HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-14; City Council; 10769; APPROVAL OF THE BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.AB#- TITLE: APPROVAL OF THE BATIQUITOS 8/14/90 LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT a)- $ $ MTG. -u = 2 DEPT. PLN 4 *d
DEPT.
CITY I
CITY I
I
=E
$ .rl u
c h a,
4
(d
u
4
W a, u
cd bo
Yi u
*rl z
u c) a, 4 4-1 a, h
u
a a)
*rl 4-1
*rl W
0
g
[il cd
co cn N I 0 a\
a
h
cn N
0 I
01 2
cn
W a) u
W rd
a 0
r-4
.rl u 5 ::
2 0
U 6
z 3 0 0
E
I <. )a CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that
City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 40 -2i"Ba , CERTIFYING EIR
5, and selection of the environmental and agency prefei alternative (Mitigated Arternative B) including the sedir
disposal scheme that involves overdredging the lagoon's cenl basin as the project to be implemented; and ADOPT Resolution 1
subject to the conditions contained therein including a stater of overriding considerations.
ITEM EXPLANATION
The Port of Los Angeles (POLA) is requesting discretioi
approvals for the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancetnent Project wl would restore tidal flushing to Batiquitos Lagoon wl protecting existing habitat values. The Batiquitos Lac
Enhancement Project would be constructed on property locatec
southwest Carlsbad, bounded by the Pacific Ocean/La Cc Avenue/El Camino Real and the north shore of the lagoon in LC Facilities Management Zones 9 and 19. In order to implement
proposed project , the following discretionary approvals/act
are required of the City:
EIR 86-5 - Certification for the Environmental Impact Repc
including selection of a project alternative to be implemei and statement of overriding consideration, which would sew( the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compli, document for all discretionary approvals.
SUP 90-9 - Approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP 90-9) for
construction of improvements in the 100-year floodplain
More detailed information is included in the attached s
report to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission heard the project on July 18, 1990 voted unanimously to recommend that Council certify / environmental document (EIR 86-5), including a statement \,,,overriding considerations. The Planning Commission voted 4 to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit (SUP 9 including the selection of Mitigated Alternative B (the prefe alternative) over mitigated Alternative A, and a statemenl overriding considerations. The majority and staff recommending selection of Mitigated Alternative B because it
been identified as the environmentally superior alternative
it has the wildlife agencies' support. The three dissen commissioners did not object to Mitigated B as much as they that Mitigated Alternative A would offer a greater abilit keep the tidal inlet open (i.e, greater tidal flushing power)
thus have a larger body of water, even at low tide. The mino
noted that both alternatives, Mitigated A and Mitigated B
, APPROVING SUP 90-9, and based on the findings I+ .-gqg
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 101 3h 7
equal in both minimizing adverse impacts and maximi; achievement of enhancement goals. The main differences bet1 Mitigated A and B are:
1) Mitigated B maximizes the habitat values for shore birds creating the largest intertidal area.
2) Mitigated A has less risk of tidal inlet closure.
3) Mitigated B, based on conservative estimates should rei continuously tidal, however, the City's consultants bel:
Mitigated B is at the lower limit to produce a s
maintaining tidal inlet.
4) Mitigated A, since it creates the largest subtidal cc possibly create a better fishery habitat (U.S. Fish
Wildlife service believes Mitigated B, because of
predicted better water quality would be better fisheries).
A more thorough discussion on the differences between
alternatives is found in the final EIR EIS in Sections 1, 3
the Summary.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff and Planning Commission find that the Environmental Im
Report/Statement (EIR/EIS) has been prepared in compliance w state and local regulations and also concur with its find which are briefly highlighted below.
1. The proposed project will restore marine values to lagoon, and protect and enhance existing habitat value:
Without full tidal exchange the lagoon will continue to with fine sediments and organic matter and the exis habitat values will be lost over the long term.
2.
3. Of 10 alternatives evaluated, Mitigated Alternatii provides for tidal flushing and provides the best balanc wildlife values for the lagoon. This a1 ternat ivc
considered the environmental and agency prefc
alternative and is supported by the state and fec
wildlife agencies charged with the responsibility to prc
and enhance wildlife resources.
4. Selection of Mitigated Alternative B will resull unavoidable short-term impacts in the areas of bio: water quality and recreation and a statement of overr. considerations is required. The long term benefits 0: project outweigh unavoidable short-term impacts.
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. d 0; 9 ky
5. All other impacts have been mitigated to a level insignificance with inclusion of the proposed mitigal
measures and mitigation monitoring plan as part of pro:
approval.
6. Of the dredge disposal schemes reviewed, the overdredgc
the central basisn, with the deposition of eastern bi
fine sediments into the resulting pit and the placing of overdredged central basin sands on the beaches nourishment, is the environmentally preferred drc disposal scheme.
7. Areas of controversy identified in the EIR/EIS (FEIR, Summary P. S-26 et.seq.) are significant and have not will not likely be resolved. The document does proi adequate information to recommend certification selection of a restoration alternative.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact on City resources resulting the approval of these resolutions. Reimbursement Agreements the Port of Los Angeles and as established in the multi-ag Memorandum of Agreement on the project provide all costs to City shall be reimbursed by the Port. This incl
environmental, engineering, permitting, construction maintenance costs, and also included Carlsbad administra costs.
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution Nos. 98 --2'?'7 & '?d -z%% .
2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3072 & 3073
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 18, 1990
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 18, 1990
5. # Final EIR 86-5 (Previously Distributed)
5. Letters received from interested parties
w/attachments
$ Filed on shelf in Vault
WRITE IT- DON’T
Date 12-5
[7 Reply Wanted To File
From Lucille UNO Reply Necessary
EIR 86-5 (on the shelf in the vault) needs to be filmed with this file.
(See AB 1110,769, dtd 8/14/90 EXHIBITS)
AlGNER FORM NO. 55032 PRlC
h *f .
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
l5
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 90-297
A RESOLUTION OF THE CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING
FOR A PROJECT GENERALLY INCLUDING
RESTORATION OF TIDAL FLUSHING TO BATIQUITos
LAGOON THROUGH DREDGING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TIDAL INLET STRUCTURE.
CASE NAME: BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT. APPLICANT: PORT OF LOS ANGELES CASE NO: EIR 86-5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR 86-5,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Mun
Code, the Planning Commission did, on July 18,
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
request; and
1990, hold
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearin
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all PI
desiring to be heard, and considering any written COI
received, the Planning Commission considered all factors re
to the Master Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by thc
Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and cor1
2. That the findings and conditions of the P1
Commission Resolution No. 3072, including a stateme
overriding consideration and supportive findings on file wi
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference constitu
findings of the City Council in this matter and tha
Environmental Impact Report, EIR 86-5, is certified and app
except as follows:
...
*-- +
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The City Council of Carlsbad, California sele
Alternative Mitigated A as the preferred enhancement alternat for permit application purposes for the following reasons:
Mitigated A has a greater potential to maintaj continuously tidal inlet than does Mitigated B.
Mitigated A retains the existing wildlife hab:
values .
Mitigated A maximizes the aerial extent of w
surface at all tidal conditions therefore it creates a vi
resource that is desired by the community.
that would be available for nourishment of the regions seve
eroded coastline.
If during permit review by either the Corps
Engineers of the California Coastal Commission it is determ that alternative Mitigated A cannot be permitted, then the
Council finds that Mitigated Alternative B is
environmentally acceptable and that it shall be approved
implementation as recommended by the Planning Commission wit the need for further review by the City Council. Subject tc
foregoing, Section D of Planning Commission Resolution No.
is amended to replace Witigated But with 'Witigated A."
1.
2.
3.
4. Mitigated A maximizes the amount of dredged
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetir
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on th
, 1990, by the following votc August 14th day of
wit:
AYES :
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson, Mamaux a
Pet t ine
ATTEST:
d.lmL pn&
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, city Cler$
(SEAL)
2
7. *'
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
lr
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I RESClLUTION NO. 30-298
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PERMIT FOR A FLOODPLAIN ENCROACHMENT FOR THE
BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.
CASE NO: SUP 90-3 APPLICANT: PORT OF LOS ANGELES
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Muni
Code, the Planning Commission did, on July 18, 1990, hold a
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
request: and
CARLSBAD, CPiLIFORNIA, APPROVING A SPECIAL'USE
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all pe
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all fa(
relating to the Special Use Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and corre
2. That the findings and conditions of the Plar
Commission Resolution No. 3073, including a statement
overriding consideration and supportive findings, on file
the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference consti
the findings of the City Council in this matter and that Spe
Use Permit (SUP 90-9) is hereby approved, except as follows:
The City Council of Carlsbad, California sell
Alternative Mitigated A as the preferred enhancement alterna for permit application purposes for the following reasons:
Mitigated A has a greater potential to mainta.
continuously tidal inlet than does Mitigated B.
Mitigated A retains the existing wildlife habj
values .
***
1.
2.
r
Ir .r %.
I /I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I'
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. Ml.tigaked k maximCz+s the aerial extent of W~ surface at all tidal conditions' therefore it creates a vi
resource that is desired by ths community.
that would be available for nourishmelit of the regions seve eroded coastline.
If during permit review by either the Corps
Engineers of the California Coastal Commission it is determ
that alternative Mitigated A cannot be permitted, then the
Council finds that Mitigated Alternative B is
environmentally acceptable and that it shall be approved implementation as recommended by the Planning Commission wit
the need for further review by the City Council. Subject to
foregoing, Section B of Planning Commission Resolution No.
is amended to replace WlMitigated BIg with IlMitigated A.lB
4. Mitigated A mazimizes the amount of dredged
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetini
on thc
14th day of August , 1990, by the following vote
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
wit:
AYES : Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson, Mamaux a
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Pettine
ATTEST:
J 6- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3072
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACl
TIDAL FLUSHING TO BATIQUITOS LAGOON THROUGH DREDGING ANI
CONSTRUCTION OF A TIDAL INLET STRUCTURE.
CASE NAME: BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
REPORT, EIR 86-5, FOR A PROJECT GENERALLY INCLUDING RESTORATION OI
CASE NO.: EIR 86-5
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Batiquitos Lagoon as bounded by El Camino Real on the east, La
Costa Avenue and the shoreline on the south, the shoreline on the
north and the Pacific Ocean on the west.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 2
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of July, 1990, hold
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
relating to the project and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cornmission as f
That the FOREGOING recitations are true and conect.
That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 86-5 will be amended to include the COT
and documents of those testifying at the public hearing and responses thereto
found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of saic
hearings into the report.
That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 86-5 as so amended and evaluatt
attached errata sheets dated May 16, 1990 are recommended for acceptan
certification as the final Environmental Impact Report and that the final Environ
Impact Report as recommended is adequate and provides reasonable infomation
project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including no project.
A)
B)
C)
PC RES0 NO. 3072 -1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
D) That among the alternatives evaluated, it is recommended that Mitigated Alternativf
"Agency Preferred" and Environmentally Preferred" alternatives), which incor
mitigation measures as discussed below, be approved for implementation.
Findings:
1. That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Environmental Impact
EIR 86-5 has been completed in conformance with the California Environmental
Act, the state guidelines implementing said Act, and the provisions of Title 19
Carlsbad Municipal Code and that the Planning Commission has reviewed, conside
evaluated the information contained in the report.
That with the exception of impacts identified in 3) below, each and every sig
environmental impact identified in the Environmental Impact Report would be ov
or counterbalanced by changes or alteration in the project which would mitigate
said adverse impacts or, in certain circumstances, that mitigation of such adverse
would not be feasible under the circumstances and under the economic and socia
objectives and concerns in providing the improvements if the project were to be ap
would be included as conditions of approval of the project.
That, while the project has been mitigated to the extent possible with regard to 1
water quality and recreation by the conditions to be included in project apl
sign5cant adverse impacts will still exist. With regard to these items, the P
Commission finds there are overriding considerations which are as follows:
A.
2.
3.
Biology - That, the unavoidable short-term loss of existing benthic resol
overridden by the long-term project benefit of replacement of these spt
marine resources which would establish following tidal restoration
Water Quality - That, the unavoidable short-term impacts to water qualiq
the lagoon during project constructioddredging, is overridden by the lo;
project benefits of enhanced water quality following tidal restoration
Recreation - That, the unavoidable, short-term impacts to recreational us
beach during construction/beach nourishment, is ovenidden by the impon
B.
C.
~
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the lagoon enhancement and the longer term benefits of increased rea
opportunities due to beach nourishment.
Conditions:
1. Refer to attached Exhibit A (Mitigation Measures) for all conditions, mitigation mi
and monitoring programs applicable to development of the Batiquitos
Enhancement Project.
'.'
"'
---
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Con
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of July, 1990, by the following
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: McFadden, Erwin,
Holmes, Schlehuber, Marcus & Hall.
