlt repulatlonr ol thlr subchapter and apply to all permits Issued there- under. Includlng "Import and Mnrk-
Ing" (pnrt 14). "Feather Imports" (part IS). "InJurlour Wlldllle" (part 18). "En- dangered Wlldllfe and Plants" (part 17). "Mrrlne M6mm6h" tpnrt 18). "Mlgr6- tory Blrdr" (part 21). *'Eagles'* (part 22) and "Endangered Specles Conventlon" (part 23). As used In thlr par& 13. thr lhn "parmlt" rhrll refer to elther 11- cense. permlt, or certlflcrte na the con- h-r mmu rmnwlrr
U.S. Flsh and Wlldllle Sew., lnlerlor $13.11
It2 FR 10465. Fob. 22. 1911. as rmrntlcd DL I1 fn 32377. June 24. 1911; 45 Fn WXi. AUF. 25. Ifw
8 13.4 qulrcmcnlm. Enicrgcncy vnrlitllon from re-
The Dlreclor niny npprove varlntlons lrom the requlrements ol thls p\rt when he llnds that rn emergency exlsts and thnt the proposed varlations will not hlnder effectlve ndmlnlstratlon of thlr rubchapter 8. nnd will not, be un- lawfill.
fi 13.6 Inlormallon collectlon rqulrc-
(n) The lnlormrtlon collectlon re-
Oulremenls conlalned wllhln thlr Part 13 have been approved by the OIllce of Management and Dudget under 44 U.S.C. 3507 and asslgned Clerrance Number 10160(m. Thlr Informntlon Io belng collected to provlde lnforrnatlon necerrrry to evaluate permlt appllcr- Clone. Thlr lnformatlon wlll be used to revlaw parmlt appllcationr and make dOCl8lOnB. accordlng to crlterln artab-. llohed In vrrlour Federal wlldllfe con- rervatlon rtatuter and regulatlonr. on the Issuance, rurpsnslon. rsvocntlon or denlnl of pcrmlts. The obllgntlon to re-
. rpond Is requlred to obtnln or reLmln n pcrtnlt.
(b) The piibllc reportlng brtrden lnr there reportltig requlrements Is estl- mated to vary from 15 mlnuteo LO 4 hours per respoonre. wllh an average ol 0.m haurr psr response. Inclwllng tlnie lor revlewlng Instructlone. rnthcrlng and malntnlnlng dntn. aiid conipletlng and revlcwlng the forms. Commentr re- grrdlnp the burden ertlmrte or any
other aspect ol these reportlng rmulre- menta should be dlrected to the Servlce Inlormatlon CollectIan Clearance Olfl- car, MS-224 AntsQ. Fhh rnd Wlldllle Service. Wrshlngton. DC 20240. or the orrice or MAnagement nnd Dudpet. Pn- pcrwork Reductlon ProJect (10111 0022). Warlilngton. DC 205oO.
147 Fn WU. July IS, JSZ. DD rmrndecl DL rn 38147. Sept. 14. IOeOl
Subpad B-Appllcollon for Pennlfs
4 13.1 I Appllcmtlon procedumr.
lie Service mny not lssitu n pcrrnlt for any nctlvlty nitlliorlzed by this sub-
menta.
. ... .
an appllcntlon In nccordnnce wlth the lollowlng procctlrtras Appllcnnls cy0 not linvc lo srrbnilt. n sclmrntc n(1pllcntlon
lor each psrnili iti~lcss otherwlse re- qiilrcd Iiy tlils siilrchnlilcr. (n) Fortiis Appllcnflntis must be rub- mltted In wrlliiig on n Pedernl Fish nrid Wlldllle I.lcenseNermlt Appllcn- tlon (Form 3-200) or as otherwlse rpe- clflcally dlrcctetl by the Servlce. (b) Forwordlrig lttsfrttcftons. Appilcn- lions for prnilts In the lollowlng cat- eyorles should bo forwarded to the Issu- Ing ofrice lntllcntcd below.
(1) Mlgratory blrd bnndlng permlte (60 CFR 21.22l-nlrd nnndlng Lnborr- tory, Ofllce of Mlgratory Dlrd Mannge- ment. U.S. Ftsh nnd Wtld11le Bervlce. 1,nurel. Maryland 2(17W. (Special appll- crtlon forms must be ursd lor blrd bnntllng permlts They mny br obtrlned by wrltlng to the Ulrd nnndln8 Labora- tory).
(2) Exceptlon to deslgnnted port (80 CFR pnrt 14). ImporVexporC llcsnse (W CFR I4.BS). mlgratory blrd permlt, other than banding (60 GFR par& 21) nnd Bald or Oolden eagle permlU (SO CFR pnrt 22)--AsslstnnL Reglonrl DI- rector lor Lnw Enrorccmcnt 61 Dlrtrlct In whlch the appitcant resldes (nee M) CFR 10.22 for ndclrcssea and boundarles of the Law Enlarcerrwnt Dlstrlctr).
(3) Fenther qrioln (50 CPR part 16). In- Jiirloiir wllclllfc (50 CFll par1 18). endan- gered and tlirentetied spccler (50 CFR pnrt 17). mnrlne tiinmmnl (MI CFR pnrt IO) and permlts ntid ccrtlflcotes lor the Conventlon on IiiLcrnatlonal Trade In Endnngersd Specles (CITES) (50 CFR pnrt 23)-U.S. Flrh and Wlldllle Ssrv- Ice. Federal Wlldlife Pcrmlt Ofllce, Y.O. Box 3651. Arllngton. Vlrulnla 22203.
(c) Tfme noflrc. The Servlce wlll proc- ess all appllcntlons as qulckly as pas. slble. Nowever. It cannot gukrantec linnl actlon withln the tlme Ilmlu tht nppllcnnt requests. Appllcrnts lor en dnngered specles nnd tnarln mnrnmnl
lhe Offlce of Management Authorlly wlilch are postinrrked nt least 90 cab enclnr clays prlor to the regucsted ellac. llve dots. Appllcnnts fur all other pcr mlts should submlt appllcatlona Lo thf Issulttg offlce wlilch nrc poatmnrketl at lenst GO dnys prlur to the rcqiiesled el
permlta should sithmlt nppl P catlons to
. .. .
5 13.12
(d) Feci. (1) Unlesr otherwlre exenipt- ed by thls paragraph. aypllcantr fur Is- suance or renewal ol permltr must pay the requlred psrmlt processlng feo ai
tlie tlme of appllcatlon. Appllcnnte should pay fees by check or niotiey order mnde payable to "U.S. Plah and Wlldllfe 9er~Ice.'~ The Servlce wlll not relllnd any appllcatlon fee under any clrcumstancer If the Servlce haa proc- essod the appllcatlon. Mowever, the Servlce may return the rppllcatlon foe
If the appllcant wlthdrawr the rppllca- tlon before the Servlce hM rlgnlfl- catilly processed It.
(2) Except ar provlded In paragraph (d)(i) of thlr rectlon the fee for procear- Ina any appllcatlon la $25.00. IC regula- tloria In tlilr rubchapter requlre more than one typo ol permlt lor an actlvtty. and the permltr are Issued by the rams olflce, the lrrrilng olllce may lrsue one consolldated permlt authorlrlng the aatlvlty. The lraulne offlce may charge only the hlghert rlngle fee lor the ac- tlvlty permltted. (3) A fee rhall not be ohawed to any Federal, SUtr or local government rgency, nor to any lndlvldunl or InrtI- tutlon under contract to much afincy for tho proposed actlvltler. The lee
may be wrlved or reduced lor publla In- rtltutlonr (res 60 GFR 10.12). Proof or ruch rtrtur mllrt accompany the appll- catlon.
(4) Nonifondord fees.
(e) Abandoned @r lncomplrfr opplico- Ilonr. Upon rscelpt of hn Incomplete or Improperly executed rppllcatlon. or Ir the appllcant doer not rubmlt tho prop er leer. the 'Iarulng olflco wlll notlfy the rppllcant ol tho deflolenoy. Il the appllcant lrllr to rupply tho correct In- lormatlan to oompleto the appllcahlon or to 0.1 tho rrqulred fear rlthln 4S crlendrr dayr of tho date of notlflca- tlon. the Bervlcr wlll conslder the ap pllcatlon abandoned. The Servlce wlll not relttnd any leer for an abrndoned
I appllcatlon.
50 CFR Ch. I (IO- 1-93 Edlllon)
(47 FR 30185. July 16. IW2. as mineniied nt 50 FR 51669. Doc. 28. 1985; s( PI1 4031. Jan. 27.
I 13.12 Ocncml Inforninllon rcqulre- nrcnta on qipllenllutts for permlta.
(n) Oensral Inlormntlon requlred lor. all appllcrtlons. All nppllcntlons must contrln the followlnR Inlormntlon:
(1) Appllcant's full name. malllng ad- dress. telephone number(s). and.
(1) If the appllcrnt la m Indlvldual. the date of blrth. helght. welght. halr color, eye color, rex, atid any buelnerr or Inrtltutlonal rfClIIatlon of the rppll- cant related to the rqquesled permltted rctlvlty: or
(11) It the rppllcant Is a corporrtlon, firm. partnershlp, asroclatlon, Instltu- tlon. or publlc or prlvate ngency. the name nnd address of the presldent or prlnclpal offlcer and of the reglrtered ngent for the rervlce or procrrs;
(2) Locatlon where the requested per- mltted actlvlty lr to occur or be con- ductad; (3) Reference to the pnrt(8) and rectlon(r) of thlr rubchapter B as llrted In parrgrrph (b) of thlr rectlon under whlch the appllcatlon Ir mnde lor (L wrmlt or permltr, together wlth any rrldlllonal Justlflcrllon. lncludlrig rug Wrtlng doaumentntlon nr requlred by the referenced pnrttr) and sectlon(a);
(4) If the requerted perniltled acllv- Ity Involver the Import or reexport of wlldllfe or plnntr from or to any for- elgn country. and the country of orl- gln. or the country of export or re-ex- port restrlcts the tnltlng. posaesslon, lransportatlon. exportntlon. or aale of wlldllfe or plants. documentatton ns In- dtcatcd In I14.52tc) of thlr subchnptcr
D; (5) Certlflcatlon In the following Irn-
guage:
I hrrcby crrtlfy that I have scad and am fn- mlllrr wltb tha rcgulatlonr conuliicd In tltlo 50. Frt 13. of thr Coclo of Federal Rcgu- Iatlonr and the othrr rppllcrlrlr pnrir In rub- chaptar e of chaptar I or ririr sa. cod8 01 Pdrrrl ~r8~IatlOna. and I further certlfy thu tho Inlormntloo rubmlttcd la thlr nppll- emtlon lor a ~rmlt la camplow and mccctrnta Lo tho bst of my LnorIedgo and bcllcf. I un- derstand that any falrr atatentent hercln may rubJrct nia to rurpenslon or rcvocrtlon of thla permlt and Lo tho crlinlnal penrltlcr or 11 11 c tnni
1689: 64 FR 30147. 30pt. 14. 119) .
:
U.S. Flsh and Wlldllfe Sew., lnlerlor
(6) Dealred srfectlve dnte of permlt except wliere Issuance date lr flxed by the part under wlilch the ptrmlt Is Is- sued; (7) Date; (I) Slgnnture of the nppllcant; and
(9) Such other Informntlon no the DI- rector determlnes relevnnt to the proc- esslng of the appllcntlon. (b) Addlflonal Inlonnoflo?t required oft pertnlf appllcaflonr. An stnted In pnrn- grnph (n)(3) of thla rectlon ctrtatn nd- dltlonal lnlormatlon Ir requlred on nil rppllcatlona. These addltlonal requlre- menta niny be found by relerrlng to the wctlon of thls rubchapter D clted altCr the type of permlt for whlch nppllcn- tlon la belng mnde;
TlpldW-
*ponlcia nandbSWbl.8 WS: *knmac ... ....................................................
E-k humh@ ............... wb .I pld.~. a conl.h:
O*urnlan p- ............ " .................
Spbd sdhg ..................................... - .... .
mpor(hnpo( YmSb _ ..............................
W#r&#b: a r)llpnwn( ._...... ..
d rgounce -...,-- .....
SelmMk. .clhnucNn( 4 Pww- * elm&#. hcidn*.l lJh# lo *IdLk ........ prop.prciar. a #add (0 pWr
run* lmpon puolr lnportllbn a
EdqUrd a. m4 pled pmm:
.........
. .....................
lhbO~NUd *(ldJ. Md Pd mM Siv d ..... Omwd (a a ..............
........................................
LLuka (nOmmbls IWMS:
................................ Uqr(or) Yd pcnnrr:
&p&l@ m lmahlq .....................................
5p.MI ..hlr#l# ... "..,. .............................. spcdr) lupor. ........................."..._.............
E
.................. ........................
(39 FR 1111. Jan. 4, lW4. ma nmendcd at 42 Fn
1016). Fcb. n. 1017; (2 Fn Jzn?. June S4. In7: 44 Fn Mmd. Sepr. I?. two; 44 FR S%W. tkt.