None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
~ ---
1 *dhh, & - SHARON SCHW'M, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 3072 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Z0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3073
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN, NORTH OF LA COSTA
AVENUE, WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, AND SOUTH OF THE
NORTHERN SHORE OF THE LAGOON.
CASE NAME: BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
CASE NO: SUP 90-9
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
Batiquitos Lagoon as bounded by El Camino Real on the east, 1
Costa Avenue and the shoreline on the south, the shoreline on tl
north and the Pacific Ocean on the west.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; anc
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title :
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Cornmission did on the 18th day of July, 199
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testh
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered a
relating to the Special Use Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Corn
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recc
selection of Mitigated Alternative B identified in EIR 86-5 including the disposa
that incorporates overdredging the central basin and APPROVAL of SUP 90-9,
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinns:
1. The proposed project does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas (
flood hazard. In fact, the project enhances the capability of the lagoon area to c,
fresh and salt water.
...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. All necessary state and federal permits will be applied for and obtained upon a
the project by the City.
The proposed enhancement is consistent with the intent and purpose of Chap1
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code because the dredging reduces the potential
flood hazard in the lagoon floodplain.
The proposed enhancement is consistent with the various elements of the Gel
because it provides for the preservation of natural resources in and around the k
it follows the intent of the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan by c
the odor and ensuring year round water levels.
The Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information in
EIFUEIS 86-5 including public testimony and the public record find that changes 1
incorporated into the project either by redesign or as conditions which mitigate
or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts thereof, except for s
construction related impacts to benthic biology, water quality and recreation
That no feasible measures have been identified that would avoid or further min
impacts identified in Finding No. 5 above other than the selection of either the n
or the managed water level (Altemative F) Alternatives, and it has been determ
these alternatives are environmentally inferior to Mitigated Altemative B.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section21081(C). The Planning Commission 1
the impacts identified in Finding No. 5 above adopt a statement of o
consideration as follows:
A.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Biology - That, the unavoidable short-term loss of existing benthic rex
overridden by the long-term project benefit of replacement of these q
marine resources which would estabbh following tidal restoration.
Water Quality - That, the unavoidable short-term impacts to water qualii
the lagoon during project constructioddredging, is overridden by the lc
project benefits of enhanced water quality following tidal restoration.
Recreation - That, the unavoidable, short-term impacts to recreational u!
beach during constructiodbesch nourishment, is overridden by the imp01
the lagoon enhancement and the longer term benefits of increased reu
opportunities due to beach nourishment.
B.
C.
Conditions
1. All conditions of EIR 86-5, Resolution No. 3072 are incorporated herein by re
Refer to these documents for all conditions and mitigation measures applic
development of the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project
A grading permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any clearing,
or dredging at the project site.
2.
PC RES0 NO. 3073 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
I.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. An encroachment permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any cc
on Ciy property.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commis,
City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of July, 1990, by the following votc
AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: McFadden, Erwin &
NOES:
Holmes.
Commissioners: Hall, Marcus & Schlehuber.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
_-- - - @&
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
.) & +&&&&&& . a4 1 MICHAEL J. H~LZMK~ER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3073 -3-
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 18,1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIOUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECC - Request
for the certification of an Environmental Impact Report and request for approval oi
a Special Use Permit to construct the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project on
property located in southwest Carlsbad, bounded by the Pacific OceardLa Costa
Avenue/El Camino ReaV and the north shore of the lagoon in Zones 9 and 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3072 recommending certification of EIR 86-5,
and selection of the environmental and agency preferred alternative (Mitigated Alternative B)
including the sediment disposal scheme that involves overdredging the lagoon’s central basin as the
project to be implemented; and ADOPT Resolution No. 3073, recommending Approval of SUP 90-9,
and based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including a statement oj
overriding considerations.
II. INTRODUCTION
The Port of Los Angeles (POLA) is requesting discretionary approvals for the Batiquitos Lagoon
Enhancement Project which would restore tidal flushing to Batiquitos Lagoon while protecting
existing habitat values. In order to implement the proposed project, the following discretionary
approvals/actions are required of the City:
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 86-S), including selection of a project
alternative to be implemented, which would serve as the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) compliance document for all discretionary approvals.
Approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP 90-9) for the construction of improvements in the
100-year floodplain.
This staff report provides an analysis of these actions and is organized as shown below.
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIQbArOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
JULY 18,1990
PAGE 2
Proiect Backmound and DescriDtion Pane No.
Project Background ........................... .2
Project Purpose and Need ....................... .4
Project Description ............................ .4
Environmental Documentation [EIR 86-5)
Introduction .................................. 5
Public Involvement. ............................ 6
Major Findings and Conclusions ................... 7
Areas of Controversy .......................... 10
Special Use Permit (SUP 90-91 ........................ 11
Summary of Staff Recommendations ................... -13
III. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCMPTION
Proiect Backnround
The sequence of events leading up to the proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project is
provided in Table 1. The alternative considered for this project began as part of a Coastal
Conservancy Enhancement Plan which was published as a draft plan in 1986, and as-a revised draft
in 1987. Beginnkg in January of 1985, the atial enhancement goals and plans presented in these
documents were guided by the resource agencies, and the "enhancement group" which comprised
representatives from local property owners, resource agencies (CDFG, NMFS, USFWS), City of
Carlsbad, Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation, and eventually the Port of Los Angeles. The fully tidal
alternatives were subsequently deemed engineeringly feasible and modified through a Preliminary
Draft Engineering Report (PDER) prepared by consultants to the City. As a result of this process,
which included a number of public workshops and meetings, five restoration alternatives for
Batiquitos Lagoon were identified including three fully tidal alternatives (always open to the
ocean), an intermittent alternative (closed to the ocean during part of the year) and the no action
alternative (lagoon left as is).
The alternatives presented in the Coastal Conservancy's Enhancement Plan provided a basis for a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Carlsbad, the Port of Los Angeles, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marhe Fisheries Service (NMFS), California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG) and State Lands Commission (SLC). The MOA serves as procedural
mechanism towards implementation of a project at Batiquitos which would restore and
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Coastal Conservancy establishes Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Group.
Batiquitos Lagoon identified for offsite mitigation program for Port of Los Angeles
landfill and development in Final EIWEIS for PAC-TEX pipeline project.
Coastal Conservancy’s draft enhancement plan released.
Final EIWEIS certified for PAC-TEX project.
Public hearing on draft enhancement plan.
City of Carlsbad and Port of Los Angeles retain CH2M Hill to prepare PDR.
Interim PDR released for public review.
Coastal Conservancy’s revised draft enhancement plan released.
MOA for Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project signed by Port of Los Angeles,
City of Carlsbad, CSLC, CDFG, USFWS, and MNFS.
PDR published.
City of Carlsbad and COE initiate EIWEIS process for Batiquitos Lagoon
Enhancement Project.
Formal public scophg for EWEIS completed in July.
Public workshops on Draft EIWEIS content, held from July through October
Draft EIWEIS published in May.
Comment period on Draft EIWEIS closed in July, after a 30-day extension to the
original comment period.
Scope of work for Final EIWEIS determined in December
Meetings With MOA agencies and public interest groups on Final EIWEIS content,
held from January through April.
Final EWEIS published in June.
Public hearings on certification of Final EIWEIS scheduled for July and August.
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIQ-.rOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
JULY 18,1990
PAGE 4
enhance the lagoon and possibly provide mitigation for the loss of marine habitat due to
developments proposed by POLA in the Outer Los Angeles Harbor. Through the MOA, Carlsbad is
responsible for environmental documentation (as lead agency), obtaining necessary permits and
project construction. POLA, as the project proponent, is responsible for total funding of the project,
including all project and administrative costs to Carlsbad and including $8.2 million escrow
accounts for perpetual maintenance of the lagoon by CDFG. USFWS, NMFS, CDFG must approve
the enhancement plan and CDFG would be responsible for management of the coastal lagoon as
an ecological reserve. SLC would hold all restored lands in trust and lease them to CDFG. Among
other things, the MOA also requires that an environmental document be prepared prior to any
project implementation with Carlsbad as the lead agency in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
Coastal wetlands in southern California including Batiquitos Lagoon have undergone a substantial
decline in area and habitat value over the past 100 years due to development and introduction of
human activities. As a result of the loss of coastal wetlands, associated marine and terrestial,
wildlife, and vegetation resources have been substantially altered.
In the case of Batiquitos Lagoon, construction of transportation corridors across the lagoon have
diminished the ability of the lagoon to maintain an open tidal inlet into the Pacific Ocean. As a
result of tidal inlet closure, the lagoon has undergone substantial change in its ecological character,
including the loss of marine habitat and degradation of associated marine aquatic and benthic biota
(organisms living on the lagoons bottom). In addition, the closure of the tidal inlet has induced
accelerated deposition of fine sediments that are continuing to alter the character of the wetland
vegetation and habitats within the lagoon boundaries. The lagoon still maintains the capability of
supporting other valuable biological resources such as residential and migratory bird populations.
The purpose of the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project is to restore continuous tidal action
within the lagoon without significantly deteriorating existing vegetation, habitats, and wildlife
populations, especially bird populations, that utilize the lagoon. This action would enhance the
resource value of the lagoon by restoring a marine ecosystem within the lagoon, providing a diverse
range of intertidal slopes, maintain the existing coastal salt marsh and brackish marsh vegetation,
and provide suitable nesting habitat for threatened and endangered species including Belding's
Savannah Sparrow and the California Least Tern. Marine enhancement benefits derived from the
project may be applied as mitigation for the impacts of development by the Port of Los Angeles on
the marine environment in the outer Los Angeles Harbor through the MOA.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The major project components of the proposed project include:
Physical reconfiguration of the lagoon through dredging/excavating and contouring to
Construction of a rock nonnavigable tidal inlet structure at the mouth of the lagoon ta
restore tidal inflows;
allow uninterrupted tidal access;
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BAT& - - TOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
JULY 18,1990
PAGE 5
Construction of 32 acres of Californian Least Tern nesthg sites using dredge material frc
the lagoon;
Replenishment of ocean beaches, presently covered with cobbles, at Batiquitos Lagoon a
Disposal and capping of fine sediments dredged from the East Basin of the lagoon into tl
Encinas Creek with suitable sands mined from the Central Basin of the lagoon*;
Central Basin*;
b Reconstruction of the aging West Carlsbad Bridge at the same site with a similar structul
but including emergency vehicle and pedestrian access;
Placement of riprap on the channel under the existing 1-5 structure to protect the footinj
and bracing and minor upgrades to the Railroad bridge and East Carlsbad Bridge t
required;
Construction of a 33-acre diked freshwater pond in the northeast section of the East Basi
(Alternatives A, B, and C and D only) which would receive water from San Marcos Cree
through a conduit;
e Construction of appropriate facilities to control sediment delivery into the lagoon (presene
not part of any alternative);
Maintenance dredging at approximately three-year intervals to remove ocean derived sanc
from inside mouth of lagoon and placement on adjacent beach;
Dredged material would be removed from the lagoon by a hydraulic cutterhead dredge anc
transported to in-lagoon and beach nourishment sites by pipeline. Some finish excavation anc
grading in the dry may be done to achieve the appropriate slopes in the lagoon. Selection of ar
upland disposal site could result in the transport of dewatered material by truck or if close enough
(e.g. Green Valley) could be transported by pipeline. Potential upland disposal sites identified
include San Marcos landfill and Green Valley. Construction may take up to two years in order to
avoid impacts to endangered bird species during their nesting season.
N. E"MENTAL IMPACX REPORT
INTRODUCTION:
The attached summary which is included in the Final EIEUEIS identifies major findings and
conclusions, including a discussion of impacts and feasible mitigation measures; choice of
alternatives; and areas of controversy. Staffs analysis concurs with findings of the Final EIEUEIS
and includes by reference the Draft EWEIS, the Final EIWEIS and referenced technical studies and
support documents.
Preparation of the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project EIWEIS fdfills a number of
requirements:
*NOTE: The recommended dredge disposal scheme would involve overdredging the sandy
central basin, depositing the very fine sediments from the eastern basin in the resulting pit and-
placing the overdredged central basin sands on the beaches as nourishment.
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIQ, - COS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJE- A’
JULY 18, 1990
PAGE 6
0 The EIR portion of the document has been prepared pursuant to the Califom
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and w
serve as the compliance document by the City of Carlsbad in determining whether to issi
a Special Use Permit for the project. Carlsbad will also issue grading and encroachme
permits for the project in conjunction with the special use permit.
The EIS portion of the document has been prepared pursuant to the National Environment b
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and will serve as the compliance document by the U.S. Am
Corps of Engineers in determining whether to issue a dredge permit.
0 The EIWEIS will also serve as a compliance document for other federal and stai
responsible agencies who must issue permits for some aspect of the project. The mo
notable of which is the Coastal Development pennit which would be issued by the Coast;
Commission.
b Finally, the document fulfills the CEQMNEPA compliance requirements specified i
Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to which th
City of Carlsbad is a signatory.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The general sequence of events leading up to this Commission hearing is presented in Table 1. 1
Notice of Preparation was issued on May 20, 1988 and written comments were received and ora
testimony was taken at a public hearing on May 31,1988. As a result of these comments, the scopt
of work with the environmental consultant preparing the document was modified. During preparation of the draft, four public workshops were held to discuss progress with any interestec
parties. The Draft EIWEIS was published on April 28,1989 and the normal 45-day review perioc
was extended to 75 days because of the amount of material to be reviewed, and to ensure thai
commenting parties had the opportunity to review supplemental documents that were referencec
in the EIWEIS. Extensive comments were received from 43 parties including federal, state and loca,
agencies, organizations and individuals. Following the publication of the Draft EIWEIS a public
hearing was held to receive testimony on the Draft EIWEIS. As a result of comments received on
the draft document, the scope of work, with the environmental consultant was again modified. The
expanded scope included, among other things, a large number of meetings with parties making
significant comments in order to clarify the issues. Also it included the development and
identification of an agency and environmentally preferred restoration alternative/plan plus the
preparation of additional technical appendices which responded to issues identified in public
comments. To help ensure the technical quality of the Final EIWEIS Carlsbad provided peer review
of the technical elements of the environmental documentation. A public workshop was held on
May 21, 1990 to provide an update on the project. The project has also been the subject of two
informational newsletters, a number of news releases and numerous newspaper articles. Copies of
the Final EIWEIS were mailed to all parties commenting on the draft and notices or summaries
were provided to other interested parties on about June 28, 1990 and the present hearing and
notice of availability were published in five local and region newspapers on July 5, 1990. Copies
of the Final EIWEIS were also available in Carlsbad and Enchitas libraries and copies are available
for viewing or purchase at the Carlsbad Planning Department.
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIQL - iOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJL- 1'
JULY 18,1990
PAGE 7
The remahhg requirements of CEQA and NEPA in regards to the Final EIWEIS are different. The
Corps of Engineers has a 30-day written comment period on the EIS and the permit action, but will
hold no public hearings. Comments are due to the Corps by August 13, 1990. Following this
written comment period, the Corps will issue its Record of Decision (ROD) on the project.
CEQA however, has no specified time set aside for review, but requires hearings by the lead agency,
the City of Carlsbad, to receive testimony. However, to ensure continued public involvement, the
document has been available for public review for 20 days prior to Planning Commission hearing
and will be available a minimum of 45 days prior to the Carlsbad City Council hearing. The lead
agency (City of Carlsbad) would file a Notice of Determination following project approval.
MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Site Conditions:
Findings in the environmental document confirm the findings of the Coastal Conservancy that
Batiquitos Lagoon has become isolated from tidal exchange with the ocean due to construction of
the three transportation corridors which cross the lagoon, combined with accelerated deposition of
fine and course sediments from the surrounding watershed. As a result, environmental conditions
in the lagoon presently undergo extremes in water level, water temperature and water salinity
which may vary seasonally and from year to year depending on the amount of rainfall, amount oi
evaporation and whether the mouth of the lagoon has been opened to control high water levels.
Opening is presently done mechanically as a flood control measure or to make nesting sites
available for the two endangered bird species present in the lagoon.
Due to the absence of tidal flushing, marine resources which historically occurred in the lagoon and
which require stable marine conditions, are either nonexistent or present only briefly following
opening of the lagoon with the ocean.
In contrast, the lagoon is still capable of providing valuable habitat for resident and migratory bird
populations, including the two endangereuthreatened species. However, even bird populations
vary seasonally and from year to year in response to conditions present in Batiquitos and othei
lagoons in the region.
Most significantly, without some action, the existing bird values of the lagoon will be lost due tc
the continuing filling of the closed lagoon with fine upland sediments and decaying plant and
animal matter produced in the lagoon.
Discussion of Alternatives. ImDacts and Mitinations
The Final EIWEIS presents ten project alternatives, including the no-action alternative, and alsc
discusses a phased approach to project implementation (Final EIWEIS, Section 2, and Projecl
Summary (attached)). The restoration alternatives presented are either fully tidal (lagoon alway open to the ocean), intermittent tidal (lagoon closes unpredictably for varying amounts of time'
nontidal (lagoon normally closed, but opened mechanically for brief periods to control water -
Assessment of project alternatives was based on the ability of an alternative to meet '
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIQL.-iOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJE - A
JULY 18,1990
PAGE 8
objectives and wildlife agency criteria while minimizing long and short-term impacts, including
protection of existing habitat values (see Table 2).
Of the alternatives considered, the fully tidal Mitigated Alternatives A and B most nearly meet the
enhancement objectives while minimizing project impacts.
Most significantly, Mitigated Alternatives A and B would provide continuous tidal influence in the
lagoon while avoiding significant long-term disturbance to existing vegetation and associated
habitats. Tidal flushing is the only recommended means of controlling deposition of fine sediments
and organic matter on the lagoon bottom. Continuous tidal influence is the only means oi
stabilizing environmental conditions in the lagoon for all wildlife resources and the only means tc
re-establish a long-term productive marine environment. Of the two, Mitigated Alternative E
provides a substantially larger intertidal zone with gentle slopes which would likely maximize birc
use. Mitigated Alternative B is the agency-preferred and environmentally preferred alternative (see
Final EIWEIS Summary, Choice of Alternatives).
Additionally, the environmentally preferred construction scheme would involve overdredging the
central basin to create a pit. The fine sediments from the eastern bassin would be placed in the
central basin pit and capped with a portion of the dredged sands. The remainder of the dredgec
central basin sands would be used to consmct the Least Tern nesting areas and to nourish arei
beaches. The sands would be placed at two beach locations: Batiquitos Lagoon beach; and nea
Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Boulevard. Coastal processes will redistribute these sands tc
areas north and south in the littoral cell. This construction scheme is environmentally superioi
because it avoids circulation and air quality impacts associated with trucking dredged materials tc
upland disposal sites. It also avoids possible riparian and archaeological impacts if the eastern bask
fine sediments were deposited in Green Valley (even though those impacts are mitigatable).
Fullv Tidal Alternatives A, B, and C would provide continuous tidal influence, but the dredging
required would significantly disturb existing vegetation and habitat conditions in the lagoon.
Intennittent Alternatives D. E and Mitigated C would allow redevelopment of a marine ecosysten
on a short-term basis, but have a high risk of failure due to the inherent high risk of closure witl
erradication of marine resources.
The Nontidal Alternative (Alternative F and the No-Project Alternative) would result in no short.
term construction impacts, but would not restore marine aquatic resources, and existing values 01
the lagoon would be lost due to filling of the lagoon by fine sediments and organic matter.
Impacts and Mitization Measures
The Final EIWEIS identifies a number of short and long-term impacts associated witl
implementation of the proposed project and project alternatives (see Project Summary, Pg. 10 g sea.) In preparing the Final EIWEIS major effort by the environmental consultant was directec
towards application of mitigation measures to restoration alternatives, and identification of a~
alternative which would be most beneficial to the lagoon in the long term.
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BA'I'IQL - I'OS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJE- II
JULY 18, 1990
PAGE 9
TABLE 2
SIMPLIFIED SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ADWRSE IMPACTS AND ENHANCEMENT OBJEC"
OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
(3 (3 (4 Unavoidable Long-Term Ability to Meet
Tidal Short-Term Adverse Enhancement
Alternative Characteristics Adverse ImDacts ImDacts Obiectives
A Full Tidal - - 10
B Full Tidal - 11
C Full Tidal 11
Mitigated A Full Tidal 0 13
1) Mitigated B Full Tidal 0 13
Mitigated C Intermittent 0 11
Mitigated D Conservancy
Intermittent 9
Mitigated E Managed Inlet Intermittent - - 11
Mitigated F Managed Water
Level Nontidal 0 6
No Action Nontidal 0 2 2) Phased FuU/Intermittent - n.a.
1)
2)
3)
Agency preferred and environmentally preferred alternative
This approach could be applied to all tidal alternatives
Adverse impacts are indicated by a ''-" and no adverse impacts are indicated
"0".
Indicates number of enhancement criteria met by each alternative out of a total (
(see Final EWEIS, Tables S-1, S-4 and S-5). 4)
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIQL -:OS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJE, +'
JULY 18,1990
PAGE 10
The results of the environmental assessment, identifies Mitigated Alternative B, combined with the mi
measures proposed in the Final EIWEIS, as the environmentally preferred restoration alternative
alternative is also the agency preferred plan and is supported by USFWS, NMFS and CDFG.
Even with selection of the agency and environmentally preferred alternative, staff believes that severa
term impacts relating to Biology, Water Quality, Recreation, Circulation and Air Quality which are ass with project construction cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.**
Bioloa
It is anticipated that regardless of a dredge alternative selected, there will be a disruption of the e
substrata inhabited by benthic species and a temporary loss of this food resource to existing bird popu
presently using the lagoon. This impact is considered locally significant and short-term. Following restc
benthic resources lost, would be replaced by marine species which would serve as a dependable, lor
food resource for bird populations. It is expected that recolonization with marine benthic organisi
create a system of similar biomas and food value as that which presently exists.
Water Oualitv
It is anticipated that there will be a significant decline in oxygen levels and an increase in turbidity wid
lagoon during the dredging activity associated with the project construction. While silt curtains I
employed to reduce turbidity to the greatest extent feasible during dredging, this impact is considered
significant and short-term. The long-term, water quality of the lagoon will be enhanced over the e
variable conditions by implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative.
Recreation
It is anticipated that during construction of the tidal inlet structure and placement of nourishment sa
the beaches there will be disruption of beach use in the project area. While beach nourishment woi
restricted to off-season periods to the greatest extent possible, this impact is considered locally significa
short-term. In the long-term, recreational use of the beach will be increased by the beach nouris
program and maintenance dredging program. This impact is also considered less important than the w
benefits that would result from lagoon restoration.
Circulation and Air Ouality
As noted previously, the recommended construction scheme involves deposition of eastern basin fine sedi
into the overdredged central basin. If upland disposal of fine sediments was made a requirement (
project, there would be significant circulation and air quality impacts related to the trucking of fine sedi
to either the San Marcos Landfill or to Green Valley. Since the Green Valley disposal site is adjacent t
lagoon, its use would involve both less disruption to circulation patterns and less vehicular travel re
pollution than use of the landfill. However, implementation of the recommended central basin overd
construction and disposal scheme would avoid these impacts.
** NOTE: All other impacts identified can be reduced to a level of insignificance by the implement
of the mitigation measures contained in the Final EIWEIS.
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIQ~A TOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJELT
JULY 18, 1990
PAGE 11
There have been no feasible measures identified to avoid the above impacts (except circulation and air qui
other than selection of the no project or managed water level alternative. However, as noted above, bo
these alternatives are environmentally inferior to the recommended enhancement alternative. The long
benefits of a stable marine benthic community, increased water quality that is less subject to wide rax
fluctuations, and probable increase of beach use if the beaches are sand nourished, outweigh the short
unavoidable impacts caused by implementation of the Mitigated Alternative B. Therefore, staff has incl
in Resolution No. 3073 a statement of overriding consideration and the findings to support that staten
Areas of Controversy
A number of issues related to public controversy or disagreement among technical experts on the Batiq
Lagoon Enhancement Project were/are identified and discussed in the Draft and Final EIWEIS. (See Er
A Final EIWEIS Project Summary, Pg. S-26). In completing the Final EIWEIS, resolution of issues
attempted in the following ways:
Rescoping of the Draft and Final EIWEIS to address areas of controversy and to respond thoro1
to comments received on the Draft EIWEIS. In many cases, technical issues are discussed in SI
technical appendices which are part of the Final EIWEIS;
Meethgs were held with agencies involved in or providing guidance on the document inch
Informal meetings and field trips were held with commenting agencies including representatives (
USFWS, NMFS, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), SLC and POI
Batiqdtos Lagoon Foundation, Shoreline Study Center; National, Buena Vista and San Diego Aud
Society, League of Women Voters, Pacific Estuarian Research Laboratory and California Cc
Conservancy;
The City contracted with independent consultants to provide peer review of the environm
consultants work as it related to biological and physical resource issues. Their comments
incorporated into the final document;
Selection and use of a design team to meet with the environmental consultant and resource age
to review and evaluate technical engineering and environmental aspects of the project to confin
refine constructability and provide a continuum between environmental and engineering phases t
project should a project be approved; and
Provide public information on the project through public workshops, newsletters and press relc
It is unlikely that the above activities and contents of the Final EIWEIS resulted in resolution of issues.
believes that the areas of controversy and technical issues listed and discussed are significant, the docu
does provide the Planning Commission with adequate information on whether to recommend certificatj
the environmental document and recommend a restoration alternatives to be implemented.