Nov. 25. I!W 46 FR 4Wm. AUK. 2i. IWt: 4I Flt
..CH ...... inm. am &-n ~'YYI 11.- 1imq.
12.1419; 45 rn wm. AUC. 25. IW; 4s Pn ~UM(.
S 13.21
50 FR 39611. 8epr. 30, t9DS: 60 FR 4MM. OcC. 31. IN); 54 rn 38147. SCYC. 14. iwq
Subpart C-Permll Admlnlrlrallon
6 13.21 lriunncc of parmltr.
(n) No permlt niny be Issued prlor to the rccclpt ol r( wrltten nppllcntlon therefor. unless n wrltten vrrlntlon from the reqslrcments. ns authorlzed by 8 13.4. Is Inserted Into the offlclnl flle of the Durenu. An ornl or wrltten rep resonlntlon of an employee or ngent ol the Unlted Stntcr Government. or an nctlon or rucli cniployca or ngont. rhnll not be construed n6 n porrnlt unlosa It meets the requlrcmentr or n pcrmlt no deflned In MI CPR 10.12.
(b) Upon rccclpt of n properly exc- cuted appllcntlon for a parinlt, the DI- rector rhall lasue the npproprlate pbr- mlt unlesr:
(I) The nppllcnnt hna baen rsaessed R clvll ponalty or convlcted ol nny crlml- on1 provlslon of nny statute or regulr- tlon relating to the actlvlty for whlch the appllcntlon la rlled, If ruch arress- ment or convlctlon evldencss a lack Of responslblllty.
(2) The rppllcnnt has falled to dlr- close materlal Informatlon rsqulred. or hns nwde false 8tcrLcmelitr a# to any mrterlal fact. 111 conncctlon wlth hls nppllcntlon;
(3) Tho npl)llcant hna Idled to dent- onstrnts a vnlld JiisLIflcatlon for lhc
pcrinlt rnd n showing of responslblllly:
(4J The euthorlzntlon rcqtrested po- tentlnlly threntetis n wlldllle or plnnt poptilntlon. or
(5) Ilie Dlrcctor flnds through fur- Lhnr lnqulry or Iiivestlgntlon. or other- wlro. thnt tho nppllcrttit Is not qurll-
flctl. IC) Dirqualiluiiip /acforr. Any one 01 the followlnR wlll cllsqunllfy n praoli from recclvlnC permlts lssucd undci lhlr hrt. (I) A convlclloii. or entry f a plea of
vlnlntlon of the I.acey Act, the Mlgrn tory Illrd Trenly Act. or the Deld nncl Ooldcn EnNle I'rotecllon Act dlrqriall flcs ntiy riich persoti from recclvlng 01 cxerclslni the prlvlleges of a pernilt unless such cllsqunllflcnllnn )ins INHI cxprcssly wirlvctl by the 1)lrcclor In rl!
giiIIty or noln contenders, f 8 r a felon)
eimnan tn n wvl~~nii vm#tllnla
5 13.22
(2) The revocatlon of a permlt for reasons found In 113.28 (.)(I) or (*)(2) dlsquallfler any ruch person from re- celvlng or exerclrlng the prlvlleger of a slmtlat permlt lor a perlod of flve yearr
from the date of the flnal agency decl- slon on ruch revocatlon. (3) The failure to pny any rcqiilred fees or aaaessed cook and panaltles, whether or not reduced to Judgemeiit dlrpuallflea ouch person from recelvl:ng or ererclrlng the prlvlleger of a perrnlt as long M much moneyr are owed to the Unlted Stater. Thlr requlrement altall not apply to my clvll penalty prer- ently rubJect to admlnlrtratlve or Judl- clal appeal; provlded that the pendency of A collectlon actlon brourht by the Unltcd Btater or Its Mslgneeo rhall not conrtltute an rpwrl wlthln the mean- lng of thlr rubrectlon. (4) The falluro to rubmlt tlmely, ac- curate, or vrlld rrpartr u rcqulrrd may dlrQUdllY riieh perron lroni re- celvlng or exerolrlng the prlvllcger of a permlt a0 long u the deficiency exlstr. (d) Use a/ supplemenfol Informollon. Tho luulng offlaet, In maklng a deter- rnlruitlon under thh ouboeatl~n, may
UBO my Infomatlon rvallrble that IB relovant to the ID~UO. Thlr may lncludp any prlor corivlatlon, or entry of a pldr of gullty or nolo contendore. or ~UOEB- ment of olvll or ctlmlnnl penalty for A vlolatlon of any Federal or Btate law or teguhtlon govrmlng tho Dermltted actlvlty. It may BO lnolude any prlor permlt revocationr or ourpandono. or any roporta of Etrto or local. offlalalo. The' luulng olllcer ohall conrlder .It relevant facta or Informatlon available. and mfiy mako Independent lnqulry or
Invertlgatlon to rerllfr Informatlon or rubrtrntlrte qURllflC&tlOnl Mrerted by. the appllcant.
(0) Condfflons 01 bruancr und accepf- anc& (1) Any permlt automatlcally In- corporatea wlthln Ita termr the condl:
tlonr and requlmmentr of Bubmrt D of thlr part and of any parur) or rectlon(r) rpealflca.11~ authorlrlng or governlng tho kotlvlty for whlch tho
(1) Any Demon aoorptlnr and holdlng a permlt under thlr fJubohapter B .E- knowledger tho aearrrltr for clore reg- ulntlon md monltorlnr of the per- mltted aatlvlty by the Oovernment. tly rcceptlng rilch permit. the permlttae
Wrmlt 1BBUOd.
. 50 CFR Ch. I (10-1 -93 Edlllon)
consents to and rhall allow entry by agents -or employees of the Servlce tipan premlses where the permltted ac- tlvlty Is conducted nt nny rensosable hour. Servlce agents or eniployees mny enter such premlscs to liispcci the lo-
cntlnn: nny books. records. or permlte reqrilred to be kept liy thls !3uhclinpter B; and any wildlife or plaitis kept under airthorlty of the permlt. (0 Term of perrrill. Unless othcrwlse niodlfled. a permlt Is vatlcl Jitrlng the perlnd apdfled on the Cnce of tho per- nilt. Such perlod rhall lncliitle tho el- fectlve date and the dnte of explrntlon.
(g) Dental. The lssulng ofllcer rnny deny a permlt: to any appllcant who fallr to meet the Irruance crlterlr ret forth In thlr rectlon or In the pnrt(rl or oectloii(r) rpaclflcally governlng the rctlvlty for whlch the periiilt Is re- quested.
13) FR 11#1. Jan. 4, WT4. BO &mended AC 42 FR 313'11, Juno 24. Im: 47 FR 30)#5. July 15. 198% M FR 30141. Sew. 14. lW9)
Il3.21 Rcoewd of permltr.
tr) Appllcaflon for rrrieiuul. Appllarntr for renewal of a permlt must rubmlt a wrltten appllcatfon at lenst 30 dayr prlor to the erplratlon dnte of the per- mlt. Appllcantr must certify In the form rcqulred by- I13.12(rHl) that all rtntementr and lnformatlon In tho orlglnal appllcatlon remrln current and correct, unfeer prevloiirly chrriged or aorrected. If BUCh lnfornmtlon Ir no longer ourrent or correct. the appllcant mum provlde corrected Informatloti. (b) Renewal crflcrfa. The Servlce rhall Irruo a'renewal of a permlt If the appll- cant meetr tho crlterla for lrrurnce In 113.2Ub) and le not dl8quallfled under 113.21(0).
(e) Conlfnuoifon o/ pcnnllfsd acflvfiy. Any perron holdlng a valld. renrwablr permlt. .who hrr complled wlth thlr rectlon. may contlnue the actlvltler ruthorlred by tho explred permlt untll the Bervlce hu acto4 on ruch perron'o appllcatlon for renewal.
(d) Denlal. The lrrulnr offlcor may dony renowal ora permlt to any rppll- cant who fall8 to meet tho Irrurnce crl- terla ret forth In 813.21 of thlr part, or In the part(r) or rectlonIa) rpeclflcnlly governlng the actlvlty lor whlch the renewnl IB requested.
U.S. Flrh and Wlldllfe Sew., lnlerlor
154 FR 3L114#. Bept. 14. lseSl
I IS.= Amendment of permlto.
(a) Pmilftce's revresf. Where clr- cumstsncer hnve chnnged ro that a per- mlttee derlroa to have any condltlon of hl, prmlt modlfled. ouch permlttee
must subtnlt a lull wrltten Justlllcr-
tlon and supportlng lnformatlon In
conformlty wlth thlu part and the part under whlch the permlt WM Issued. (b) Serulce rcterunllon. The Servlce re- aervea the rlght 10 amend aiiy permlt lor Jurt caiise at any tlme durlng Its term, upon wrltten nndlng of nema-
rlty. (c) Chonpc of nomc @r address. A Der- mlttee Is not rcqulred to obtaln a new pannlt If there Is n change In the legal lndlvldunl or buslnes? name, or In the malllng address of the permlttee. A
permlttee Is requlrsd to notlly the IB-
oulng ofllce wlthln IO crlendnr dnyr of ruch chnnge. Thls provlrlon does not authorlze any change In locatlon of the conduct of the permltted rctlvlty when approval of the locatlan Ir a qurllfylnp condltlon of the permlt.
(54 PR 38141. Wpt. 14. lesst
413.24 Rlgbl of rucerrlon by certdn
(a) Certrln perronr, other than the pbrmlttee are granted the rlght to
carry on a permltted rctlvlty for the remalnder of the term of a aurrent per- mlt provlded they comply wlth the pro- vlrlonr of paragraph @) of thlr reotlon. Such pemonr are the tollowlng: (I) The rurvlvlnK rpoure, chlld. ex- ecutor, admlnlrtrator, or other legal reprerentatlve ol a deceased permlttee; and
(1) A recelver or trustee In bmk-
ruptay or a court deelgnated asrlgnee lor the benefit of cradltore.
(b) In order to recure the rlght pro- vlded ln thlr rectlon the perron or Der-
ronr derlrlng to contlnue the actlvlty ahall I\rrnlrh the permlt to the lraulng offlcer for endorremcnt wlthln 90 dnyr from the date the aaccesaor boglnr to carry on the actlvlty.
154 FI\ 110. Bspt. I4.19W
.
. penoar.
5 13.27
fi 13.26 rgentr. Pcrmlto not trlaofcmblel
(a) Permlta Issued under thlm part are not trnnaferable or aaslgnablr. Rome pormlto authorlze certrln rctlvltler In connectlon wlth a budness or commer- clnl enterprlse nnd In the event of any Icase. sale. or trnnaler of such buelnesr entlty. the successor must obtnln a permlt prlor to contlnulng the per- mltted mtlvltp. Hawever. cerbln llm- ltod rlshts of succesalon are provlded
(b) Excopt M othorwlse stated on the fnce ol the permlt. my person who Io under the dlrect control of the permit- tee. or who Is employed by or undor contract to the permlttee for pUrpO8GB authorlted by the permlt, mry carry out the actlvlty ruthorlted by the par- nilt. nr nn agent lor the gormttted.
I54 FRYI4O. Bopt 1). INID)
I Ixta ~locontlc~irnncc of pcrrlt ncllv- Icy.
When a prmlttee. or any BuccossOr to a permlttee as provlded for by I 33.24. dlrcontlnuer rctlvltles authorlzed by permlt. the parnilttea rhall wlthln 30 cnlendar days of the dlecontlnnrncr re- turn ihe permlt to the Issulng ofllce to- gether wlth n wrltten rtatemcnt rut- renderlng the permlt for cancellatlon. The permlt rhdl be deemed vold and cancelled upon Its rocelpt by the Irsu- Ing olflcs. No rcfund or any fees pald for lrsunnce of the permlt or for any other laas or costs rssoclated wlth a. prmlttcd actlvlty ehall be mod0 when a permlt Is ourrendered lor cancella- tlon lor any rereon prlor to the explra- tlon date atated on the lnce ol the per- mlt.
154 Fn3)14B. Bept. 14. IWSl
In I 13.24.
13.27 Fendl rurpendon.
(a) Crlkrta /or suspcntlon. The prlvl-
leger of exerclrlng some or all of tha pormlt authorlty mny be ru~psnded at nny the If the pormlttes Ir not In cornpllance wlth the condltlonr permlt. or wlth any rppllcable 1 wr or rcgulrtlonr governlng the conduct of the permltted actlvlty. The luulnr of- ficer may rlso suspnd all or pnrt of the prlvllages authnrlre~l by a permlt Il the permlttee fnlle to pny any locr.