Since closure of the comment period on the Final EIWEIS, a number of residents in the area of the la
have requested that an alternative be implemented which maximizes the amount of water in the lagoc
aesthetic reasons. This would likely include either a nontidal alternative which was kept full year rou
a fully tidal system which included the greatest amount of subtidal habitat (Le, the most water at low
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIQUL~OS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT JULY 18,1990
PAGE 12
From staff’s perspective, wildlife enhancement was the primary goal of the project and should have prec
over aesthetic enhancement. Therefore, selection of a nontidal, big pond alternative for aesthetic re;
unacceptable to the long-term wildlife enhancement of the lagoon. In fact, such an alternative was elir from consideration by USFWS and CDFG due to its inability to provide habitat value for birds. Sele,
Mitigated Alternative A as opposed to Mitigated Alternative B could maximize subtidawater area i
meet many of the enhancement objectives. However, Mitigated Alternative B has been determine
environmentally superior to Mitagated Alternative k Furthermore, depending on aesthetic perspe
could be argued that all tidal alternatives provide aesthetically pleasing vistas relative to existing cor
by providing a daily dynamic combination of water, tidal flats and healthy marsh at low tic
predominately water and marsh at high tide. The subjective incremental increase in aesthetics associat
increased subtidal area does not warrant rejection of Mitigated Alternative B and exclusion of v
intertidal areas of high value to birds.
V. SPECIAL USE PERMlT
Analysis
1.
2.
3.
Does the proposed activity adversely affect the carrying capacity of the areas of special flood h
Have all required state and federal pennits been obtained?
Are the preferred alternatives consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 21.1 10 of the Cz
Municipal Code?
Are the preferred alternatives consistent with the West Batiquitos/Sammis and East Batiquitos
Local Coastal Programs?
Are the preferred alternatives consistent with the various elements of the General Plan and the
and purpose of the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan?
4.
5.
Discussion
1. Adverse Affects On Carrvinn Capacity
The proposed enhancements do not adversely affect the carrying capacity of Batiquitos Lagoon, i
implementation of the project will enhance flow of both water and sediments. As discussed prev
in Section iV of this staff report, the dredging of the lagoon and opening of the lagoon mout
allow tidal action to flush the suspended sediments emanating from Encinitas and San Marcos C
out to sea rather than allowing them to settle and reduce the lagoon’s carrying capacity.
anticipated that without the implementation of dredging, the flood storage capacity of the lagoo
decrease as it is filled with fine sediments and organic matter, which would result in the ne
breach the mouth more frequently to release flood waters.
Acquisition Of Required State And Federal Permits
The proposed alternatives will require a number of permits from various state and federal age
such as the California Coastal Commission, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Because the C
2.
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIQ- A TOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJELT
JULY 18,1990
PAGE 13
Carlsbad is the lead agency on the lagoon enhancement, the City must first approve the pro
project before state and federal permits can be acquired. All necessary applications will be file(
therefore, staff recommends that the intent of this finding has been met.
Consistency With Flooddain Manazement Realations
The intent and purpose of Chapter 21.110, Floodplain Management Regulations, is to promo1
public safety, health and general welfare by minimizing public and private losses due to
conditions in areas of special flood hazard. As discussed previously, the lagoon is rapidly filling
sediments and organic matter which is reducing the extent of avian habitats and increasing th
of flooding. Dredging of the lagoon and opening of the mouth will allow these sediments to
out of the lagoon thus reducing the potential for flooding and breeching of existing flood cc
devices. Only alternatives A, B, and C, and mitigated alternatives A and B achieve the necessaq
flushing to ensure that the flood hazard is sufficiently reduced. The other alternatives d
guarantee a continously open lagoon mouth. The above enhancement alternatives are therefo
only alternatives consistent with the intent and purpose of the floodplain management regulat
Consistencv with the applicable Local Coastal Pronrams
Both the East Batiquitos/Hunt Local Coastal Program and the West Batiquitos/Sammk Local C
Program, when addressing uses and activities permitted in the lagoon, state that the "only uses al
are those consistent with the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Program as approved by the Cali
Coastal Commission ...". Since the Local Coastal Programs refer to a future enhancement progrz
development restrictions, there is consistency between the enhancement which will require C
Commission and Local Coastal Program's.
Consistencv with the General Plan and the amlicable Master Plan
The Open Space Element of the General Plan, when defining the policy on the preservation of n
resources, states that natural resources shall be preserved by "protecting fish, wildlife, and vege
habitats, retaining the natural character of waterways, shoreline features...". The dredging activi
have short term affects on the existing infauna (benthic biota). However, once dredging oper
cease, revitalization of these species will occur rapidly. Of all of the alternatives discussed prevj
only mitigated alternative A and mitigated alternative B provide for the preservation of all wildli
their habitats. The enhanced lagoon, with its tidal flow, will more closely resemble a fully tidal n
lagoon, except that the meandering lagoon mouth is replaced with a fixed, "self-maintaining" ent
The proposed enhancement also provides badly needed sand to local beaches, up to 2 million cubic
depending on the method chosen. This additional beach sand provides for increased recreational pol
on both a local and regional scale.
Another aspect of the enhancement project involves the reconstruction and/or improvement of the
bridges crossing the lagoon at Interstate 5, the ATS&F railroad, and Carlsbad Boulevard. This is con:
with the overall goals and objectives of the Circulation element by providing for and maintaining an ad(
circulation system.
3.
4.
5.
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 - BATIC, - A TOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJbLT
JULY 18,1990
PAGE 14
When addressing the lagoon, the Pacific Rim Countq Club and Resort Master Plan refers to the 1:
enhancement program as "meeting the resorts needs by controlling the odor and ensuring year round H
Since the preferred alternatives would provide these results, the enhancement project is consistent wii
master plan.
summary
In regard to the Environmental Impact Report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3072 recommending certification of EIR 86-5 including:
Selection of Mitigated Alternative B as the project alternative to be implemented;
Selection of a construction scheme that would overdredge the central lagoon, deposit sandy mal
Inclusion of the mitigation monitoring plan and mitigation measure provided as an attach1
Regarding the Special Use Pennit, staff k recommending that the Planning Commission
Selection of Mitigated Alternatives B with the central basin overdredge scheme as the project
Inclusion of findings of overriding consideration for unavoidable short-term impacts in the ru
0
on the beaches, and fill the central lagoon pit with eastern lagoon fine sediments.
0
Resolution No. 3072; and
Resolution No. 3073 recommending approval of SUP 90-9 including;
0
implemented;
0
Biology, Water Quality and Recreation as provided for in Resolution No. 3073.
A'ITACHMENTS
1.
2.
3. Location Map
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3072
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3073
Final EIR 86-5 (Previously distributed)
Summary of Final EIR 86-5 (Previously distributed)
7/90 RtkGW:kd
___._ __
Section 0
MITIGATION MEASURES
MITIGATION PLAN
This mitigation plan is designed to be implemented in conjunction with the mitigatic
monitoring plan presented at the end of this section. Its purpose is to identify mitigi
tion measures that are available for implementation as part of the alternative projec for enhancement of Batiquitos Lagoon.
The mitigation plan describes the measures that will be employed in order to minimi
or eliminate each impact resulting from project implementation. These mitigatic
measures apply to all of the alternatives considered in this Final EIWIS except t!
NO Action Alternative. Modifications to these mitigation measures might be made f
the alternative that is ultimately selected.
The mitigation measures in this plan address the three stages of project constructior
Preconstruction planning and site preparation
Post-construction activities associated with termination of construction
The level of detail of this plan is consistent with the present level of detail of the pr
ect construction plans, which are still being developed. As construction plans are ms
final, site-specific modifications to this plan might be warranted.
As the lead agency, the City of Carlsbad will be responsible for managing implemen
tion of the mitigation plan. The City will exercise its responsibility through a Mitigat
Monitoring Group. The Mitigation Monitoring Group will implement the plan and j
be responsible for its monitoring and documentation in accordance with the mitigat
monitoring plan described in this section of this Final EIFUEIS.
The Draft EIR/EIS identsed significant or potentially significant impacts in nine g
era1 resource areas. Table 4-1 lists the resource areas and summarizes the relevant
pacts. The mitigation measures associated with each impact are identified by numl
in Table 4-1 and described in detail in the text of this plan.
Construction activities
e
4- 1
RCSo~AfdPh8se
STRUrnRES
WATER QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
aNumbers refer to mitigation
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
ERccttvCnaS RaMul Impact
Ddging Impacts on lAlB, The measures essentially No residual impact.
Bridges lC,ID. minimize the chance of
tmw Mltigalhd
23 structural failure.
Hazards to Utilities 4 ?he risk of damage to the No residual impact.
From Beach
Nourishment
Residual impact is Effec~s of Dredging 5-6
on Wata Quality continue to have a localized significant, unavoid- able and short-term.
No raidual impact.
outfall will be minimized.
suspended solids will
impact on water quality.
A nearly constant water Iml
will be maintained in the
Lagoon.
1 Wata bel 7.8
Fluctuations
Impacts From Soil 9.10, Suspended solids will Residual impact is nc
Erosion 11.12 continue to have a localized significant,
impact on water quality. unavoidable, and
shotl -term.
Fuels and Lubricants 13.14, The likelihood of spills of Residual impact is nl
in Lagoon Waten 15,16 fuels and lubricants will be significant.
minimized, as will the impacts
of spills that might occur.
The physical measures taken
to control runoff should significant.
minimize excess turbidity.
Residual impact is nl Nearshorr Ocean 17
Turbidity
Encina WWrp 18 Thcse measures should No residual impact.
Compliance Status eliminate the potential impact
on the Enana Wwrp
compliance status.
outfall will be minimized.
Risk of Encina 4 ' The risk of damage to the No residual impact.
wwrp Outfall
Failure
Fuels and Lubricants lf14, The likelihood of spills of Residual impact is n
in Ocean Waters 15.16 fuels and lubricants will be significant.
minimized, as will the impacts
of spills that might OcQlr.
Equipment Pollutant 19 Compliance with the Air Residual impact is 1
Emissions Pollution Control District significant.
pennit conditions will
minimize the air quality
impacts from pollutant
emissions.
Fugitive Dust m Adherence to these measures Residual impact is i
will minimize fugitive dust significant.
and other particulate matter.
measures described in the tat of this section. p. 1 (
t Table 4-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Mitigation. EncettvtrwEE RcsMlul Impact RcsolvaArdPb.sr Imp.et
FISH AND Loss of coastal salt 21s Salvaging wetlands vegetation Raidual impact is not WILDLIFE Marsh is a new, aperimental significant.
approach; succats is not
guaranteed. To the extent
assful, the impact of
construction on the &
malsh habitat will be minimal.
that tnmsphntatioll is SUC-
Rcsidual impact is not Lagoon Aquatic 5,6 Suspended solids will RCSOW continue to have a local significant and is un- avoidable and short- impact on water quality and
lagoon aquatic resowas. term.
Disturbance of 213, These measures will minimize, Residual impact is not
Lagoon Fauna 243 but not eliminate, impacts of significant and is
construction-rclatcd dis- short-term.
turban=. 'Ihcrr will still be
a signiicant impact on the
wildlife of the lagoon.
2637,. Disturbance of California No residual impact. California Least Tern Disturba~~~ of Nest-
ing Behavior 28,- least tern nesting activities and foraging success should
be minimal.
Loss of Nesting 27,28, The measures'should No residual impact.
Habitat 30,3132 minimize the chana that tern nesting habitat will be
unavailable or unattractive to the terns during any of the
nesting seaso~ls ova the
course of construction.
The aeation of the nesting
sires for terns will mitigate
the loss of existing snowy
plover nesting area and pro-
vide an area of highqualify,
protected nesting habitat.
&Iding's Savannah Disturbance of
spam Nesting Behavior savannah spamrw nesting
No residual impact. Western Snowy Plover Loss of Nesting 31 Habitat
33 Disturbana to Belding's No residual impact.
behavior will be minimii.
21,22 Dredging and grading Raidual impacr is not Loss of Nesting
Habitat disturbana boundaries will significant.
avoid existing picwewced and
other vegetated areas. Lars
of habitat will be small and
should therefore have an
insignificant effect on the
population.
aNumbers refer to mitigation masuns described in the text of this section. Q. 2 Of
F
r_
Table 4-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
ResaorccArtuPhse IUtpwt Mitigation' Eifecttvcness RcsM~l Impact
CULTURAL Loss of Palcontolog- 34 Construction of amss roads NO residual impact.
RESOURCES ical Resources and staging arcas and lagoon dredging should have an
insignificant effect on paieon-
tological TcsouTas.
h of Prehistoric 35 Cadi11 management and No residual impact. and Historic Archae- monitoring of the onsite
minimize the project's
impacts.
ological Resaurca cultural resources will
Residual impact is
Lagoon have an insigmfkant effect on significant, unavoid- able, and short-term.