P' the
5 13.28
pdnaltler or cortr owed to the Oorern- ment. Such ruspdnrlon rhrll remaln In ellect untll the lrsulng olllcer deter- mlnem that the permlttee haa corrected the deflclencles. (I) Procedure for suspensfon. (1) When the lrsulng olllcer belleves there are vrlld groundr lor riispendlng n pmlt the permlttee rhrll be notllled In wrlt- Ing ol the proposed rurpcnslon by cer- llfled or reglstered niall. 'Phh notlce rhall Identlly the pernilt to be nun- pdnded. the relbon(r) lor ouch ourpen- alon. the actlone necersary to correct the dellclencler, and Inform the per- mlttee of the rlght to obJect to the pro-
posed rurpsnrlon. The lrsulng offlcer. may amend any notlce of rurpenelon at any tlme.
(1) Upon recelpt of a notlco of pro- posed rurpanrlon the permlttee may flle a wrltten oblectlon to the propared actlon. Buch obJectlon must be In wrlt- lngr murt be flled wlthln 45 cnlendar day. or the dnte or tho notlce of pro- poral, niurt rtate the re~moiir why the
pormlttee oblect. to the propored 1111- mnrlon. and may Include rupportlne documentrtlon.
(3) A declrlon on the rurpsnrlon ohall be made wlthln 46 day# after the end of tho oblectlon perlod. The lrrulng ofll- cor rhall notify the wrmlttee In wrlt- Inr or tho BervIco'r declrlon and the rearonr therefore. The lrrulng ofllcer rhall alro provldr tho appllcant wlth the Inlormatlon ooncernlng the rlght to request reconrlderrtlon of the decl- rlon under (13.29 of thla part and the procedurw for 're~uertlng reconmldcr- atloll.
164 FR Ul49, Irpt. 14. lB##l
113.2~9 Perall revocr~lon.
(a) Crllerlo lor rawcalfon. A parmlt may be revoked for any of the toollaw- Inq reuonr: (1) The pennltter wlllnllly vlolater any Poderal or Stab rtatut-a or rerula- tlon. or any Indlan trlbal law or ngu- Iatlon, or any law or regulatlon of any forelgn oountry. rhlah Involver do- latloa of the ooadltlonr ol tho ponnlt or of the Iawr or regulatlono rovornlns the pennltted aotlvlty; or (2) The ponnlttae fallr rlthln 60 darr
LO correct dellclencler that were the caure of a parinlt riirpenslon; or .
"3~ m '131 J a a a -a
50 CFR Ch. I(l0-1-93 Edlllon)
(3) The permlttee becomea dlrqurll- fled uffder #13.21(c) ol thlr part; or
(4) A change occurn In the rtatute or regulatlon aulhorlzlng the permlt that prohlbltr the contlnuntlon of a pcrmlt
Isscied by the Servlce; or
(6) The populatlon(r) of the ulldllle or platit that Is rublect of the pcrmlt tlecllnes to the extent tlint contlnu- ntlnn of the pcriiillted nctlvlty would be detrimental to iiinltitetintice or re- covery of the arrected poyulntlon.
(b) Procedttre /or reumnffon. (I) When the lsrulng olllcer belleves there are .vnlld groundr lor revoklng a permlt. tlie permlttee rhall be notllled In wrlt- In# of the proposed revocatlon. by cer- tllled or reglstered mall. Thls notlce
ohall identify the permlt to bo revoked, the rerron(r) tor ouch revocatlon. the propored dlrposltlon ol the wlldllfe, It
any. and tnlorm the pormltlee ol the rlght to obJect to tlie proposed revoca.
tloii. Tlie lssiilng olllcer inny amend any notlce of revocatlon nt any tliiie.
(2) Upon recelpt of a nntlce ol pro- posed revocatlon the periiilttar may Ille a wrltten obJectlon lo the propored rctlon. Buch oblectlon must be In wrlt-
Inr. murt be flied wlthln 45 calendar dnyr of the dnte or the notlce ol pro- posal, must rtntr the reuonr why the permlttee obJectr to the proposed rev- ocatlon. and may lncliide rupportlng documentrtlon. (3) A declrlon on the revocntlon rhnll be made wlthln i5 dayr nlter the end ot the obJectlon parlod. The lrsulng olfl- car rhall notlly the perrnlttee In wrlt-
Ing of the Bervlce'r declslon and the eeuonr thmrelore, together wlth the In- forfliatlon concernliig the rlght to re- qiiert and the procediires lor iequestlng reconelderallon.
(4) Unlerr a permlttee tiler a tlmely requert for reconrlderatlon, any wlld- Illo held under authorlty of a permlt
that Io revoked murt be dlsposed ol In accordance wlth lnrtructlonr of the Ir- rulng' otflcer. If a parmlttee fller a tlmely requeet for reconrlderatlon ol a mporod nvocatlon. ruch permlttee may rrtrla poreearlon of any wlldllfe
held under ruthorlty of the pcrmlt untll final dlrporltlon of the appeal procerr.
IM FR UI4~;8rpt. 14. lerOl
US. flsh and Wlldllfe Sew., lnlerlor
13.29 Revlcw proctdura.
(a) Reguest /or rcconsfderoflon. Any perron may repuert reconslderatlon of
Ln actlon under thls part If thnt parson Ir one or the lollowlnr: (I) An appllcnnt lor a pernrlt who has recelved wrltten notlce ol denlnl; (2) An appllcnnt lor renewal who liar recelved wrlttelt notlce that a renewal Is dcnled; (3) A permlttee who hnr a permlt ainetided. rurpended. or revoked. ex- cept lor those actlonr whlch are re- qulred by changes In slatuter or regu- Iatlone. or are emergency changes of llmlted appllcnblllty for whlch an expl- tatlon date Is ret wlthln 90 dnyr of tho permlt change; or (4) A permlttee who hnr a permlt lo- rued or renewed but has not been grrnted ruthorlty by the permlt to per- form all rctlvltler requested In the ap pllcatlon. except when the actlvlty re- quested Io one lor whlch there Is 110
Inwlul niithorlty to lsaue a permlt. (b) hfelhod o/ regitesflttp recorisfder- ollon. Any pornon recluestlng reconrld- erntlon ol an actlon under thlr part murt comply wlth the lollowliio crl- lerla: (I) Any request lot reconslderatlon must he In wrltlng. rlgned by the per- ron repuartlng roconslderatlon or by the legal repreaentntlve ol thnt person. and murt be rubmltted to the lssulna ortlcer. (2) The requert lor reconsltlerntlon must be recelved by the lssulng olflcer wlthln i5 cnlandnr dnyr ol tlie dnte of notlllcatlon of the declslon lor whlch recorisldcrntloli Is belng roquertcd. (3) The request lor rccolislderntlon rlinll rtnte the dcclrlon lor whlch re- conrtderatlon Ir belirg reqilestetl nlid rhall rtnte the reason(m) lor tlie recon- rlderrtlon, lncliidlng presenllng any new Inlormarlon or racts pcrtlnent to the Irsue(r) ralsad by the request lor reconslderrtlon. (4) The request lor reconslderatlon rhall contaln a certlllcatlon In rub- rtantlally the rame form as that Pro- vlded by # 13.12bx6). 11 a request lor re- conrlderatlon doer not contnln ruch certlflcatlon. but In otherwlne timely and approprlrte, It rhnll bo held and the porrnll riibmlttlng the rcqucst OhdI IC given wrlltoti notlce ol the iicetl to
miitmilt ilia ccrtlrlcrtlnn wltliln IS cnl-
aaaaa 5 13.29
endar dnyr. Fallurc to rubmlt certlll- catlon rhall rerult In the requert belng
content. relected as lnsulrlclent In form and
(c) Inqalry by fhc Scruice. The Servlce
mry lnrtltutc a sepnrate lnpulry Into tlie mntter under consltlerntlon.
((1) Dcfentiinofiutl 01 ortitit or dcrilnl O/
n reqitcil /or rccowtderufion. The lrsulng
ofllcer shnll notlly the permlttee of the Servlce'r declslon wlthlii 45 dryr ol the recelpt or the request for reconalder- rtlon. Thlr notlllcntlon rhdl be In
wrltlng. rhall state the rearonr lor the
declslon. and shall contaln a dercrlp tlon of the evldence whlch was rolled
upon by the lssulng olllcer. The notlll- catlon ahall also provlde Inlormatlon
concernlng the rlght to rppenl, the olll- clal to whom an appeal may be rd-
dressed, and the procedures lor maklng an appeal. (e) Appeal. A person who hnr recelved nn ntlverse declslon r?llowlng rubmlr- don ol a request lor reconslderntlon
mny rubmlt a wrltten nppenl lo the Re- glonnl Dlrector lor the reglon In whlch the lsaulng olllce In located. or to the Dlrector tor olllces whlch report dl- rectly to the Dlrector. An npwnl must
be rubmltted wlthln 45 dnyr ol the date or the notlflcatlon of the declrlon on the request for reconslderatlon. The appeal ahall state the reason(r) nnd Issue(s) upon whlch the nppenl In bnsed nnd mny contnln nny nddltlonnl evl- detice or nrgutilents to support the np- pcnl.
(I) Declsfon oti appcof. (I) Dclore a de- clslon In mnde conccrnlng the nppesl the nppellnnt mny present ornl argu- ments before the Ile~lannl nlrector or
the Dlrector. ns approprlrte, Il such of- flclnl Judgca oral arguments are nec-
essnry to clnrlly lssiiea ralscd In the wrltten rebord.
(2) The Servlce rhall nOtlly the appel-
lant In wrltlng ol ltr declrlon wlthln 45 calendar dayr ol recelpt of the appeal, unless extended lor good caune knd the appellant notllled ol the extenslon ...
rector or the Dlrector shall conatltute the llnnl rclrnlnlstrntlve declslon ol the
I~epnrlnieiit ol the Interlor.
(54 Fll 38149. Sc()L. 14. IWlsl
(3) The declslon or the Reglonal DI- .
5 13.41 I i
Subpod 0-Condlllonr
13.41 Ilumano condlllonr.
Any llve wlldllfe possessed under a permlt must be malntalned under )tu- . niane end healthful condltlona.
I5i PI1 YISO, Bopt. 14. IM9l
8 13.42 Permllr are rp~elfle.
I'lie aulhorlzatlonr on the face of a perm11 whlch ret forih rpeclflc tlmea. dates. placer, methodm of taklng, nunt- bers and klnds of wlldllfe or planin, lo- cation of actlvlty, authorlte certaln clrcumscrlbed tranractlons, or other- wlau permlt a apeclflcally llmltd mat- ter. are to be rtrlctly construed and rhall not be Interpreted to permlt rlml- Iar or related metterr outsldo tho BCOW of rtrlct conrtructlon.
rmradrd et 4a YR
6 15.45 Ulsmllon of pormllr.
Permltr Bhdl not be altorod. erared, or mutllated, and any psrmlt whlch har bean altorod, orued, or mutllated rhdl Immedfrtoly brcomr Invalld. Un- lorr ~pe~lfl~~ll~ pormltted on the Taco thereof, no psrmlt rhall be coplad, nor rhall my copy ol a permlt lrrued pur-. rurnt to thlr rubchapter B bo dlr- plryed, olfered for lnrpeatlon, or other- wlre ured for any offlclal purporo for whlch tho permlt wu Irrued.
I 15.44 Dlrplay of permll.
Any permlt Irrued undor thlr prt @hall br dlrplayed for Inrpactlon upon esiluert to thr Dlroctor or hlr agent. or to any other perron relylng upon Itr exlrtmco.
115.48 Flllag of npor(..
Pormlttwr may bo requlrod to fllo roportr of the aotlvltler oonduokd under thQ psrmlt. Any ruah ruporb rhall bo filed not later than Mamh 31 for the procodlng oalondar yrar ondlng Drcrmbrr II, or any portlon thenof, durlng wblob 6 prrmlt wm In foroe. un- lorr tho rrgulrtlonr of thlr rubchaptar B or tho provlrlonr of tho wrm12 ret forth other roporthg rrqulrrmonb.
4 18.46 Halnleoonce of record..
From Lhe d&te of Irsuance of the par- mlt, the permlttee rhall mrlntaln com- .
50 CFR Ch. I (10-1-93 Edlllon)
plets and accurate records of any tak- lno; posserslon, trartaporlntlon, rale, purchase, barter, exporlallon. or Im- yortatlon of plants obtullled from thr wlld (excluding seeds) or wlldllte pursu- ant to such permlt. Such recolds shell be kept current arid shdl Include iinmea alid addresses of persons wllh whom my plant obtal~iecl horn the wlld ~exclutllng seeds) or wlldllte Itas bean purchased, tiold. bartered. or otherwlse transferrecl, arid rhe drto of such trans- acllon, and such other lnforniatlon as may be requlred or approprlate. Such records rhrll be Ieglbly wrltten or re-
producible .In Engllsh and shall be nialntalncd for flve yenra from the date of explratlon of the permlt.
IS FR 1161. Jan. 4, 1074. rr eniondcd er 4s PR Junr 14.1917; 5( FR MISO. Bept. 14. IWl
I 13.47 lnrpecllan requlnmeni.
Any perron holdlng a permlt under
rcctor'r agent to enter hlr premlrer at any reasonable hour to lnrpect any wlldllfr or plant held or to Inrpect. audlt, or COPY Any permlto, bookr. or recordr requlred to be kept by regula- tloni of thlr rubchaptar 1).
thh rubchapter )J rhll allow the DI-
139 FR 1111. Jan. 4, 1014. ar rmrndrd rt 4t PR 513tl. Junr 14. ion]
4 13.48 Compllaocs wllh coadlllonr ol pcrmlt.
Any perron holding a permlt under rubchapter 0 and any wrvon actlng under authorlty of BUCh permlt murt comply wlth all condltlonr of the per- mlt and wlth all applllcable Iawr and reiulatlonr governlng the parmltted actlvlty.
I 13.4) Burrandor d pcrmll.
Any perron holdlng a permlt un'aer rubchaptor B rhall rurrender ruch per- . mlt to the lrrulng offlcer upon notlfl- oatlon that thr permlt har been Bur- prndrd or revoked by the Srrvlcr. and all appeal procrdurer have been ox- hrur tod.
I Il.80 Aeecplrncr of Ilnllllty.
U.S. Flrh and Wlldllfe Sew., Inledor
rcrponslblllty for the conduct of my rcllvlty conducted under the autliorlty of ruch permit.
(u FI138160. Sop1 I I. 1909)
PART 14-lMPORTATIONl EXPOR- TATION, AND TRANSPORTATION OF WlLOLlFE
Subport A -1nlroducllon
Sic. 14.1 Purpore or regulrtlonr. 14.1 Scope of regulrtlonr.
Subpart I-lmpodoflon and Expodollon of Oerlgmled Pods
14.11 Omnerrl rcrrrlcrlonr.
14.11 Drrlgnrced porU. 14.13 Emergrncy dlrrrrlon. 14.14 In-urnalt rhlpmrntn. 14.15 Prrronrl brggrg? and hourehold of-
14.11 Border port.#; 14.11 Prrronrlly ownrd pot blrde. 14.11 Mrrlnr mrmmrlr. 14.18 Bwclrl poru. 14.20 EsCrpLlonr by prrmlr. 14.11 Bhrllflrh and flrhcry product& lkli Certaln ~ntlpur arllclrr.
rrctr.
Subpar) C-00dg11d.d tOd ExC~pllocr Pennlr
14.31 Prrmlu to Import or rrport wlldllfr at nonderlgnrtrl port !or rclrntlflc ' pur- poaer. 14.31 Prrmlu LO Import or rrpor~ wlldllfr rt nondeslgnrtrd port w mlnlntlrr dotrrlo- rrtlon or losr. 14.51 Prrmltr to Import or rrporr wlldllk at nonderl~nrtcd port to &lbVlBt. uadur rconomlc hardrhlp.
Subpon D-lR~u~.dl
Subpod E-Inrpocllm and Ckofac~o ol WlldsNe
14.61 Inrp.cLlon of wlldllI& 14.69 Clrrrancr of lmpormd wlldllfr.
14.63 n~h~ri or clrrrrncr. 14.64 Unrvrllrblllty or Brwlcr ofllcrrr. 14.S Ererpttonr to clrrrancr rrpulrrmrntr.
Subpan F--WlldlIh 08CkfdlonB
14.61 Import dodrrBtl00 ro~ulrrmrnu. I462 E~erptlonr to Import drclrrrtlon re-
I4 61 Eiporl drclrrrtlou ro~ulrrt~~anlr. 1464 E~pmptlunr Lo rnporL daclrrrLIO1~ rr-
qulrr~nriit~.
PI. 1
Subpal H-Mofklng of Conldnon 01 Packager
14.U Marklng regulranrctrt. 14.82 Alternrtlver rnd Excaptlonr to t mrrklng requfrrrncnr.
Subport I-lmpor(/Empod lkonrea
14.91 Llccnsr rcc)ulrminanr.
14.92 ExespLlons to llcrnrs regulrrmmr. 14.93 Llctnre rppllcfitlon procedure. con4 tlons. and Jurrrlos.
Subpad J-Slondordr for Iho Human. ai Heolmful Ironsport of Wlld Mommc
and llrdr lo the Unlled Slabs
14.101 Purpoaer. 14.101 Dcflnltlona. 14.103 Rohlbltlonr. 14.161 ltrnrlrtlonr. 14.105 Conrlgnnient w cerrler. 14.106 Rlmary rnclorurrr. 14.101 Convryrncr. l4.lO!l Food and water. 14.109 CIrr In trrnslt. 14.110 Tormlnrl Irclllrler. 14.111 Ihndllng. 14.112 ahrr rpyllcrblr provlrlonr.
14.121 Rlmrry encloturer. 14.132 Food and wrtcr. 14.123 Cur In.trrnslL. '
14.131 Prlmrry rnclorurrr. 14.132 Food and water. 14.135 Crir In trrnrlt.
6PtclFlCATlOtJ~ FOR El.CPHAPTO AND UNUUI.A?KB
14.141 Conolgnmcnt to crrrlrr. 14.142 Rlinrry rnclorurrr.
14.151 Rlmrry cncloruror.
BPWYVICATIONI~ ron OTIIKR TERRE~TRIAL MAMMAIA 1
14.161 Prlmrry rnclorurrr. .
8PKCICICAflON8 FOR BIRD8 -
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SAN DIEGO RElD OFFICE
.16SRSWESTBERNARDODA1vE,SUm3ooA
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA $2127
REPLY TO August 24,2000 Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch
City of Carlsbad
ATIN Mr. Dave Hansen
Deputy City Engineer
Engineering Department
2075 Las Palmas Court Carlsbad, California 92009
File Number: 2oooO1251
Gentlemen:
This is in reply to your May 19,2000 letter concerning your proposal to widen and realign a section of Rancho Santa Fe Road from approximately 100 feet south of the La Costa
Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection to approximately 100 feet north of the Melrose
Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. This project is part of the City of Carlsbad's General
Plan to upgrade Rancho Sata Fe Road to meet its designation as a Prime Arterial Roadway and affects a pokion of San Marcos Creek and its tributaries in the City of San Marcos, San Diego
County, California. This project includes the relocation of a sanitary sewer line from the old
bridge structure to a location under San Marcos Creek in the footprint of the construction
disturbance area for the new bridge.
The Corps has determined that your proposed activity complies with the tenns and conditions of nationwide permit NW14 for fills for roads crossing waters of the United States (including wetlands and other special aquatic sites) and encompasses three separate locations
with permanent impacts of 0.5,0.27 and 0.15 respectively.
Additionally, the Corps has determined that your proposed activity complies with the 'terms and conditions of the nationwide permits NW 12 for utility line discharges (0.04 of an acre of impact) lying within the foot print at the San Marcos Creek Bridge site, NW 18 for minor discharges (0.01 acre of permanent impact) and NW 33 temporary constructioneaccess and dewatering for roads crossing waters of the United States (including wetlands and other special aquatic sites) encompasses two separate desciiptions with temporary impacts of 1.18 acres.
You must comply with all terms and applicable conditions (regional, general, 404 only,
and 401 conditions) described in Enclosure 1 and complete the compliance statement
(Enclosure 2).
-2-
Furthermore, you must comply with the following Special Conditiods):
c
c
L
1. The permittee shall abide by any special conditions stated in the Won 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver from the California Regional Water Quallty Board and/or the Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
The permittee shall compensate for impacts to waters of the US, including wetlands by
restoring and/or enhancing at least 2.31 acres of riparian habitat within the San Marcos
Creek watershed as close to the impact area as is feasible. This acreage is estimated using
a minimum ratio of 3:l for impacts to Southem Willow Scrub and disturbed wetlands and a 1:l ratio for impacts to unvegetated ephemeral waters. Prior to initiating construction of
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and wideningproject, the permittee shall submit to the Corps a mitigation plan consistent with the Los AngeZes Distrid Habitat Mifigatiun and
Monitoring Proposal GuideZim, dated June 1993. The permittee shall obtain final written
approval of their mitigation plan bum the Corps prior to construction of the Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and widening pq-ect.
3. The permittee shall develop a Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which identifies the location, duration, and method for a monitoxing program, success standards, and
contingency measures. The permittee shall obtain written approval of this plan from the
Corps of Engineers prior to initiation of constmction.
4. The permittee shall submit to the Corps annual written progress reports on the mitigation
area in accordance with the approved plan. These reports shall include photographic documentation of the mitigation area. Five years after the project is completed, the
pexmittee shall submit to the Corps a report documenting the degree of revegetation of the site. If the mitigation area@) have not achieved the critexia stated in the approved
mitigation plan the permittee shall reevaluate the soil, vegetative, and hydrologic
conditions of the mitigation area to determine what rem& actions need to be taken.
Followjng implementation of appropriate MMective actions, the permittee shall replant
the project site with native wetland and riparian vegetation and monitor until the stated
? success criteria are achieved.
5. The permittee shall employ all standard Best Management Practices to ensure thet toxic
matenal, silt, debris or excessive erosion do not enter San Marcos Cre& during project
COnStrUCtiOn.
6. The permittee shall ensure that all vehicles maintenance, staging, storage and cllspenslng of fuel occurs in designated upland areas. The pennittee shall ensure that these
designated upland areas are located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering waters of the US.
.,- c:..: ,---
-3-
7.
8.
9.
The permittee shall remove all excess fiU and/or construction debris, temporary fill or
structures used for access and dewatering for construction purposes, and equipment from the site immediately upon completion of construction.
Prior to onset of construction/excavation, the permittee shal! provide the contractor(s)
with a copy of this permit. The contractor shall read and agree to comply with all
conditions herein.
Disturbed slope areas in the vidnity of any jurisdictional waters of the US. Shall be
stabilized using jute netting or other appropriate means, and revegetated with native vegetation prior to the onset of the first winter rains following construction, so as to minimize sedimentation and related impacts to the drainage.
10. The permittee shall provide notification, either written or verbal, to the Corps of Engineers
at least one week prior to the start of work as to the anticipated beguuung and ending
dates of construction.
11. A copy of the permit shallbe on the job site at all times during construction. The
permittee shall provide a copy of this pennit to all onsite contractor(s), subcontractor(s)
and foreperson+). The permittee shall require that all such contractoxfs), subcontractor(s)
and forepersons(s) read this authorization in its entirety prior to initiation of the project
andensure that all appropriate permit conditions are implemented as intended.
12. Implementation of the mitigation plan shall be initiated as a point when the continued development of the site would not impinge upon the potential viability of the installed mitigation, implementation of the mitigation should be timed to take advantage of the
cool winter wet season.
13. Within 45 days of completion of the project, the permittee shall submit to the Corps of Engineers:
I
a. Photographs taken at the project site before, during and after construction for those aspects sigruficant to impacts to waters of the US.; and b. One copy of "as built" drawings.
This letter of verification is valid for a period not to exceed two years des €he nationwide
permit is modified, reissued, or revoked before that time. It is incumbent upon you to remain
informed of changes to the nationwide permits.
A nationwide permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. Also, it
does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others or authorize interference with
any existing or proposed Federal project. Furthemore, it does not obviate the need to obtain
other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law.
- (-- , ._.
4
Thank you for participating m our regulatory program. If you have questions, please
contact Kara M Marzec at (858) 6745384.
-.
,
Sinct?rely,
-\ MarkDurham
RegulatoryBranch
chief, south coast section
."
-1-
LOS ANGELES DISlXICT
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGMERS
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH *'
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NATIONWIDE PERMIT
Permit Number:
Date of Issuance:
Name of Permittee:
2oooo1251
August 24,2000
City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas court
Carlsbad, California 92009
EngineeIingDepartment
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this pennit, sign this certification and return
it with, an on@ signature to the following address:
us. Army corps of En*-
Al"TI0N Regulatory Branch (2oooO1251)
P.O. Box 532711
Los hgeles, California 900532325
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a Corps of
Engineers' representative. If you fail to comply with these Nationwide permits you may be
subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation.
I hereby cerhfy that the work authorized by the above referenced Nationwide pennit has
been completed in accordance with the terns and cm&tions of said permit.
Signature of Pennittee Date
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER NWl2, NW14, NW18, and NW33 TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Nationwide Pennit Nwrz, NW14, NW18, and NW33 Terms:
Your activity is authorized under Nwr2, W14, M8 ,ad NW33 subject to the following terms:
Nationwide Number 12 Utili& Lien Discharpes. - Discharges of dredged of fill material associated with excavation, backfill or bedding for utility lines, including outfall and intake
structures, provided there is no change in preconstruction contours. A "utility line "is defined
as any pipe or pipeline for the transportation of any gaseous, liquid, liquefiable, or slurry
substance, for the purpose, and any cable, line, or wire for the transmission for any purpose of
electrical energy, telephone and telegraph messages, and radio and television communication. The term "utility line" does not apply to pipes conveying drainage from another area. This
NWP authorizes mechanized land clearing necessary for the installation of utility lines,
including overhead utility lines, provided the cleared area is kept to the minimum necessary
and preconstrudion contours are maintained. However, access roads, temporary or
permanent, or foundations associated with overhead utility lines, are not authorized by this
NWP. Material resulting from trench excavation may be temporarily sidecast (up to three months) into waters of the United States, provided that the material is not placed in such a manner that it is dispersed by currents or other forces. The DE may extend the period of
temporary side-casting not to exceed a total of 180 days, where appropriate. The area of waters
of the United States that is disturbed must be limited to the minimum necessary to construct
the utility line. In wetlands the top 6" to 12" of the trench should generally be backfilled with topsoil from the trench. Excess material must be removed to upland areas immediately up completion of construction. Any exposed slopes and stream banks must be stabilized immediately upon completion of the utility line. (See 33 CFR Part 322).