RECREATION Recreational Use of 3637 Dredging and grading will
regional birhuatching, but a
significant, unmitigated visual
impact will remain.
Beach use 3839 Beach nourishment will not Residual impact is
have a significant impact on
t-~gional beach use or water
sports activity in the South
Carisbad Beach area.
significant, unavoid-
able, and short-term.
No midual impact. Lateral ACIXSS Along 38,40,41 Implementation of the
Beach mitigation mcaSurcS will
significantly reduce the access
issues and provide for
emergency amss along the
beach.
The mitigation will be
related impacts, but will Material and extend the construction residual impact. Repiacing and
Rehabilitating period by 25 to 50 percent, Bridge construction
carisbad Boukvard depending on the number of impads are not
Trucking of dredge TRANSPORTATION Traffic Impact of 42
AND CIRCULATION Truddng Drrdged effective in reducing traffic- materials will have significant short-term
significant.
Residual impact is no Noise Gcnuatuj by 43 Adherence to the noise significant and is Construction
Aaivitia noise impacts, but elevated unavoidable and shor
Bridges trucks used.
compliance plan will reduce
noise lmls from diescl tam.
dredges and trucks cannot be compktely dMnated.
NOISE
PUBLIC HEAU7-I Hazard to Public in 44 Public acceSS to the No residual impact.
AND SAFETY &nstruaion &-cas construction site will be limited, thntby reducing the
potential for threats to pubiic
health and safety.
aNumbm der to mitigation measures described in the text of this section. p. 3 of
b
Table 4-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Raoorct ArtJw.u hp.rt MitigdlOIP EikCUVCXI-S Raldd Impact
Ocean and Lagoon 45,46,47 If lagoon water is con- No residual impact.
Hazards
Wata Quality lamlnatcd, rcltase of the
water from the lagoon to the
Ocean cannot be inhibited and
contamination of local oam
water will occuc. Adhertncc
to the nutigation measurts
wdl dctennme the dent of
and wili protea beacb users.
No residual mpact Restnaron of Lateral 41 Implemtntatioo of the
Access mitigauon mtasura W
signiGcantiy reduce the acccss mues and pmde for
emergency access along the beach.
No -dual unpact. small- safely 48 Thesemeasurcsanll
cffedively dua the
boats. potential hazard to small
No residual impact. Hazardous surf 49 Postmg the area near the
Con&tions Near channel and hfeguard
Jetlies enforament anll reduce the
hadma of unsafe water
activities.
POST- 50.51, The visual and eayonmental No residual mpan CONSTRUCTION 5553 impacts of coostmction
RESTORATION slagng, fuel storage, and AND
VERIFICATION dlmloated.
acccEs ~~tas wll be mually
aNumbm refer to mitigation measures dacnbed in the tat of thls section. p. 4 of
It is anticipated that various resource management agencies may assign additional mi
gative measures to the project as part of their respective permit authorities over actiy
ties associated with project construction. In order to incorporate these potential futu
measures or permit conditions within the following mitigation plan, an Environmeni
Quality Assurance Plan will be prepared. This plan will incorporate the measur
prescribed in this mitigation plan, other measures assigned by permitting agencies, a
other recommended measures suggested by participating agencies during preconstn
tion consultation.
PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND SITE PREPARATION
An important mitigation measure for several resources is the timing of construct
activities to minimize the extent of disruption and to avoid critical time periods (e
California least tern nesting season). Also important is continuous monitoring of c
struction to ensure that significant resource elements are not inadvertently damaged
destroyed (e.g., archaeological sites or specific areas of vegetation). Preconstrucl
mitigation measures will consist of (1) planning meetings attended by the City of C;
bad and the Mitigation Monitoring Group, and (2) preparation of sites where mit tion measures will be employed during construction.
Planning Meetings
Planning meetings will confirm the lines of communication and authority establishec
the monitoring plan; confirm construction schedules developed to minimize impact!
water quality, biota, air quality, and recreational uses; and develop specific procedi
for construction monitoring activities identified in the monitoring plan.
Site Preparation
Site preparation will include delineating areas to be protected during construction
ensuring that staging and construction areas conform to the requirements of this mi
tion plan. Areas to be designated are:
0 Beach Disposal Areas. Engineering field studies and staking Will ide
the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) wastewater o
location, and notices and fencing will be installed to protect public si
Sensitive Areas.
marsh, brackish marsh, woodlands, and identified mitigation areas
are not to be dredged, covered with fill, or disturbed by constru
equipment movements. Areas containing known archaeological and
ontological sites will be located, and approved work areas will be dc
ated onsite.
0 Staking and taping will identify areas of coasta
4-6
0 Construction Zones.
transfer areas will be identified. Topsoil stockpiling techniques will t
developed and implemented, road and staging or storage area surfacc
Will be delineated, and berms, dikes, and retention basin locations will t
determined.
Staging areas, access roads, and fuel storage an
CONSTRUCTION ACI'MTIES
Measures to be followed during project construction will minimize impacts caused 1
equipment operation, removal of existing elements (e.g., soils and vegetation), a1 other alterations to existing conditions (e.g., beach nourishment activities). Some mi
gation measures are used more than once.
Structural Impacts
Impact: Hazards to Bridge Foundations and Gas Pipeline. Dredging around the foc
ings of the three bridges across the lagoon and near the existing gas pipeline under tl
West Basin could threaten the integrity of those structures. Erosion from water mot
ment past newly exposed foundations could also threaten the bridges.
Mitigation
1. Protective measures shall be implemented to minimize the risk of failu
of structures and utilities within the project area. Specific measui
include:
A. The 1-5 bridge foundations shall be protected from erosion
rock protection and liners pursuant to the requirements
Caltrans.
The AT&SF railroad bridge pilings shall be reinforced with late
bracing and the pilings protected pursuant to requirements of t
owner.
The West Carlsbad Boulevard bridge (southbound) shall
replaced.
The East Carlsbad Boulevard bridge (northbound) shall be p
tected from erosion by rock protection and liners pursuant to 1
requirements of the City of Carlsbad.
B.
C.
D.
2. Dredging and construction in the vicinity of the bridges shall be mo
tored and inspected by qualified personnel to provide early warning potential threats to those structures.
4-7
3. Prior to dredging, the existing gas pipeline shall be relocated as necessi to a suitable location.
Effectiveness
These measures will effectively minimize the threat of structural failures and
accidental damage to the bridges and pipeline. No residual significant impac
expected.
Impact: Hazards to Existing Utilities During Beach Disposal.NounshmenL Bei
disposalhourishment activities could rupture or damage the Encina wastewater out
pipe.
Mitigation
4. Deposition and relocation of sand on the beach shall be monitorec
ensure compliance with the guidelines for depth of placement and eq?
ment loads, as established by the final engineering studies. Preconst:
tion staking and fencing around the outfall shall be inspected regular1
ensure proper identification of the outfall location.
Effectiveness
The risk of damage to the outfall will be minimized. No residual signifit
impact is expected because construction activities will be closely monitorec
supervisory personnel.
Water Quality Impacts
Impact: Dredging Effects on Lagoon Water Quality. During lagoon dredging, t'
will be an increase in suspended solids concentrations, which might lower disso
oxygen concentrations and raise turbidity and nutrient concentrations in the lag
These water quality changes could have significant impacts on aquatic organisms, b
and the aesthetic quality of the lagoon. The Central Basin, which will receive fine
and silt from East Basin dredging, will be most affected, whereas the West Basin, p
is mostly sand, will be least affected. The duration of this effect will be limite
periods of project dredging and will cease within a short time after the termhatic
dredging activities. This impact is considered to be short-term.
Mitigation
5. Hydraulic dredging, which produces less suspended solids than mec
cal dredging, shall be employed throughout the lagoon as feasible.
4-8
6. Dredging operations shall employ silt curtains (a sheet of fabric su!
pended from a floating boom) whenever they will effectively reduce el
cess turbidity. Other methods recommended by the U.S. Army Corps c
Engineers to limit sediment resuspension may also be employed (se
Raymond, 1984).
Effectiveness
The impacts on dissolved oxygen and turbidity from dredging will be conside
ably less than would occur without these measures. Low dissolved oxygen an
excess turbidity will not be eliminated, and suspended solids will continue
have an impact on water quality and the appearance of the lagoon. That impa
will be temporary; the water quality will improve upon opening of the tid
inlet. A residual, unavoidable, short-term adverse impact on lagoon wat
quality is expected. This impact is considered significant.
Impact: Lagoon Water Level Fluctuations. Hydraulic dredging involves the pumpii
of dredged material out of the lagoon in a slurry of lagoon water and sediment. TI
could lower the water level in the lagoon and thereby intenslfy changes in wat
quality. Hydraulic dredging of the East Basin might also require raising the water lei
for dredge access. This could inundate existing Belding’s savannah sparrow nesti
habitat.
Mitigation
7. Water levels in the lagoon shall be maintained by pumping seawater ir
the lagoon to replace the water removed in the dredge sluny and, p
sibly, by a water control structure, such as a weir. The required wa level elevations shall be determined in coordination with approprii
resource agencies.
Water levels in the East Basin shall not exceed 6 feet MLLW dur
Belding’s savannah sparrow nesting (March through July).
8.
Effectiveness
This measure will maintain appropriate water levels in the lagoon. NO resid
sigmficantly adverse impact is expected.
t
Impact: Soil Erosion. Slope grading could increase turbidity and dissolved solid:
the lagoon water as a result of surface water runoff or fugitive dust from exposed s(
These increases could adversely affect water quality, birds, aquatic organisms, and visual quality of the lagoon.
4-9
Mitigation
9. The project alternatives currently being considered shall result in a si€
icant area of slopes gentler than 1:lOO. This design element will II
mize the loss of soil from surface runoff.
Because most grading activities will occur during the rainy season, be
shall be built to impound runoff and prevent turbid water from ente
the lagoon. Where sediment-laden runoff from access roads and sta;
pads could enter the lagoon, berms shall be built to impound the w
before it reaches the lagoon shoreline.
As fine a spray of water as possible shall be used to control fugitive (
in order to prevent pooling of water and runoff into the lagoon.
Site-specific erosion control plans shall be prepared for all staging ai
access roads, fuel and storage areas, and other improved areas relate
project construction, and shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad.
10.
11.
12.
Effectiveness
Turbidity from surface water runoff will be reduced considerably below 11
that would occur without these measures. Erosion-related turbidity will be 1
mized; however, other sources of turbidity will continue to have an impac
water quality and the visual quality of the lagoon. The impact will be temp(
and localized near the areas of grading. Residual soil erosion related turl
impacts are not expected to be significant.
Impact: Fuels and Lubricants in Lagoon Waters. The maintenance and operatic
dredging and earthmoving equipment, and the delivery and storage of the nece
fuels and lubricants, could result in accidental introduction of fuel and lubricants
the lagoon waters.
Mitigation
13. The construction contractor shall develop a site spill prevention and
tingency plan and shall submit the plan to the City of Carlsbad f0
proval prior to the start of construction.
Construction equipment shall be maintained and operated to preve
and fuel leaks. To ensure that accidental leaks and spills do not SI
within the lagoon, dredges that are being fueled shall be surround
containment booms, and tracked and wheeled vehicles shall be f
and lubricated only in designated fuel storage and transfer sites.
14.
4- 10
-
15. All storage and transfer sites for fuels and lubricants shall be surrounde
by bems capable of containing the entire volume being stored, shall b
paved with an appropriate surface to prevent spills from contaminatin
local groundwater, and shall have adequate cleanup facilities onsite.
The construction contractor shall develop and receive approval fro
appropriate agencies for a traffic control plan for the delivery of fue
and lubricants to the construction site.
16.
Effectiveness
Proper storage, maintenance, and Operations procedures will minimize the like
hood of spills of fuels and lubricants, and implementation of the contingen
plan is expected to minimize the risk and impact of accidental spills that mig
occur. Residual impacts are not expected to be sigmticant.
Impact: Nearshore Ocean Turbidity. Dewatering of beach nourishment material c01
increase the turbidity of nearshore Ocean water.
Mitigation
17. Sand and cobble dikes and berms around the sand discharge area sh
be used as a means of controlling the direct discharge of suspended fi
sediments into the ocean. Other measures required by the Califor
Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be implemented.
Effectiveness
The measures taken to control runoff will minimize excess turbidity in occ
waters. Residual effects on ocean turbidity are short-term and are not expec
to be significant.
Impact: Encina WWTP Compliance Status. Increased nearshore turbidity could af
the Encina WWTP’s monitoring program and permit compliance status. Baseline (
ditions have been established by the WWTP’s existing long-term water quality monj
ing program.