Notification: The permittee must notify the district engineer in accordance with the
"Notification" general condition, if any of the following criteria are net:
a. Mechanized land clearing in a forested wetland;
b. A Section 10 permit is required for the utility line;
c. The utility line is waters of the united States exceeds 500 feet; or,
1
d. The utility line is placed within a jurisdictional area (Le., a water of the United
States), and it runs parallel to a streambed that is within that jurisdictional
area. (Section 10 and 404)
Nationwide Number 14: Road Crossinm. - Fills for roads crossing waters of the United States (including wetlands and other special aquatic sites) provided the activity meets all of the following criteria:
a. The width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual crossing;
-
b. The fill placed in non-tidal waters of the United States is limited to a filled area of no
more than 1 /2 acre for each separate and distinct crossing.
c. The crossing is adverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of,
and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows, and to prevent the restriction of low flows and the movement of aquatic organism;
d. The crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part
of a single and complete project for crossing of a water of the United States; and,
e. For fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the permittee notifies the Wtrict Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general condition. The notification must
also include a delineation of affected speaal aquatic sites, including wetlands.
7 This NWP may not be combmed with NWP 18 or NWP 26 for the purpose of increasing the
footprint of the road crossing. Some road fills may be eligible for an exemption from the need for a Section 404 permit altogether (see 33 CFR 323.4). Also, where local circumstances indicate
the need, District Engineers wiU define the term "expected high flows" for the purpose of establishing applicability of this Nwp. (Sections 10 and 404) -
- Nationwide Number 18: Minor Discharges. - Minor discharges of dredged or fill material into all
waters of the United States provided that the activity meets all of the following criteria: I c . a. The quantity of discharged material and the volume of excavated area does not excekd 25 cubic yards below the plane of the or- high water mark or the high tide line;
-
b. The discharge, including any excavated area, will not cause the loss of more than
1/10 acre of a sped aquatic site, including wetlands. For the purposes of this NWP, the acreage limitation includes the filled area and excavated area plus special aquatic sites that are adversely affected by flooding and special aquatic sites that are drained so that they would no longer be a water of the United States as a result of the project; .
c. If the discharge, including any excavated area, exceeds 10 cubic yards below the plane of the or- high water mark or the high tide line or if the discharge is in a speaal
accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges in speaal aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands (Also see 33 CFR 33O.l(e)); and
c
-
-
1 aquatic site, including wetlands, the permittee notifies the District Engineer in -
-
d. The discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and pennanent, is
part of a single and complete project and is not placed for the purpose of a stream diversion.
e. This "P cannot be used in conjunction with NWP 26 for any single and complete project. (Sections 10 and 404)
Nationwide Number 33: TemDorarv Construction. Access and Dewaterina. Temporary -
c
structures, work and discharges, including cofferdams, necessary for construction activities or
access fills or dewatering of construction sites; provided that the associated primary activity is
authorized by the Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Coast Guard, or for other construction activities not subject to the Corps or US. Coast Guard regulations. Appropriate measures must be taken to maintain near normal downstream flows and to minimize flooding. Fill must be of
materials, and placed in a manner, that will not be eroded by expected high flows. The use of
dredged material may be allowed if it is determined by the District Engineer that it will not cause more than minimal adverse effects on aquatic resou~ces. Temporary fill must be entirely removed to upland areas, or dredged material returned to its on@ location, following completion of the construction activity, and the affected areas must be restored to the
pre-project conditions. Cofferdams cannot be used to dewater wetlands oi'other aquatic areas
so as to change their use. Structures left in place after cofferdams are removed require a Section
10 permit if located in navigable waters of the United States. (See 33 CFR Part 322). The
permittee must now the District Engineer in accordance with the "Notification" general
condition. The notification must also include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid
and minimize adverse effects to aquatic resources. The District Engineer will add special
conditions, where necessary, to ensure that adverse environmental effects are minimal. Such
conditions may include: limiting the temporary work to the minimum necessary; requiring
seasonal restrictih; moalfylng the restoration plan; and requiring dtemative construction methods (e.g., construction mats in wetlands where practicable.). (Sections 10 and 404)
2. Nationwide Permit General Conditions
A. The following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by a NWP to be valid:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1
7.
8.
9.
Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on ~vigati~n.
Proper Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained, including maintenance
to ensure public safety.
Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and
maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fiUs, as well
as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Aquatic Lite Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the
activity's primary purpose is to impound water. Culverts placed in streams must be installed to maintain
low flow conditions.
Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must' be placed on mats, or other measures must be
taken to minimize soil disturbance. Regional and Case-BycaSe Conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the division engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added
by the Corps or by the State or tribe in its Section 401 water quality dcation and Coastal Zone
Management Act consistency deknnination.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may OCCUT in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River
System; or in a river offidally designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the
system, while the river is in an official study status; unless the appropriate Federal agency, with direct management responsibility for such nvm, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation, or study status. information on Wild and Scenic
Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency in the area (e.g., National
Park Service, US. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife service).
Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to,
reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights.
Water Quality.
(a) In certain States and tribal lands an individual 401 water quality certification must be obtained or
waived (See 33 CFR 3304~)).
@) For "Ps 12,14,17,l;8,32,39,40,42,43, and 44, where the State or tribal 401 certification (either
generically or individually) does not require or approve a water quality management plan, thp permittee must include design criteria and techniques that will ensure that the authorized work does
not result in more than minimal degradation of water quality. An important component of a water
quality management plan includes stormwater management that minimizes degradation of the downstream aquatic system, including water quality. Refer to General Condition 21 for stormwater
management requirements. Another important component of a water quality management plan is the
establishment and maintenance of vegetated buffers next to open waters, including streams. Refer to
General Condition 19 for vegetated buffer requirements for the NWPs.
10. Coastal Zone Management. In certain states, an individual state coastal zone management consistency
concurrence must be obtained or waived (see Section 330.4(d)).
11. Endangered Species.
(a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is Wy to jeopardize the continued existence of a
threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the
Federal Endangered Species Act, or which will destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such
species. Non-federal permittees shall notify the District Engineer if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or is located in the designated critical
habitat and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. For
activities that may affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical
habitat, the notification must include the name(s) of the endangered or threatened species that may be
affected by the proposed work or that utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. As a result of formal or informal consultation with the FWS or NMFS, the District
Engineer may add species-specific regional endangered species conditions to the NWPs.
(b) Authorization of an activity by a nationwide permit does not authorize the "take" of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the Federal Endangered Species Act. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with "incidental take" provisions, etc.) from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, both lethal and non-lethal "takes" of protected species are in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained directly
from the offices of the US. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service or their world wide web pages at http:/ /www.fws.gov/r9endspp/endspp.html and
h& / /www.nmfs.gov/prot~~/~o~.html, respectively. 12. Historic Properties. No activity which may affect historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the
National Register of Historic Places is authorized, una the DE has complied with the provisions of 33 CFR
Part 325, Appendix C. The pmspective permittee must notify the District Engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed, determined to be eiigible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to believe may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requimnents of the National Historic
Preservation Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Mormation on the location and existence of historic resouTces can be obtained from the State Historic Preservation Office and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)). For activities that may affect historic properties listed in, or
eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places, the notification must state which historic
property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the
historic property.
13. Notification.
(a) Timing: Where requed by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must notify the
District Engineer with a preconstruction notification (PCN) as early as possible. The District Engineer
must determine if the PCN is complete within 30 days of the date of receipt and can request the additional information necessary to make the I" complete only once. However, if the prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested infohation, then the District Engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the PCN is stiIl incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence
until all of the mpested information has been received by the District Engineer. The prospective
permittee shall not begrn the activity: (1) Until notified in writing by the District Engineer that the activity may proceed under the Nwp
with any special conditions imposed by the District or Division Engineer; or
(2) If notified in writing by the District or Division Engineer that an individual permit is required;
or
(3) Unless 45 days have passed from the District Engineer's receipt of the complete notification
and the prospective pennittee has not received written notice from the District or Division
.e- - (.: '
-.
Engineer. Subsequently, the permittee's right to proceed under the NWP may be modified;- suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 3303d)(2).
(b) Contents of Notification: The notification must be in writing and include the following
information:
(1) Name, address, and telephone numbers of the pmspeaive permittee;
(2) Location of the proposed project; (3) Brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; any other "P(s), regional general pennit(s), or individual permit@) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity; and
(4) For NWPs 7,12,14,18,21,34,38,39,40,42, and 43, the F" must also include a delineation of
affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands, vegetated shallows (e.g., submerged aquatic
vegetation, seagrass beds), and riffle and pool complexes (see paragraph 13(f));
(5) For NWP 7, Outfall Structures and Maintenance, the PCN must include information regarding
the original design capaaties and configurations of those areas of the fadity where maintenance
dredging or excavation is proposed.
(6) For NWP 14, Linear Transportation Crossings, the F" must include a compensatory mitigation proposal to offset permanent losses of waters of the United States and a statement describing how temporary losses of waters of the United States will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
(7) For "P 21, Surface Coal Mining Activities, the PCN must include an Office of Surface Mining (OSM) or stateapproved mitigation plan.
(8) For NWP 27, Stream and Wetland Restoration, the PCN must include documentation of the prior condition of the site that will be reverted by the permittee.
(9) For NWP 29, Singie-Family Housing, the PCN must also include:
(i) Any past use of this N" by the individual permittee and/or the permittee's spouse;
(ii) A statement that the singlefamily housing activity is for a personal residence of the
(iii) A description of the entire parcel, including its size, and a delineation of wetlands.
For the purpose of this NWP, parcels of land measuring 1 /4 acre or less will not require a
formal on-site delineation. However, the applicant shall provide an indication of where the wetlands are and the amount of wetlands that exists on the property. For parcels greater than 1/4 acre in size, a formal wetland delineation must be prepared in
accordance with the current method required by the Corps. (See paragraph 13(f));
(iv) A written description of all land (including, if available, legal descriptions) owned by
the prospective permittee and/or the prospective permittee's spouse, within a one mile
radius of the parcel, in any form of ownership (including any land owned as a partner,
corporation, joint tenant, -tenant, or as a tenant-by-theentirety) and any land on which a purchase and sale agreement or other contract for sale or purchase has been executed;
(10) For NWP 31, Maintenance of Existing Flood Control Projects, the prospective permittee must either notify the District Engineer with a PCN prior to each maintenance activity or submit a five year (or less) maintenance plan. In addition, the PCN must include all of the following:
permittee;
(i) Sufficient baseliie information so as to identify the approved channel depths and configurations and existing facilities. Minor deviations are authorized, provided the approved flood control protection or drainage is not increased;
(ii) A delineation of any affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands; and,
(iii) Location of the dredged material disposal site.
(11) For NWP 33, Temporary Constmction, Access, and Dewatering, the I" must alsd include a
restoration plan of reasonable measure to avoid and minimize adverse effects to aquatic resources.
(12) For NWPs 39,43, and 44, the PCN must a& include a written statement to the District
Engineer explaining how avoidance and minimization of losses of waters of the United States were achieved on-the pmject site.
13) For MNp 39, Residential, Commercial and Institutional Developments, the PCN must include
a compensatory mitigation proposal that offsets unavoidable losses of waters of the United States or justification explaining why compensatory mitigation should not be required.
(14) For "€' 40, Agricultural Activities, the PCN must indude a compensatory mitigation proposal to offset 1- of waters of the United States.
(15) For NWP 43, Stomwater Management Facilities, the PCN must include, for the construction
of new storrnwater management facilities, a maintenance plan (in accordance with State and local
requirements, if applicable) and a compensatory mitigation proposal to offset losses of watas of
the United States.
(16) For NWP 44, Mining Activities, the PCN must include a description of all waters of the United
States adversely affected by the project, a desaiption of measures taken to minimizrt adverse
effects to waters of the United States, a description of measures taken to comply with the criteria of
the N", and a reclamation plan (for aggregate mining activities in isolated waters and non-tidal
wetlands adjacent to headwaters and any hard rock/mineral mining activities).
(17) For activities that may adversely affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species, the PCN must include the name@) of those endangered or threatened species that may be affected by the proposed work or utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work.
(18) For activities that may affect historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National
Register of Historic Places, the PCN must state which historic property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property.
(19) For NWPs 12,14,29,39,40,42,43, and 44, where the proposed work involves discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States resulting in permanent, abovegrade fills
within 1Wyear floodplains (as identified on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEh4A-
approved local floodplain maps), the noti€ication must include documentation demonstrating that the proposed work complies with the appropriate FEMA or FEh4A-approved local floodplain
construction requirements. (c) Form of Notification: The standard individual pennit application form (Form ENG 4345) may be
used as the notification but must clearly indicate that it is a F" and must include all of the information required in (b) (1>(19) of General Condition 13. A letter containing the requisite information may also
be used.
(d) District Engineer's Decision: In reviewing the PCN for the proposed activity, the District Engineer will determine whether the activity authorized by the NWP will result in more than minimal individual
or cumulative adverse environmental effects or may be contrary to the public interest. The prospective
permittee may, optionally, submit a proposed mitigation plan with the PCN to expedite the process and
the District Engineer will consider any proposed compensatory mitigation the applicant has included in
the proposal in detemaining whether the net adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment
of the proposed work are minimal. If the District Engineer determines that the activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and that the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are
minimal, the District Engineer will no* the pennittee and include any conditions the District Engineerdeemsnecessary. Any compensatory mitigation proposal must be approved by the District Engineer prior to commencing work. If the prospective permittee is required to submit a compensatory mitigation
proposal with the PCN, the proposal may be either conceptual or detailed. If the prospective permittee
elects to submit a compensatory mitigation pian with the F", the District Engineer will "cpeditiously
review the proposed compensatory mitigation plan. The District Engineer must review the plan within
45 days of receiving a complete PCN and dekrmine whether the conceptual or specific proposed
mitigation would ensure no more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. If the net
adverse effects of the project on the aquatic environment (after consideration of the compensatory mitigation proposal) are determined by the District Engineer to be minimal, the District Engineer will provide a timely written response to the applicant stating that the project can proceed under the tenns
and conditiom of the nationwide permit. If the District Engineer determines that the adverse effects of the proposed work are more than
minimal, then he will notify the applicant either: (1) that the project does not qualify for authorization under the NWP and instruct the applicant on the procedures to seek authorization under an individual
permit; (2) that the project is authorized under the NWP subject to the applicant's submission of a
mitigation proposal that would reduce the adverse 6ffects on the aquatic environment to the minimal
level; or (3) that the project is authorized under the NWP with specific modifications or conditions.
Where the District Engineer determines that mitigation is required in order to ensure no more than
minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment, the activity will be authorized within the Gday
€" period, including the neclessary conceptual or specific mitigation or a requirement that the
applicant submit a mitigation proposal that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level. When conceptual mitigation is included, or a mitigation plan is
required under item (2) above, no work in waters of the United States will occur until the District Engineer has approved a specific mitigation plan.
(e) Agency Coordination: The District Engineer will consider any comments from Federal and State
!
c
c
c
agenaes C0"cerning the proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the WS and
the need for mitigation to reduce the project's adverse effects on the aquatic environment to a minimal
level.
For activities requiring notification to the District En@neer that result in the IOSS of @eater than
1/2 acre of waters of the United States, the District Engineer will, upon receipt of a notification, provide
immediately (e.g., via facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner), a copy to
the appropriate offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service, State natural resource or water quality agency,
PA, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and, if appropriate, the National Marine Fisheries Service. With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will then have 10 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to telephone or fax the District Engineer notice that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments. If so contacted by an agency, the District Engineer will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the notification. The District Engineer will
My consider agency comments received within the specified time hame, but will provide no response
to the resource agency, except as provided below. The District Engineer will indicate in the
administrative record associated with each notification that the resource agencies' concerns were
considered. As required by Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, the District Engineer will provide a response to National Marine Fisheries Service within 30 days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat consefvation recornmendati~ns. Apphnts are encouraged to provide the Corps multiple copies of notifications to expedite agency notification.
(f) Wetlands Delineations: Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps. For NWP 29 see paragraph @)(9)(ii) for parcels less than 1/4 acre in size. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic site. There may be some delay if the Corps does the delineation. Furthennore, the 4Sday period will not start until the wetland
delineation has been completed and submitted to the Corps, yhere appropriate.
14. Compliance Certification. Every permittee who has received a Nationwide permit verification from the
Corps will submit a signed certification regarding the completed work and any required mitigation. The
certification will be forwarded by the Corps with the authorization letter. The certification will include. a.)
A statement that the authorized work was done in accordance with the Corps authorization, including any
general or specific conditions; b.) A statement that any required mitigation was completed in accordance
with the permit conditions; and c.) The signature of the permittee cerhfylng the completion of the work and
mitigation.
15. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one Nwp for a single and complete project is
prohibited, except when the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not
exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For example, if a road crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14, with assodated bank stabilization authorized by
NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 1/3 acre.
16. Water Supply Intakes. No activity, including structures and work in navigable waters of the United states
or discharges of dredged or fill material, may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake except
where the activity is for repair of the public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization.
discharges of dredged or fill material, may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the
activity is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWP 4. 18. Suitable Material. No activity, including structures and work in navigable waters of the United States or
asphalt, etc.) and material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act).
of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (Le., on site). Mitigation will be
required when necessary to ensure that the adverse eff& to the aquatic environment are minimal. The
District Engineer will consider the factors dixvssed below when determining the acceptability of
appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to offset adverse effects on the aquatic environment that
are more than minimal.
(a) To be practicable, the mitigation must be available and capable of bemg done considering costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purposes. Examples of mitigation that
may be appropriate and practicable include, but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as
streams; and replacing losses of aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving simiiar functions and values, preferably in the same watershed;
17- Shellfish Beds. No activity, inciuding structures and work in navigable waters of the United States or
1 discharges of dredged or fill material, may consist of unsuitable material (eg, trash, debris, car bodies,
19. Mitigation. The project must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters
I
@) The District Engine will require restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation of other
aquatic resources in order to offset the authorized impacts to the extent necessary to ensure that the
adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal. An important element of any compensatory
mitigation plan for projects in or near streams or other open waters is the establishment and
maintenance, to the maximum extent practicable, of vegetated buffers next to open waters on the
project site. The vegetated buffer should consist of native species. The District Engineer will determine
the appropriate width of the vegetated buffer and in which cases it will be required. Normally, the
vegetated buffer will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the District Engineer may
require wider vegetated buffers to address documented water quality concerns. If there are open
waters on the project site and the District Engineer requires compensatory mitigation for wetland
impacts to ensure that the net adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal, any vegetated buffer will comprise no more than 1/3 of the remaining compensatory mitigation acreage after the permanently filled wetlands have been replaced on a one-bone acreage basis. In addition, compensatory mitigation must address adverse effects on wetland functions and values and cannot be used to offset the acreage of wetland losses that would occur in order to meet the acreage limits of some
of the NWPs (e.g., for NWP 39,1/4 acre of wetlands cannot be created to change a 1 /2 acre loss of
wetlands to a 1/4 acre loss; however, 1 /2 am of created wetlands can be used to reduce the impacts of
a 1 /3 acre loss of wetlands). If the prospective permittee is required to submit a compensatory
mitigation proposal with the I", the pro@ may be either conceptual or detailed.
(c) To the extent appropriate, permittees should consider mitigation banking and other appropriate
forms of compensatory mitigation. If the District Engineer determines that compensatory mitigation is
necessitry to offset losses of waters of the United States and ensure that the net adverse effects of the
authorized work on the aquatic environment are minimal, consolidated mitigation approaches, such as
mitigation banks, will be the preferred method of providing compensatory mitigation, unlw the
District Engineer determines that activityqmdic compensatory mitigation is more appropriate, based
on which is best for the aquatic environment These types of mitigation are preferred because they involve larger blocks of protected aquatic environment, are more likely to meet the mitigation goals, and are more easily checked for compliance. ][fa mitigation bank or other consolidated mitigation
approach is not available in the watershed, the District Engineer will consider other appropriate forms of compensatory mitigation to offset the losses of waters of the United States to ensure that the net
adverse effects of the authorized work on the aquatic environment are minimaL
20. Spawhg Areas. Activities, including structures and work in navigable waters of the United States or
discharges of dredged or fill material, in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the
maximum extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g., excavate, fill, or smother
downstream by substantial turbidity) of an important spawning area are not authorized.
21. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent praicticable, the activity must be designed to
maintain preconstruction downstream flow conditions (e.g., location, capacity, and flow rates). Furthermore, the activity must not permanently nstrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high flows (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters) and the structure or discharge of dredged or fill material must withstand expected high flows. The activity must, to the maximum extent .
practicable, provide for retaining excess flows fmm the site, provide for maintaining surface flow rates from
the site similar to preconstruction conditions, and must not inaease water flows from the project site,
relocate water, or redirect water flow beyond preamstruction conditions. In addition, the activity must, to
the maximum extent practicable, reduce adverse effects such as flooding or erosion downstream and
22. Adverse Weds From Impoundments. If the activity, including structures and work in navigable waters of
the United States or discharge of dredged or fill material, creates an impoundment of water, advm effects on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be
Illlllllfllzed to the maximum extent practicable.
23. Watedowl Breeding Areas. ActiviMos, including stru& and work in navigable waters of the United States or discharges of dredged or fill material, into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
24. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the.affectd areas
returned to their preexisting elevation.
25. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resoufie waters include, NOAAdesignated marine
sanctuaries, National Estuarine Research . Reserves, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, critical habitat for Federally listed threatened and endangered species, coral reefs, State natural heritage sites, and outstanding
national resource waters or other waters officially designated by a State as having particular environmental
or ecological significance and identified by the District Engineer after notice and opportunity for public
I upstream of the project site, unless the activity is part of a larger system designed to manage! water flows.
.. .
c
t
c
r- i. .
I
comment. The District Engineer may also designate additional critical resoufce waters after notice d
opportunity for comment.
(a) Except as noted below, disduvges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not
authorized by NWPs 7,12,14,16,17,21,29,31,35,39,40,42,43, and 44 for any activity within, or
directly affecting, critical resource waters, induding wetlands adjacent to such waters. Discharges of
dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States may be authorized by the above NWPs in
National Wild and Scenic Rivers if the activity cornplies with General Condition 7. Further, such
discharges may be authorized in designated critical habitat for Feddy listed threatened or
endangered species if the activity complies with General Condition 11 and the US. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service has concurred in a determination of compliance with this condition.
@) For NWPs 3,8,10,13,15,18p 19,22,23, U, 27,28,30,33,34,36,37, and 38, notification is required in accordance with GeneraI Condition 13, for any activity proposed in the desi&ted critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The District Engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only after he detemines that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no
more than minimal.
26. Fills Within 10O-Year Floodplains. For purposes of this gend condition, 100-year floodplains will be
identified through the Federal Emergenq Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps or
FEMA-approved local floodplain maps.
(a) Discharm Wow Headwaters. Discharges of dredged or fill mated into waters of the United
States resulting in permanent above-grade fills within the 100-year floodplain at or below the point on
a stream where the average annual flow is five cubic feet per second (i.e., below headwaters) are not authorized by NWPs 29,39,40,42,43, and 44. For NWPs 12 and 14, the p'ospechve permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13 and the notification must include documentation that any permanent, abovegrade fills in waters of the United States within the lWyear
floodplain below headwaters comply with FEh4.A or FEMA-approved local floodplain construction requirements.
@) Discharm in Headwaters (i.e., above the point on a stream where the average annual flow is five cubic feet per second). (1) Flood Fringe. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States resulting
in permanent, abovegrade fills within the flood fringe of the lwyear floodplain of headwaters are
not authorized by NWPs 12,14,29,39,40,42,43, and 44, unless the p-ve permittee notifies
the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13. The notification must include
documentation that such discharges comply with FEhU or FEMA-approved local floodplain
construction requirements.
(2) Floodway. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States resulting in permanent, above-
grade fills within the floodway of the IWyear floodplain of headwaters are not authorized by NWPs 29,39, So, 42,
43, and 44. For NWPs 12 and 14, the permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance with General
Condition 13 and the notification must include documentation that any permanent, above grade fills proposed in the
floodway comply with FEMA or FEMA-approved local floodplain construction requirements.
r
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Region -- ~
Governor
Intcmct Addms: http.llwww..t~b.apV/-~W/ rnt'ETVE -u
;on H. Rickox - >cretary for Environmental
Protection
9771 clairrmont Mesa Boulevard. Suite A, Saa Diego, Cdfomia 92124-1324
JAN io 2001 Pboae (858) 467-2952 FAX (858) 571-6972 -T?
ENGINET.? ING '
Action on Request for DEPARTME~JT Clean Water Act section 401 Water Quality Certification
for Discharge of Dredged andor Fill Materials
PROJECT:
APPLICANT: Mr. David Hauser
Rancho Santa Fe Road (File No. OOC-045)
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA.92008
ACTION:
1. 0 Order for Standard Certification
2. Order for Technically-conditioned Certification
3. 0 Order for Denial of Certification
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
The following three standard conditions apply to &I certification actions, except as noted under
Condition 3 for denials (Action 3).