Mitigation
18. Suspended solids concentrations in the nearshore ocean shall be m
tored during beach nourishment operations. Deviations from the b
line conditions that can be attniuted to the nourishment operation :
be documented.
4-1 1
Effectiveness
These measures will account for the potential impact on the Encina WWTP
compliance status. No residual significant effect is expected.
Impact: Risk of Encina WWTP Outfall Pipe Failure. Breaching the Encina wast
water outfall pipe by project construction equipment might result in the discharge
effluent that could degrade nearshore ocean water quality.
Mitigation
4. Deposition and relocation of sand on the beach shall be monitored
ensure compliance with the guidelines for depth of placement and equ
ment loads as established by the final engineering studies.
Effectiveness
The risk of damage to the outfall, and hence to water quality, will be m
mized. No residual significant effect is expected.
Impact: Fuels and Lubricants in Ocean Waters. Operation of earthmoving equipm
could result in the introduction of fuel and lubricants to the beach and nearshore oc
waters.
Mitigation
13. The construction contractor shall develop a site spill prevention and I
tingency plan, and shall submit the plan to the City of Carlsbad for
proval prior to the start of construction.
Construction equipment shall be maintained and operated to preven
and fuel leaks. To ensure that leaks and spills do not reach the bl
and ocean, tracked and wheeled vehicles shall be fueled and lubric
only in designated storage and transfer sites.
All storage and transfer sites for fuels and lubricants shall be paved
surrounded by berms capable of containing the entire volume t
stored to prevent spills from contaminating the beach and ocean w
and they shall have adequate cleanup facilities onsite. All transfe
fuels and lubricants shall occur in these sites.
The construction contractor shall develop and receive approval
appropriate agencies for a traffic control plan for the delivery of
and lubricants to the construction site.
14.
15.
16.
4-12
Effectiveness
Proper storage, maintenance, and operations procedures will minimize the like
hood of spills of fuels and lubricants and will minimize the risk and impact
spills that do occur. Residual impacts are not expected to be significant.
Air Quality
Impact: EQuipment Air Emissions. Air emissions (exhaust) will be generated by cc
struction equipment such as diesel-fueled pumps and dredges, generators, graders, i
workers’ vehicles.
Mitigation
19. The project Will be required to obtain an Authority to Construct Per
and other required permits from the San Diego County Air Pollut
Control District (SDAPCD). The permit process will identify the p:
ect’s potential air pollution sources and will include recommendations
control technology to achieve compliance with regulations of
SDAPCD and applicable air quality standards. Specific mitigation mi ures required by the SDAPCD will be incorporated into the project.
Effectiveness
Compliance with the SDAPCD’s permit conditions will minimize the air qui
impacts from pollutant emissions. Residual impacts are not expected ta
significant.
Impact: Fugitive Dust Emissions. Construction activities will generate fugitive du!
the project vicinity.
Mitigation
20. Onsite fugitive dust shall be controlled through the use of the folb
techniques:
e Access roads shall be covered with compacted gravel or anc
Unpaved construction areas shall be adequately watered to co
Vehicle wheels shall be washed to prevent tracking of mud oj
appropriate surface.
e
dust.
e
4- 13
Any stockpiled-soils or materials shall be covered with a suitat vegetation or synthetic cover.
Effectiveness
Adherence to these measures will minimize fugitive dust and other particulz
matter. Residual impacts are not expected to be significant.
Fish and Wildlife
Impact: Loss of Coastal Salt Marsh. Existing areas of coastal salt marsh (picklewe1
would be disrupted as a result of construction.
Mitigation
21. Areas of existing vegetated wetlands shall be avoided to the grea
extent feasible during project construction, and construction shall
disturb more than 10 acres of vegetated wetlands.
A wetlands restoration specialist, acceptable to CDFG and USEWS
approved by COE, shall attempt to salvage the vegetation (prim
pickleweed) on the project-affected areas of coastal salt marsh that k
been dredged, graded, or otherwise directly disturbed by project const
tion activities, and then transplant the plant materials to suitable area
make them available to other parties capable of transplanting them. '
techniques to be used shall be developed by wetlands restoration
tractors and scientists in consultation with participating agencies
section titled Mitigation Monitoring Plan, below). Stockpiling F
materials might be necessary to coincide with the completion of dred and grading.
22.
Effectiveness
To the extent that transplantation is successful, the short-term impact of
struction on the marsh and the associated bird fauna will be minimized;
ever, a short-term impact resulting from disturbing up to 10 acres of vege'
wetland is unavoidable. This impact is not considered to be signific
adverse.
Impact: Turbidity Impacts on Aquatic Resources. Construction will cause water 1
ity impacts in the lagoon, such as increased turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen,
changes in salinity. Turbidity can affect aquatic animals by clogging feeding and I
ratov systems and can affect aquatic plants (algae and vascular plants) by reducin
amount of available light. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the vicinity of the dl
might be reduced by the oxygen demand of newly exposed sediments.
4- 14
Mitigation
5. Hydraulic dredging, which produces less suspended solids than does mc
chanical dredging, shall be employed throughout the lagoon as feasible.
Dredging operations shall employ silt curtains (a sheet of fabric su
pended from a floating boom) whenever they will effectively reduce e:
cess turbidity. Other methods recommended by the U.S. Army Corps (
Engineers to limit sediment resuspension may also be employed (se
Raymond, 1984).
6.
Effectiveness
Water quality impacts from dredging will be reduced considerably below wh
would occur without these measures. Low dissolved oxygen and excess turbid]
will not be eliminated, and poor water quality might continue to have an impa
on existing aquatic resources and the wildlife that use them. This impact will 1
short-term and localized near the area of dredging; the water quality will i~
prove upon opening of the tidal inlet. This impact is not considered to be si@
ficantly adverse because the existing aquatic species and infauna will be subje
to removal upon restoration of tidal action and the reintroduction of man
water to the lagoon. The removal of these species is unavoidable.
Impact: Disturbance of Lagoon Fauna. The noise, vibration, and activjty of hums
and machines will have an adverse effect on some of the lagoon’s animals, nota’ vertebrates. Sensitive birds might be discouraged from using the areas of the lagoon
and near construction activities. In particular, the potential exists for the disruption
nesting activities by birds.
Mitigation
21. Areas of existing vegetated wetlands shall be avoided to the great
extent feasible during project construction, and construction shall I
disturb more than 10 acres of vegetated wetlands.
Lights located on equipment or on project lands shall be shaded E
directed to specific work areas. Stray light to nonwork areas shall
minimized by shading.
Construction equipment and personnel shall be confined to the stag
areas and active construction areas, and all staging areas and aa
roads shall be as small as feasible. Construction-related access ro
shall have locked gates to discourage public access.
23.
24.
4-15
25. Designation of access routes shall be included in the final design drawil and must be approved by CDFG and USFWS.
Effectiveness
These measures will minimize, but not eliminate, impacts of construction-rela
disturbances. There will still be a short-term, temporary impact on sensit
wildlife in the lagoon. Residual impacts are not expected to be significant.
Impact: Disturbance of Nesting Behavior of California Least Tern. California le tern nesting activities in the lagoon could be disrupted by construction-related noise ;
activity. Construction-generated water quality impacts in the lagoon and nearsh
ocean could affect foraging success by reducing visibility. The abundance of fish cc
be affected by dredging and grading activities.
Mitigation
26. NO pile driving associated with bridge construction or upgrades s
occur during the California least tern breeding and nesting season (A
to August). Temporary fences and barriers on the landward side of
sites shall be erected around nesting sites before April; the design, 1(
tion and placement of these structures shall be approved by appropr
resource agencies. All temporary structures shall be removed a
August.
A qualified California least tern biologist, approved by CDFG
USFWS, shall monitor and manage the California least tern ppule
and sites in Batiquitos Lagoon during the nesting season. The biolc
shall coordinate the Mitigation Monitoring Group and shall:
A.
27.
Monitor nesting and fledgling success of least terns in Batiqi
Lagoon.
Provide an education program for construction crews as to
identity of the least tern and their nests, restricted areas and a
ities, actions to be taken if least terns are found outside the d
nated least tern nesting sites, and trash control.
Provide for predator control, as required, prior to and durinf
least tern nesting season during the construction period.
B.
C.
4- 16
28. If California least tern nests are found outside the designated nest
sites, all work in the immediate area shall be halted, and the least tc
biologist shall be notified immediately. An appropriate buffer zone i
protection shall be specified by the biologist in coordination with CD and USFWS.
During the construction period, an area of the lagoon at least equal
the size of the West and Central Basins shall be available and suitable
foraging by the least tern between April 1 and September 1. Breach
of the lagoon, or other acceptable means of introducing Ocean watei
the foraging area, shall be carried out prior to each nesting season.
29.
Effectiveness
Scheduling the dredging and grading activities to avoid the nesting season, E
tinuous monitoring of nesting colonies, reducing turbidity effects, and mainti
ing relatively constant water levels will minimize the disturbance to Calif01
least tern nesting activities and effects on foraging success. No residual imp; are anticipated.
Impact: Loss of Nesting Habitat for California Least Tern. The two sites curre
used by California least terns will be removed by dredging (the west site) and grac
(the east site), and three of the five nesting sites to be created might be used as a c
struction staging area for part of the construction phase.
Mitigation
30. A minimum of 20 acres of California least tern nesting sites shall
constructed and available for nesting between April 1 and Septembe These sites shall include one or both of the sites located in the V
Basin. Least tern nesting sites may be released for other tempo
construction-related uses prior to September 1 if nesting activity
ceased and upon concurrence of CDFG and USFWS.
The loss of existing nesting areas shall be mitigated by the creation
minimum of 32 acres of nesting area above 10.0 feet MLLW in five s
each with side slopes no steeper than 1:lO. Use of any of these sites
construction purposes shall not occur during the nesting season. Be
the nesting season starts, all construction equipment and mater
berms, vegetation, and construction surfaces shall be removed, and
site shall be covered with suitable material to a depth specified by CL
and USFWS.
The California least tern nest sites shall be constructed in a manne
ensure proper dewatering so that subsequent subsidence and sur
31.
32.
4-17
-
cracking does not occur, and so that the site can withstand maintenan,
vehicle loads.
Effectiveness
Adherence to the schedule, as well as restoration of the sites used as stagi
areas, will minimize the possibility that tern nesting habitat will be unavailable
unattractive to the terns during any of the nesting seasons over the course
construction. No residual impacts are anticipated.
Impact: Loss of Nesting Habitat of Western Snowy Plover. The western snowy ploy
is a species of special concern discussed in the draft EIR/EIS. Its nesting habitat in 1 East Basin might be removed by grading.
Mitigation
31. The loss of exkting nesting areas shall be mitigated by the creation c
Inhimurn of 32 acres of nesting area above 10.0 feet MLLW in five si
each with side slopes no steeper than 1:lO. Use of any of these sites
construction purposes shall not occur during the nesting season. Bei
the nesting season starts, all construction equipment and mater
berms, vegetation, and construction surfaces shall be removed, and
site shall be covered with suitable material to a depth specified by CT
and USFWS.
Effectiveness
The creation of the nesting sites for terns will mitigate the loss of existing sn plover nesting areas and will provide an area of high-quality, protected nel
habitat. No residual impacts are anticipated.
Impact: Disturbance of Nesting Behavior of Belding’s Savannah Sparrow. Beld
savannah sparrow nesting activities, located primarily in the coastal salt marsh ha of the East Basin, might be disturbed by project construction activities associated
lagoon dredghg. Such disturbance could interfere with the breeding and nesting
cess of this species.
Mitigation
33. Dredging activities taking place in the East Basin during the nc
season of this species (March through July) shall not occur v
100 feet of coastal marsh vegetation capable of supporting, breedir nesting BeIding’s savannah sparrows.
4-18
Effectiveness
The establishment of a 100-foot-wide buffer zone will effectively reduce tl
potential for disturbing Belding’s savannah sparrows during breeding and nestir
season. No residual adverse impacts and anticipated.
Impact. LOSS of Habitat for Belding’s Savannah Sparrow. Belding’s savannah spz
rows currently use the pickleweed stands and shrubby hillsides in the Batiquitos Lagoc
study area. Some areas of pickleweed would be disrupted as a result of constructioi
Mitigation
21. Areas of existing vegetated wetlands shall be avoided to the great extent feasible during construction, and construction shall not disti
more than 10 acres of vegetated wetlands.
A wetlands restoration specialist, approved by CDFG and USEWS, SI
attempt to salvage the pickleweed on project-affected areas and tra
plant the plant materials to suitable areas that have been dredg
graded, or otherwise directly disturbed by project construction activitii
22.
Effectiveness
To the extent that transplantation is successful, the short-term impact of c
struction on Belding’s savannah sparrow habitat will be minimized; a short-tt
impact resulting from disturbing up to 10 acres of pickleweed-dominated vegc
tion is unavoidable. This impact is not considered significant because the ax
to be affected were not heavily used by sparrows in the past.