1.
2.
3.
This certification action is subject to modification or revocation upon administrative or
judicial review, including review and amendment pursuant to section 13330 of the California
Water Code and section 3867 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (23 CCR).
This certification action is not intended and shall not be construed to apply to any discharge
from any activity involving a hydroelectric facility requiring a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) license or an amendment to a FERC license unless the pertinent
certification application was filed pursuant to 23 CCR subsection 3855(b) and the
application specifically identified that a FERC license or amendment to a FERC license for a
hydroelectric facility was being sought.
The validity of any non-denial certification action (Actions 1 and 2) shall be conditioned
upon total payment of the full fee required under 23 CCR section 3833, unless otherwise
stated in writing by the certifymg agency.
CalVornh Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper a
File No. OOC-045
- ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:
- In addition to the three standard conditions, the applicant shall satisfy the following:
1. The project shall be implemented as described in the application submitted on April 26,
2000. Any deviation from the proposed project, as described in File No. OOC-045, shall
require additional 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. All storm drain inlets shall have storm drain inlet filters (e.g., Fossil filters or their
equivalent) to treat urban runoff. Maintenance of these filters shall be conducted per the
manufacturers specifications by the City of Carlsbad.
-
c
_-
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CONTACT PERSON
- Stacey Baczkowski
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region
9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite A
San Diego, CA 92124
-
858-637-5594
c
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION: i L..
d I hereby certify that the proposed discharge from the Rancho Smta Fe Road project will comply
with the applicable provisions of sections 301 ("Effluent Limitations"), 302 ("Water Quality
Related Effluent Limitations"), 303 ("Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans"), 306
("National Standards of Performance"), and 307 ('Toxic and Pretkatment Effluent Standards")
of the Clean Water Act. Although we anticipate no further regulatory involvement, should new
information come to our attention that indicates a water quality problem, we may issue waste
discharge requirements at that time.
-
-
c - - Date
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Attachments 1 and 2
c
Attachment 1 File No. OOC-045
-
L Applicant:
Applicant
Representatives:
ATTACHMENT 1
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name:
Project Location:
Ms. Sherri Miller
Dudek and Associates, Inc.
605 Third street Encinitas, CA 92024 760-942-5 147 760-632-87 10 (0
Rancho Santa Fe Road (OOC-045)
The proposed project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Carlsbad, in northern San Diego County. The project footprint lies within the northwestern portion of the Rancho Santa Fe United States Geological
Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle; sections 1,6,19,20,29,30,31,32;
Townships 12 and 13 South, Range 3 and 4 West.
Mr. David Hauser
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-2739 760-602-8562 (9
Type of Project: Road realignment and sewer pipeline.
Project Description: The proposed widening and realignment project is part of the City of
Carlsbad's General Plan to upgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road to a Pime Arterial Roadway Designation. A Prime Arterial Roadway has a 126-foot right-of-way containing six travel lanes, a bii lane, an 18 foot raised . median, sidewalks, curb, and gutter.
The northerly approach for the new bridge(s) would be approximately
2,200 feet long and include the reconstruction of the La Costa Meadows
Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection, anti the reconstruction of
approximately 300 feet of La Costa Meadows Drive east of the intersection. The realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road would be constructed to the full width on the cast side of tbe median, with sidewalks, curb and
gutter, and street lights from the bridge to north of Melrose Drive.
The Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection would be moved approximately 400 feet to the north of the present intersection. Meirose
Drive would be realigeed from the Cornita DrivdMehse Drive
intersection northwest to the realigned Melrose DrivelRancho Santa Fe Road intersection. Comita Drive would be extended to connect with the
realigned Melrose Drive.
A 24-inch sewer pipeline would also be installed by the Vallecitos Water
Attachment 1 File No. OOC-045
District during construction of the bridge. The pipeline would be within
the limits of temporary disturbance associated with the bridge and would
not result in any additional impacts. The pipeline will be encased with
concrete and riprap, witb a slope of 1.5:1, will be placed around the pipe. The pipeline, concrete, and riprap will be placed below grade with a
minimum of 1 foot of cover over the top.
Federal Agency/Per&t: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14,18, and 33
California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement Other Required Regulatory
Approvals:
California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance:
In 1992, the City of Wsbad approved the preliminary alignment for the Rancho Santa Fe Road redgmnent and Mass Wing Project; the EXR for
this project was certified by the City of Carlsbad on April 3,1992. An
addendum to the final EIR was prepared in March 2000 to address the
final alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Receiving Water: San Marcos Creek, unnamed ephemeral drainages
c The proposed project will pemmently impact 0.42 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.27 acre of disturbed wetlands, and 0.24 am of unvegetated ephemeral waters of the U.S. Temporary impacts include
0.97 acre of southern willow scrub.
Impacted Waters of the United States:
Dredge Volume: 1,227 cubic yards.
Related Projects IrnplementecVto be Implemented by the Applicant( s):
The City of Carlsbad has implemented two projects in the past five years
that have resulted in temporary impacts to San Marcos Creek. The first project consisted of errrergency access to repair a dip section of the Gibralter Street bridge. The second project replaced and/or repaired pedestrian and golf cart bridges at La Costa. Temporary impacts for both of these projects are estimated at 0.1 to 0.3 acre.
Compensatory Mitigation The proposed mitigation program will include a total of 2.2 acres of
offsite creation and 1.4 acres of offsite enhancement of jurisdictional
southern willow scrub and frcshwater marsh. The proposed mitigation
area is located immediately east of the project area within University
Commons dong San MarcosCretk. The mitigation area will be preserved
as an element of the Fieldstone HCP. In addition, 0.54 acre of
jurisdictional southem willow scrub will be restored onsite within the area
of impact along San Marcos Creek.
Best Management
c Practices: All stonn drain inlets shaIl have stonn drain inlet filters (e.g., Fossil filters or their equivalent) to treat urban runoff. Maintenance of these filters
shall be conducted per the manufacturers specifications by the City of
Carlsbad. .
Attachment 2 File No. OOC-045
-
ATTACHMENT2
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Mr. Terry Dean
Army corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
16885 West Bernard0 Drive, Suite 300A
San Diego, CA 92127
Ms. Shemi Miller
hdek and Associates, Inc.
605 Third Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
State Water Resources Ccmtrol Board
Division of Water Quality
'
... .
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
South Coast Region 7- b949 Viewridge Avenue
San Oiego, California 921 23
(858) 467-4235
858) 467-4201
1
.T
f
I
r
i
r
r -*r r r
I
r
r t r r
P
RECEIVED
JUN 07 21101
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
June 05,2001
City of Carlsbad
Attn: David Hauser
163 5 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mr. Hauser:
Enclosed is Streambed Alteration Agreement 5-142-00 that authorizes work on the
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Mass Grading project impacting San Marcos Creek in
San Diego County. This action is authorized under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code and
has been approved by the Cdiornia Department of Fish and Game. Pursuant to the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Department filed a Notice of
Determination (NOD) on the project on 06 /M/Ol . Under CEQA regulations,
the project has a 30-day statute of limitations dn coh challenges of the Department's approval
under CEQA.
The Deparhnent believes that the project fully meets the requirements of the Fish and
Game Code and CEQA. However, if court challenges on the NOD are received during the 30-
day period, then an additional review or even modification ofthe project may be required. If no
comments are received during the 30-day period, then any subsequent comments need not be
responded to. This information is provided to you so that if you choose to undertake the project
prior to the close of the 30-day period, you do so with the knowledge that additional actions may
be required based on the results of any court challenges that are fled during that period.
Please contact Tamara Spear at (858) 467-4223 if you have any questions regarding the
Streambed Alteration Agreement.
Sincerely,
C.F. R&sbrook
' RegiodManager
Enclosure
cc: TamaraSpear
7-
7
I
CALIFORNU DEPARTMENT OF FISH ANI) GAME
4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, California ,92123
Notification No.5-I 42-00
AGREEMENT REGARDING PROPOSED STREAM OR LAKE ALTERATION
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into between the State of California, Department of Fish and Game, hereinafter called the Department, and David Hauser, rewesentinca the Citv of Carisbad. a municipal corporation State of California , hereinafter called the Operator, is as follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1601 of California Fish and Game Code, the Operator, on the 22& day of Mav. 2000, notified the Department that they intend to divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or change the bed, channel, or bank of, or use material from the streambed@) of, the following water@): thirteen unnamed ephemeral drainalaes. tributaries to San Marcos Creek and San Marcos Creek. San Diego County, California, Sections 1.6.19.20.29.30.31.32 Township 12s. 13s Range 3W. 4W .
WHEREAS, the Department (represented by Tamara Spear through a site visit on the 15th day ofJune. 2000) has determined that such operations may substantially adversely affect those existing fish and wildlife resources within the streambed of thirteen unnamed eDhemeral drainaqes. tributaries to San, Marcos Creek and San Marcos Creek, specifically identified as follows: Birds: least Betl's vireo (Vireo bellii msil/us). southwestern willow flvcatcher Emoidonax fmilii exfimusl,Califomia qnatcatcher (PolioDtila calitbmica ca/itbmica)A northem harrier (Circus cvaneus). white-tailed kite (Elanus /eucumsl. Coobets hawk [Ambiter coo~en? red-tailed hawk (Buteo iamaicensis). red-shouldered hawk (Buteo plafmterus DlatvDterus). southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimoohi/a nrficeos), Bell's saae sparrow (AmDhiSDiza belli be//,% km?rhead shrike (Lanius ludoviuanusl; Reptiles and AmPhlbians: arrovo southwestern toad (Bu?b micfvscaPhUS calibmicus). San Dieao homed lizard (Phrvnosoma coronaturn blainvi//efi. westem soadefoot toad (Scaphioms hammondfi. red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruberl, coastal rosv boa (Lichanura trivimafaz two-striped qarter snake (Thamnoohis hammondii): Mammals: San Diwo Pocket mouse LChaetodiPus fallax fallax). Dulzura California Docket mouse (Chaefodims califomicus femoralisl. San Dieao black-tailed iack rabbit (Leous calibmicusl. desert woodrat (Neotorna leoidal: Invertebrates: wino checkersoot butterflv EuohWqes editha ciuinol. monarch butterflv (Danaus DlexiDus); Plants: San Dieqo aolden starJMuilla clevelandifi. San Diem thommint (Acanthomintha i/icib/ia). Nevin's barberrv (Berberis nevinri). thread-leaved brodiaea (Bmdiaea filifolia). coast woollv-heads (Nernacaulis denudafa var. denudata), smooth tadant (Hemimnia DunQens SSP. laevis) mud nama [Nama sfenocamum) including
the soufhem willow scrub. freshwater marsh. and surround insl Dieaan coastal saae scrub, so-aern mixed chaoarral. valley needledrass arassland. annual arassland and eucalmtus grassland which provide habitat for such sDecies in the area.
resources during the Operator's work. The Operator hereby agrees to accept the following measureslconditions as part of the proposed work.
Agreement is no longer valid and a new notification shall be submitted to the Department of Fish and Game. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement and with other pertinent code sections, including but not limited to Fish and Game Code Sections 5650, 5652,5937, and 5948, may result in prosecution.
THEREFORE, the Department hereby proposes measures to protect fish and wildlife
If the Operator's work changes from that stated in the notification specified above, this
Page 1 of 6
STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT #5-142-00
7
I
-T.-.
I
T'
r
r-
r I
Nothing in this Agreement authorizes the Operator to trespass on any land Or property, nor does it relieve the Operator of responsibility for compliance with applicable federal, state, or local laws or ordinances. A consummated Agreement does not constitute Department of Fish and Game endorsement of the proposed operation, or assure the Department's concurrence with permits required from other agenaes.
This Aclreernent becomes effective the date of DeDartment's sianature and terfninates December 31,2004 for proiect construction anlv. This Anreement shall remain in effect for that time necessani to satisfv the terms/conditions of this Anreement.
1. The following provisions constitute the limit of activities agreed to and resolved by this Agreement. The signing of this Agreement does not imply that the Operator is precluded from doing other activities at. the site. However, activities not specifically agreed to and resolved by this Agreement shall be subject to separate notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq.
2. The Operator proposes to alter the streambed of thirteen unnamed ephemeral drainages, tributaries to San Marcos Creek and San Marcos Creek to accommodate the roadway realignment, widening and bridge replacement improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road. A 24-inch sewer pipeline will also be installed within the limits of temporary disturbance at the proposed bridge footprint by Vallecitos Water District during the bridge construction. The project is located from approximately 100 south of the La Costa Avenue/Rancho Fe Road intersection to approximately 100 feet north of the Melrose DriveRancho Santa Fe Road within the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County impacting 2. I 1 acres of streambed.