Cultural Resources
Impact: bss of Paleontological Resources. Construction of access roads and sta:
areas and dredging in the lagoon could disturb or destroy potentially significant palc tological resources.
Mitigation
34. A paleontologic resource management program shall be developed
qualified paleontologist. The program will be based on the final t
neering and ground staking of construction locations, combined with
surveys where potential impacts on highly sensitive areas might O(
The following measures shall be included in the program:
Any ground-disturbing activities that occur in the areas unde
by formations of moderate or high importance, or that occ
4- 19
the immediate-vicinity of a known fossil site (SDSNH Site 33(
shall be monitored. Areas of importance shall be designated
use of the maps developed by Engineering Science (Lander, O(
ber 1988).
If currently unidentified fossil remains are detected during grou
disturbing activities, these activities shall be halted or dire( away from the remains. A qualified paleontologkt shall be s
moned to direct their prompt collection and removal.
Effectiveness
With implementation of these measures, the construction of access roads, sta
areas, and lagoon dredging should avoid any significant impacts on paleontol
cal resources. No residual impacts are anticipated.
Impact: Disturbance of Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources. Thc
chaeological survey for the Draft EWEIS identified 14 previously recorded sites
two potential sites in or adjacent to the project area. Construction of access roads
staging areas, dredging of lagoon basins, and beach nourishment could disturb 01
stroy the resource value of these sites.
Mitigation
35. Prior to construction, a detailed study of the project area shall be
ducted. Key elements shall include:
Formal recording of reported sites that will be affected, bast
final project design.
b Determination of the boundary of identified cultural resource
in the immediate vicinity of the project where proposed @C
disturbing activity will occur, with sufficient data to assess hol
tal dimensions and formulate a cultural resource manage
plan.
Resource avoidance is the primary mitigation measure employed tc
tect cultural resources. Where resource avoidance is not feasibie,
tional measures shall be applied that adequately document the I
and data potential of each site as determined by a qualified archaec
monitoring site activities.
In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are 1(
during project construction, all work potentially affecting the re
shall be halted while the resource is evaluated. If the discovered rf
4-20
are found to be signlfjcant, site-specific mitigation plans shall be deve
oped by a qualified archaeologist.
Effectiveness
These measures will effectively avoid or minimize potential project impacts o
cultural resources. No residual impacts are anticipated.
Recreation
Impact: Temporary Disruption of Recreational Use of the Lagoon. Dredging ai
grading will have visual and noise impacts on the natural setting enjoyed by recreation
users of Batiquitos Lagoon. Birdwatching, in particular, might be adversely affected *
the noise and activity of construction.
Mitigation
36.
37.
Construction equipment shall have noise suppressors.
A public information and education program shall be developed to I
form the public about the enhancement project, the construction sche
ule, and other related activities. The information program may inch
publication of brochures, news releases to local media, posting of signs
the lagoon and beach vicinity, and telephone access between the pub
and the environmental monitor (see Mitigation Monitoring Plan, belc
for questions and observations about the project.
Effectiveness
Dredging and grading will have an insignificant short-term impact on re@
birdwatching, but a significant, short-term, unmitigated visual impact j
remain. Residual short-term visual impacts (i.e., water turbidity) are expected
be significant and unavoidable, but will diminish after project construction.
Impact Temporary Disruption of Beach Use. Beach nourishment activities at Bi
quitos and Encina Beaches will interfere with beach use and water sports. The n
beaches might alter the local wave climate for surfing and beach use. Beach us(
swimmers, and surfers will be restricted from the tidal inlet structure area and WP
intake structure during construction and maintenance dredging.
Mitigation
38. A public infomation and education program shall be developed to
form the public about the enhancement project, the construction sch
de, and other related activities. The information program may incl
4-2 1
publication of brochures, news releases to local media, posting of sign
the lagoon and beach vicinity, and telephone access between the pu
and the environmental monitor (see Mitigation Monitoring Plan, bell
for questions and observations about the project.
Sand placement on Batiquitos and Encina Beaches shall be concentrz
during the fall and winter (October through March), when beach us
lowest; this construction schedule will avoid the peak-use sez
(summer).
39.
Effectiveness
Beach nourishment activities will not have a significant impact on regional bi
use or water sports activities in the Carlsbad Beach area, and will be Mte
a local, temporary short-term impact. Disturbance to beach recreation dl
construction is unavoidable.
Impact. Restriction of Lateral Access Along Beach. Lateral access along the beac
the water's edge) will be permanently eliminated by installation of the inlet struct
Mitigation
40. Inlet construction and routine maintenance dredging shall occur ii
fall or winter to minimize the number of people affected by these a
ties.
Lateral access shall be provided by a new footbridge, with emer:
vehicle capability, over the inlet structure, or by an extension on the
ing bridge structure, or by convenient access to the highway from
sides of the inlet.
41.
Effectiveness
Implementation of the mitigation measure will reduce the access restrictioI!
provide for emergency access along the beach. Future access along the
will require use of the pedestrian bridge over the inlet. No residual lonl
impact is expected.
Transportation and Circulation
Impact: Traffic Impacts from Trucking of Dredged Material and Carlsbad Bou
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation. Transportation and circulation impac
occur if the dredged material disposal option of trucking dredged materials fro
lagoon is selected. All other disposal options require limited vehicle movemei
therefore, have no significant transportation and circulation impacts.
4-22
The transport option would create a significant traffic impact on roadways along tl truck route, especially if hauling occurs during peak traffic periods. The duration of tl
impact would extend approximately 6 months and would depend on dredge phasiE
the number of trucks used in a shift, and the quantity of materials to be disposed.
Traffic circulation on Carlsbad Boulevard might become congested during the replac
ment and rehabilitation of the West and East Carlsbad Boulevard bridge(s).
Mitigation
42. A traffic safety plan for truck travel along the haul route and for cc
struction activities associated with replacement and rehabilitation of t
West and East Carlsbad Boulevard bridge(s) shall be developed in cc
sultation with appropriate agencies. The program might include t
following elements:
4 Signalization of intersections
4 Traffic control personnel
4 Appropriate signage
b Cleanup of dredge material spills
Effectiveness
These mitigation measures will reduce truck transport and traffic circulati
impacts, but truck travel on roadways still might interfere with normal vehicu travel. The residual, effects associated with trucking of dredge materials i
considered significant because they might create local traffic congestion a
delays. This impact is considered to be of a short-term nature.
Circulation and traffic effects associated with bridge construction are considei
not significant.
Noise
Impact: Noise Generated by Project Construction Activities. The use of diesel-dri7
dredges would increase local noise levels. Noise policy guidelines would be exceedec
the short term. Occasional long-term noise impacts would be caused by maintenai
dredging of the West Basin channel. Dredging of material from the Central Basin i
require the use of pumping equipment to move the material to the beach nourishm
site, and loaders to place the material on the beach after pumping. If dredged mat(
als are trucked to onshore disposal sites, sensitive receptors might be affected beca
of the need for staging areas for truck loading. In addition, trucks along the haul ro
would increase noise levels.
4-23
Mitigation
43. Noise impacts from project construction and inlet maintenance activi
shall be mitigated by the same technology used for major construct
projects located within the city. Techniques to achieve this complia
may include, but are not limited to:
Limited operation hours
Acoustical enclosures for engines to limit dredge operating nc
levels to 90 dBA as measured 3 feet from the source
0 Use of exhaust silencers
Berms or walls around staging areas
A limit on the number of dredges in the Central Basin 1
minimum number in order to minimize noise generation
Noise mitigation specifications shall be included in bid documents and/or
pared during final project design.
Effectiveness
Adherence to noise mitigation measures would reduce noise impacts,
elevated noise levels from diesel dredges, pumps, and truck travel canno
completely eliminated. The residual construction-related noise im
constitutes a local, short-term, insi@cant effect on sensitive noise recel
and would not exceed a 3 dBA (CNEL) level increase above ambient I
levels. The residual noise impact from inlet maintenance constitutes a SI
term, periodic effect that is not considered signrficantly adverse.
Public Health and Safety
Impact: Hazards to Public in Construction Areas. Construction of the tidal inIe
channel will require the operation of heavy equipment in the project area; this ac
could cause a public safety risk during the construction period. Beach nourishmen
calls for the installation of a hydraulic pipeline and use of grading equipment d
sand disposal. The two sites will be active construction zones during placemen
might pose safety threats to beach users.
4-24
Mitigation
44. Public access to the tidal inlet and jetty area shall be limited durin
construction. This shall be accomplished by posting signs and fencing th
area to prevent access into secured areas.
Effectiveness
Public access to construction and staging sites will be limited, thereby minimkin
potential public health and safety impact. No residual impact is expected.
Impact: Ocean and Lagoon Water Quality Hazards. Sewer line leaks have affecte
water quality in Batiquitos Lagoon in the past. Should a similar leak occur during pro
ect construction, sewage-contaminated water could be present in the lagoon and drai
to the Ocean following opening of the lagoon tidal channel. This would be a short-ter
impact affecting local water quality and public use of the local beach.
Mitigation
45. Prior to lagoon opening, lagoon water samples shall be taken and an
lyzed for total and fecal coliform concentrations.
If receiving water coliform criteria are exceeded, signs warning of possit
short-term health hazards due to discharge of lagoon water shall 1
posted near the inlet and on adjacent beaches. Local waters will 1
sampled and tested by a qualified laboratory to determine whether wat
near the beaches is contaminated.
Continued testing shall be conducted until the water quality is acceptat
for body contact use. Notification of any water quality hazard shall
made to responsible public health and water quality officials.
46.
47.
Effectiveness
If the lagoon water is contaminated and release of the water from the lagoon
the ocean during construction cannot be prevented, contamination of local oce water might occur. Adherence to the mitigation measures will determine 1
extent of contamination and will protect public health. No residual effecl
expected.
Impact: Restriction of Lateral Access. The new inlet structures will restrict late
access along the beach and, possibly, access to the end of the jetties, thus restricting j
movement of emergency personnel, vehicles, and lifeguards.
4-25
Mitigation
41. Lateral access shall be provided by a new footbridge, with emerge] vehicle capability, over the inlet structure, or by an extension on the ex
hg bridge structure, or by convenient access to the highway from bc
sides of the inlet. Access to the end of the jetties will not be restricted
the project is currently designed.
Effectiveness
Implementation of the mitigation measures will significantly reduce the acc
impacts and provide for emergency access along the beach. No residual im~
is expected.
Impact: Small-Craft Safety Hazards. Small boats might attempt to use the unn
gable channel inlet for access to the lagoon from the ocean.
Mitigation
48. The U.S. Coast Guard, Aids to Navigation Branch, shall be consu
and an approved method to post and restrict entrance to the inlet !
be implemented.
Effectiveness
Adherence to the mitigation measure will reduce the potential hazard to s
boats. No residual impact is expected.
Impact: Hazardous Surf Conditions Near Tidal Inlet. Potentially dangerous swim1
and surf conditions near the tidal inlet might occur because of strong currents a1 rocky shoreline.
Mi tigation
49. Water recreation near the channel shall be restricted by proper PC
near the channel.
Effectiveness
Posting the area near the channel and lifeguard enforcement will reduct
incidence of unsafe water activities. No residual impact is expected.
4-26
POST-CONSTRUCllON ACrrVITlES
Post-construction mitigation will consist of measures to allow areas disturbed by shor
term construction activities to be restored to conditions approximating their naturi
states. These measures will help to ensure that the mitigation measures that wer
employed during construction are effective and will determine whether further action
required. Sites used as staging areas, access roads, and fuel storage and transfer are;
shall be restored to the original conditions.
The following mitigation measures shall be implemented.
50. Construction Staging Area Restoration. Staging areas shall be regrade
to original contours, except for the areas to be converted to Califom
least tern nesting sites and to permanent maintenance access for CDF
personnel. Any artificial surfacing and temporary erosion control m
terials shall be removed, disposed in suitable locations, and replaced
soil cover appropriate to the area (sand at the beach sites, sand and sh
at the nesting sites, lagoon soils at the other lagoon sites). Soil modific
tion and revegetation shall be performed prior to completion of s
restoration activities, with soil additives and plant species selected
consultation with the CDFG.
51. Access Road Restoration. Artificial surfacing and temporary erosil
control materials shall be removed, disposed in suitable locations, a
replaced by appropriate soil cover. The road areas shall be graded
conform to the natural contours of the surroundings. Upland areas sh
be revegetated with appropriate native species; tidal areas shall be
lowed to revegetate naturally.
Fuel Storage Area Restoration. Berms, dikes, and artificial surfacing sh
be removed and disposed in suitable locations. The areas shall be test
for contamination. If no remedial action is necessary, the areas shall
regraded, covered with stockpiled topsoil, given soil additives, and 1 planted with appropriate native vegetation. If remedial action is ir
cated, post-construction mitigation shall include site cleanup.