3. The agreed work includes activities associated with No. 2 above. The project area is located in the streambed of thirteen unnamed ephemeral drainages, tributaries to San Marcos Creek and San Marcos Creek, San Diego County. Specific work areas and mitigation measures are described odin the plans and documents submitted by the Operator, including an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Realianment and Mass Gradina. SCH#90010850 dated March 2000; ConceDtual Wetland Mitination and Monitorina Plan for the. Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment. dated December 2000: Bioloaical Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Realimment-dated November 2000 andkshall be implemented as proposed unless directed differently by this agreement.
4. The Operator shall not impact more than 2.1 1 acres of jurisdictional habitat comprised of 1.39 acres southern willow scrub, 0.27 acres disturbed freshwater marsh, 0.45
unvegetated ephemeral ~t~mb8d. Of these impacts, 8.93 are permanent and 1.18 are temporary.
Permanent impacts caused by the project include 0.42 acres of southern willow scrub, 0.27 of disturbed wetland and 0.24 acres unvegetated streambed. Mitigation for
permanent impacts to southern willow scrub shall occur at a 3:l ratio of creation. Disturbed freshwater marsh shall be mitigated at a 1 :I ratio of creation and 2: 1 ratio of enhancement, and unvegetated streambed shall be mitigated at a 1 :1 ratio of creation.
All mitigation for permanent impacts shall be in-kind, occur off-site, and include 1.77 acres creation and 0.54 acres enhancement for a total of 2.31 acres.
*
Temporary impacts caused by the project include 0.97 acres of southern willow scrub and
Page 2 of 6
STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT #5-142-00
?- i
Is-
-
I
0.21 acres unvegetated streambed. 0.54 acres of southern willow scrub shall be restored on-site at a 1 : 1 ratio. 0.47 acres of southern willow scrub shall be mitigated at a 1 : 1 ratio of creation and 2:l ratio of enhancement. 0.21 acres of unvegetated streambed shall also be restored on-site. 1.29 acres of mitigation for temporary impacts shall occur off-site including 0.43 acres of creation and 0.86 enhancement and shall be in-kind.
The off-site mitigation area of 3.60 acres for the project is located along San Marcos Creek in the City of San Marcos, within the University Commons Specific Plan.
5. The Operator shall submit a Final RevegetationlMonitoring Plan for both the 3.60 acres of mitigation off-site and the 0.54 acres 00-site to the Department for review within 30 days of signing this Streambed Alteration Agreement. The plan shall specify a non-native plant control program, plant palette and include a long-term maintenance provision for the on-site mitigation and a plant palette for the on-site revegetation. The Operator shall receive Department approval prior to project initiationlimpacts
All mitigation shall be installed no later than March 31.2003.
6. The Operator shall not remove vegetation within the stream fiom March 15 to July 31 to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
7. The Operator shall have a qualified biologist onsite daily during any impacts to vegetation for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing condition numbers 6, 9, 14, and 21 of this agreeement.
8. No equipment shall be operated in ponded or flowing areas.
9. Disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not exceed the limits approved by the Department. The disturbed portions of any stream channel shall be restored. Restoration shall include the revegetation of stripped or exposed areas with vegetation native to the area.
10. Installation of bridges, culverts, or other structures shall be such that water flow is not impaired. Bottoms of temporary culverts shalt be placed at stream channel grade; bottoms of permanent culverts shall be placed at or below stream channel grade.
c
11. Preparation shall be made so that runoff from steep, erodible surfaces will be diverted into stable areas with little erosion potential. Frequent water checks shall be placed on dirt roads, cat tracks, or other work trails to control erosion.
12. Water containing mud, silt or other pollutants from aggregate washing or other activities shall not be allowed to enter a lake or flowing stream or placed in locations that may be subjected to high storm flows.
13. Structures and associated materials not designed to withstand high seasonal flows shall be removed to areas above the high water mark before such flows occur.
14. The perimeter of the work site shall be adequately flagged to prevent damage to adjacent riparian habitat.
15. Staginglstorage areas for equipment and materials shall be located outside of the stream.
i
Page 3 of 6
STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT #5-442-00
T-
r
r
r-
16. The Operator shall comply with all litter and pollution laws. All contractors, subcontractors and employees shall also obey these laws and it shall be the responsibility of the operator to ensure compliance.
17. tf a stream's low flow channel, bed or banksnake bed or banks have been altered, these shall be return-ed as nearly as possible to their original configuration and width, without creating future erosion problems.
18. All planting shall have a minimum of 100% sunrival the first year, based on the .
original quantity planted and 90% survival for container trees and 80% survival for
container shrubs thereafter and/or shall attain 75% native wetland cover after 3 years and 90% native wetland cover after 5 years for the life of the project. If the survival and
cover requirements have not been met, the Operator is responsible for replacement planting to achieve these requirements. Replacement plants shall be monitored with the same survival and growth requirements for 5 years of planting.
19. All planting shall be done between October 1 and April 30 to take advantage of the winter rainy season.
20. An annual report shall be submitted to the Department by January 1 of each year for 5 years after planting. This report shall include the survival , percent cover, and height of both tree and shrub species. The number by species of plants replaced, an overview of the revegetation effort, and the method used to assess these parameters shall also be included. Photos from designated photo stations shall be included.
21. Access to the work site shall be via existing roads and access ramps.
22. Spoil sites shall not be located within a streadlake, where spoil shall be washed back into a streadlake, or where it will cover aquatic or riparian vegetation.
23, Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances which auld be hazardous to aquatic life, resulting from project related activities, shalt be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering the waters of the state. These materials, placed within or where they may enter a stream/lake, by Operator or any party working under contract, or with the permission of the Operator, shall be removed immediately.
24. No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sdwdust, rubbish, cement or concrete or washings thereof, oil or petroleum products or other organic or earthen materiat from any construction, or associated activity of whatever nature shall be allowed to enter into or placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into, waters of the State. When operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area. No rubbish shall be deposited within 150 feet of the high water mark of any stream or lake.
25. No equipment maintenance shall be done within or near any stream channel where petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter these areas under
any flow.
26. The Operator shall provide a copy of this Agreement to dl contractors, subcontractors, arid the Operator's project supervisors. Copies of the Agreement shall be readily available at work sites at all times during periods of active work and must be presented to any Department personnel, or personnel from another agency upon
Page4of 6
I
c I
T-
- i
r- I I
r I
STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT #5-142-00
demand.
27. The Department reserves the right to enter the project site at any time to ensure compliance with termdwnditions of this Agreement.
28. The Operator shall not@ the Department, in writing, at least five (5) days prior to
initiation of construction (project) activities and at least five (5) days prior to completion of construction (project) activities. Notification shall be sent to the Department at 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 Attn: Tamara A. Spear
29. It is understood the Department has entered into this Streambed Alteration Agreement for purposes of establishing protective features for fish and wildlife. The decision to proceed with the project is the sole responsibility of the Operator, and is not required by this agreement. It is further agreed all liability and/or incurred cost related to or arising out of the Operator's project and the fish and wildlife protective condititms of this agreement, remain the sote responsibility of the Operator. . The Operator agrees to hord harmiess the State of California and the Department of Fish and Game against any related claim made by any party or parties for personal injury or any other damages.
30. The Operator shall request an extension of this agreement prior to its termination. Extensions may be granted for up to 12 months from me date of termination of the agreement and are subject to Departmental approval. The extension request and fees shall be submitted to the Department's Region 5 office at the above address. If the Operator fails to request the extension prior to the agreement's termination, then the Operator shall submit a new notification with fees and required information to the Department. Any activities conducted under an expired agreement are a violation of Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et. seq. The Operator may request a maximum of one extension of this agreement.
31. The Department reserves the right to suspend or cancel this Agreement for other reasons, including but not limited to the following: a. The Department determines that the information provided by the Operator in support of the Notification/Agreement is incomplete or inaccurate; b. The Department obtains new information that was not known to it in preparing the terms and conditions of the Agreement; c. The project or project activities as described in the NutificatiotVAgreement have changed; d. The conditions affecting fish and wildlife resources change or the Department determines that project activities will result in a substantial adverse effect on the environment.
32. Before any suspension or cancellation of the Agreement, the Department will notii the Operator in writing of the circumstances which the Department believes warrant suspension or cancellation. The Operator will have seven (7) working days from the date of receipt of this notification to respond in writing to the circumstances described in the Department's notification. During the seven (7) day response period, the Operator shall immediately cease any project activities which the Department specified in its notification. The Operator shall not continue the specified activities until that time when the Department notifies the Operator in writing that adequate methods and/or measures have been identified and agreed upon to mitigate or eliminate the significant adverse effect.
i
Page5of 6
CONCURRENCE
(David Hauser)
STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT #5-142-00
California Dept. of Fish and Game
' z/t?)o, I
(date) (signat&) (date)
YErmy Qry edc,#e- C.F. Ravsbrook, Reaional Manaaer
(title) (title)
Page 6 of 6
I-
r I
r
I
r I
r
I
r--
I
c
I
r
i
c
I
I
I--
i
I-
I
-
I
-
1-
-
c
I
-
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
C.Q. BOX $a¶lSE
February 15 2001
Reply To: FHWAO10116A
Mr. Michael G. Ritchie
Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration
980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 9581412724
Project: Ranc ha Santa Fe Bridge Replacement (11-Sb-O-Carbbad), Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Ritchie:
In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, regulations irnpiemeriting Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has made findings of National Register eligibility and effect for properties located within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of the undertaking cited above.
You have asked for my comments on these findings.
UNDERTAKtNG APE AND IDENTIFYING HISTORIC PROPERTIES
FHWAs delineation of the undertaking's APE and its efforts to identify historic properties within this APE are satisfactory. I agree that archaeological site CA-
SDI-942, originaily recorded as within the APE, which through recent testing
efforts (as reported in Attachment 5 of the First Supplemental Histotic Properties Study Report) has been redefined as actually being outside the APE, requires no
further consideration in connection with the undertaking cited above.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FHWAs efforts to involve Native Americans and other rnernbccs of the interested pubiic in the consultation process for the undertaking are satisfactory.
DETERMlNATlONS OF NATIONAL REGISTER ELfGlBlUN
CA-SDI-11.440: I agree that this archaeological site is ineligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) because it meets none of the
criteria set forth at 36 CFR Part 60.4.
San Marcos Creek 8riQae f57C-02781: I agree that this existing bridge, built in
1978, is NRHPjneligible because it is less than 50 years old and was designated
Category 5 in the Cattrans Local Bridge Survey (1987).
. ML Michael Riie
. Page2of2 February 15,2001 ' .
,. .
r-
I
FlNDlNG OF EFFECT
Because efforts to identii historic properties within the undertaking's APE conform to applicable standards and the documentation provided is consistent with thk requirements of gSO0.?1 (d) for a finding of "no historic properties
affected' and, in accordance with §800,4(d)(l), since I do not object to this adequately documented finding, FHWA's responsibilities under Section 106 are now fulfilled.
Your consideration of historic properties in the project planning process is
appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact staff archaeologist Charles Whatford at (916) 653 - 2716 or ark. . ov
r 1 -
c-
I
r
I
r-
I
. Sincerely, I.
Dr. Knox Melfcrn .
. State Historic Probervation Officer
.. .
r r
r r r
r r
r
c
ACO€ Jurisdictional Wetlands
and Project Impacts
T- I
NOTE: Figures from Permit Application for Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment Project Pre-
Construction Notification for Nationwide Permit submitted to ACOE on April 7, 2000.
r r
r
r r r r r r
r r r r r r r r
r
r-
r
r
I
Note: Figures from Permit Applicm*on for Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment Project - Pre-Construction Notification for Nationwide Permit submitted to ACOE on April 7,2000. \
FIGURE Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Joint Permit Application
Regional Map
I
r r r r
r
r r r r
r r r r
r
T
r
r 1
.p
Note: Figures from Permit AppIication for Rancho Santa Fe Rod Realignment Project - Pre-Construction Notificcltion for Nationwide Permit submitted to ACOE on ApnI 7,2000.
BASE MAP SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series, Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle 1" -2000'
Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Joint Permit Application I FIGURE ~ I
APE I Vicinity Map I I
I r r r r
r
r
r r
r
r
r'
r
r
r
r
I
r
I
r
I
-
I -
t
.. .
Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Joint Permit Application I n I Impact Areas 1 and 2 I I
I r r r
r
r
r i
r
r
r
r
i
r
r-
r
r
r
I ,
r-
I
r-'
I
i-
I
F
FIGURE Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Joint Permit Application 4 ImDact Areas 3,4 and 5 .
_*_
Note: Figurmfi.om Permit Application for Rancho Santa Fe - ' ' ...
Road Realignment Project - &-Construction Notajication for
Nationwide Permit submitted to ACOE on April 7,2000.
GRAWC PUN SooRCE: Dobn Enghmring, F&wy UKX)
0 m Scole In Feet
FIGURE I Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Joint Permit Application I -
lmpactArea6 I I
FIGURE El Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Joint Permit Application
Impact Areas 7 and 8
--1 -1 1 1 1 -1 --f - t ---1 1 i -i --I -1 --t --I - 1 1 1-
FIGURE El Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Realignment & Bridge Replacement - Joint Permit Application
Impact Area 12