52.
53. Inspection and Certification. All post-construction mitigation measu
shall receive final inspection and certification of completion by the CitJ
Carlsbad. Field testing might be required to assure project completic
Effectiveness
With implementation of these measures, no residual impact is expected.
4-27
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
INTRODUCTION
This mitigation monitoring plan provides a means of monitoring and documenting
effectiveness of the mitigation measures outlined in the mitigation plan for the Bq
quitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. This plan was prepared to comply with the prc
sions of AB 3180, which requires public agencies to monitor the implementation of
mitigation measures identified in EIRs and to document the progress of their mitigat
efforts.
The plan's objectives are:
0 Establish a framework for supervising and monitoring the implementa
Provide a mechanism for initiating corrective action if mitigation n
Ensure that both the implementation of mitigation measures and
of planned mitigation measures
e
sures are deficient or not implemented properly
e
outcome of corrective actions are fully documented
To achieve these objectives, this plan identifies the parties responsible for monitc
(the Mitigation Monitoring Group), along with their lines of authority and commuI
tion, the monitoring procedures to be followed, and the procedures, forms, and sc
ules for documenting and reporting the monitoring results.
This monitoring plan shall be implemented in conjunction with the mitigation mea!
identified in the mitigation plan, ie., those measures associated with actual pr
construction. It does not include the long-term biological and physical monitoring
which is contained in Appendix A.
Detailed monitoring procedures and schedules cannot be described until the deta
the project design are finalized, this document presents a description of activitie
which the environmental monitor would be responsible. The final monitohg plm
be established by the City of Carlsbad, the environmental consultant, and the cons
tion manager, in consultation with the permitting and resource agencies, durinl
final design and preconstruction planning phase of the project.
MONITORING GROUP
The Mitigation Monitoring Group will consist of five parties:
e Representative of the City of Carlsbad
e Construction manager
4-28
0 Construction contractor
0 Environmental consultant
0 Environmental monitor
The Mitigation Monitoring Group will be responsible for ensuring that the mitigati
measures identified in the mitigation plan are implemented, for documenting that th
are completed, and for reporting the activities of the group to the parties interested
this project. Most of the mitigation measures will directly involve the environmen
monitor, construction manager, and construction contractor. Some measures v
involve the environmental consultant and various technical specialists (for examF
paleontologists, archaeologists, California least tern biologist, and water qua
laboratory services).
As the lead agency, the City of Carlsbad will be responsible for the management i
activities of the Mitigation Monitoring Group (Figure 4-1). The Port of LQS Ange
as the project sponsor, and appropriate resource agencies will provide advisory con!
tation services to the monitoring group as needed or required by the mitigation pl
The City will have agreements with and will supervise the construction manager,
environmental consultant, and the environmental monitor.
The construction manager will be responsible for ensuring that the construction c
tractor is aware of and responsive to the requirements of the mitigation plan and
other conditions imposed on project construction by individual federal, state, or IC
permitting agencies. The construction manager will serve as liaison between the c
struction contractor, the City, and the environmental monitor and will be respons
for initiating any Conective actions requiring the use of construction equipment or ]
sonnel. The construction manager, or designated site representative, retains
authority to terminate or modify construction activities in response to recommendat1
of the other members of the Mitigation Monitoring Group.
The construction contractor will be responsible for ensuring that construction per!
nel, including subcontractors, understand their responsibility to not@ the construc
contractor and the environmental monitor of unexpected events and discoveries.
construction contractor will instruct the construction personnel of the role and authc
of the environmental monitor.
The environmental consultant will provide overall management services for the m
toring program and will be under direct contract with the City of Carlsbad. The e
ronmental consultant will be responsible for providing the environmental monitor
logistical support and additional resources in terms of technical specialists and ec
ment as needed. The environmental consultant will also advise and assist the Cit
issues that might arise regarding the implementation or monitoring of rnitig2
measures.
4-29
As the lead agency, the City of Carlsbad will be responsible for the management ar
activities of the Mitigation Monitoring Group (Figure 4-1). The Port of Los Angele
as the project sponsor, and appropriate resource agencies will provide advisory cons1
tation sewices to the monitoring group as needed or required by the mitigation pla
The City will have agreements with and will supervise the construction manager, ti
environmental consultant, and the environmental monitor.
The construction manager will be responsible for ensuring that the construction cc
tractor is aware of and responsive to the requirements of the mitigation plan and a
other conditions imposed on project construction by individual federal, state, or lo(
permitting agencies. The construction manager will serve as liaison between the cc
struction contractor, the City, and the environmental monitor and will be responsil
for initiating any corrective actions requiring the use of construction equipment or p
sonnel. The construction manager, or designated site representative, retains 1
authority to terminate or modify construction activities in response to recommendatic
of the other members of the Mitigation Monitoring Group.
The construction contractor will be responsible for ensuring that construction perst
nel, including subcontractors, understand their responsibility to notify the construct
contractor and the environmental monitor of unexpected events and discoveries. 7
construction contractor will instruct the construction personnel of the role and autha
of the environmental monitor.
The environmental consultant will provide overall management services for the mc
toring program and will be under direct contract with the City of Carlsbad. The e
ronmental consultant will be responsible for providing the environmental monitor 1
logistical support and additional resources in terms of technical specialists and eql
ment as needed. The environmental consultant will also advise and assist the Ciq
issues that might arise regarding the implementation or monitoring of mitiga
measures.
The environmental monitor will be provided by the environmental consultant, but
be an independent element of the monitoring group under direct contract to the Ci1
Carlsbad. Individuals serving as the environmental monitor will have backgrounc
environmental science and experience in terrestrial and wetlands field biology. M
tors Will receive training by professional archaeologists and paleontolo@sts to en
their familiarity with paleontological and archeological resources. Because the env
mental monitor will have the daily responsibility for implementation of the Mitigi
Monitoring Plan, the organization of the monitoring group vests the environmc
monitor with broad authority to initiate action and with the obligation to commun
extensively with the group. The environmental monitor will be responsible fa
routine documentation of monitoring activities. The City of Carlsbad will then bl
sponsible for providing periodic reports to the responsible agencies and the pr
sponsor.
4-30
1-11-11
- Line of AUmority and Communication - - - - Line of Communication
FIGURE 4-1
Organization of Mitigation Monitoring
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
’ ENHANCEMEM PROJECT ElRlElS
Cty of Carbbad US. Army Corps of Engineers
4-3 1
The environmental monitor will be provided by the environmental consultant, but w
be an independent element of the monitoring group under direct contract to the City
Carlsbad. Individuals serving as the environmental monitor will have backgrounds
environmental science and experience in terrestrial and wetlands field biology. Mor
tors will receive training by professional archaeologists and paleontologists to ensu
their familiarity with paleontological and archeological resources. Because the enviro
mental monitor will have the daily responsibility for implementation of the Mitigatic
Monitoring Plan, the organization of the monitoring group vests the environmen’
monitor with broad authority to initiate action and with the obligation to communia
extensively with the group. The environmental monitor will be responsible for t
routine documentation of monitoring activities. The City of Carlsbad will then be
sponsible for providing periodic reports to the responsible agencies and the pro31
sponsor.
The environmental monitor will be at the construction site whenever construction
occurring. Because it is probable that construction will occur on weekends and for p
longed periods during the week, the environmental monitor position will be occupied
at least two individuals. The environmental monitor will be accessible to the put
through a telephone message center; the telephone number will be posted at the 6
and in local public buildings. This measure will ensure that individuals with obsex
tions, information, and concerns relevant to the mitigation plan will be able to cOmI
nicate with the monitoring group. The environmental monitor will respond to the p
lic and will document those interactions.
MONITORING PROCEDURES
The environmental monitor will know, through consultation with the construction m
ager, where construction is occurring each day and will plan monitoring activities
cordingly. The monitor will have two basic types of responsibilities:
1. Venfy, through routine monitoring, the implementation of identi
mitigation measures.
Respond to deviations from the mitigation plan and unforeseen oc
rences or discoveries.
2.
Routine Monitoring
Routine monitoring will entail sampling or observation of selected environmental
sources, inspection of operating equipment conditions and construction techniq
monitoring of efforts to avoid sensitive areas, adherence to established procedures,
other tasks in accordance with the provisions specified in the mitigation plan.
4-32
Sampling. The environmental monitor wii sample water quality on a weekly basis i
the lagoon, at several points in the nearshore ocean, and at the outlets of drainat
ditches and retention and dewatering basins. Temperature and dissolved oxygen will b
measured with a portable meter, and if an oil sheen or similar observance is note(
samples will be collected for the analysis of suspended solids, oil, and grease.
Noise will be measured monthly at four to six receptors at established sensitive loc;
tions. The measurements will be made during each shift.
Inspections. Construction support facilities, including staging areas, traffic control fac;
ities, fuel transfer and storage areas, vehicle service areas, sanitary facilities, and fencii
and signs for the beach nourishment and inlet construction areas, will be inspect(
when they are installed, and weekly thereafter. The inspections will verify that tl
facilities are installed according to specifications and are maintained as planned.
Construction equipment, including dredges, graders, trucks, and pumps will be i
spected weekly to venfy that air emission equipment is in place and functional, and th
there are no obvious leaks of fuel or lubricant. Dredge fueling operations will be i
spected as they occur in order to verify the use of spill containment equipment.
Erosion control and drainage facilities will be inspected biweekly and after storm eve1
to ensure that retention basins, drainage ditches, and other prescribed measures a
kept in working order and are functioning as planned.
Obsemtions. The environmental monitor will continuously observe the constructj
site to ensure that construction activities do not encroach upon areas designated to
left undisturbed. These areas will be staked, and in some cases taped, to facilitate 1
observations. The presence of blowing dust from the construction area will prompt 1
environmental monitor to recommend appropriate dust control. The environmen
monitor will observe periodic activities such as dust-suppression watering and retenti
basin cleanout to ensure that the activities conform to the mitigation plan.
Special Monitoring
The environmental monitor will observe and document the reactions of California le
terns to construction activities during the period April through August. This person 7
be onsite during the time recommended by the California Department of Fish E
Game, will be wholly dedicated to least tern monitoring, and will possess any requi
permits to study the terns.
Deviations
From time to time, situations will arise that can be considered deviations from
mitigation plan. Two types of situations are anticipated. One type includes plan
deviations from the established mitigation procedures. Planned deviations would oc
4-33
if, for example, an opportunity for an improved mitigation measure monitoring tec
nique arose that would not have an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of t'
mitigation effort. In such a case, the new measure or procedure could be adopted wi
the approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Group.
The second type of situation would include nonadherence to or violations of the miti!
tion plan (e.g., failure to erect runoff control berms, violation of noise standar
equipment operation in sensitive areas). The environmental monitor would have 1
authority to recommend to the construction manager or designated site representat
that construction activities be halted if circumstances warrant. If recommendations i
not followed, the environmental monitor would document the incident and the c(
struction manager would be required to justify the action taken. Whether or not u
struction is halted, the environmental monitor would immediately notify
construction contractor and the construction manager that a violation had OCCU~
The construction manager and the environmental monitor would immediately notify
City of the event. The City, the construction manager an4 if appropriate,
environmental consultant would then decide upon a course of action to resolve
situation. The course of action would be implemented by the construction mana
and, if appropriate, the environmental consultant, and monitored by the environme,
monitor.
DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING
Documentation
The environmental monitor and the construction manager will document monita
activities on a set of forms. The actual execution of scheduled monitoring activities
be recorded on the mitigation monitoring log (Figure 4-2). This form will serve
record to venfy that the measures identified in the mitigation plan were monitore
planned. Observations and analytical results will be recorded on mitigation monitc
results forms (Figure 4-3). For example, the environmental monitor would use
mitigation monitoring results form to record the results of routine water quality
noise monitoring and to document observations and the results of inspections.
When all activities associated with a specific mitigation measure are completed
environmental monitor will fill out the mitigation completion form (Figure 4-4)
vided by the City of Carisbad.
Deviations and violations could arise in a variety of situations, so that one form I
not mer every event. The Occurrence of deviations and violations will be logge
the mitigation monitoring log. A brief description of the nature of each inciden
the chain of notification and response will be provided. More detailed descriptia
the incidents may be prepared by the Mitigation Monitoring Group and includc
part of the monthly monitoring reports. Written notification of all deviations and 7
tions wiU be submitted to the City within 5 working days.
4-34
Reporting
The environmental monitor and the construction manager will jointly submit a weel@
monitoring summary to the City. This report will consist of copies of the forms along
with a brief progress report.
The environmental monitor, construction manager and, if appropriate, environmental
consultant will also submit monthly reports to the City. These reports will consist of i
summary of the elements monitored and the results of the monitoring, a description o
any deviations and the actions taken, and an overview of actual or potential problem
encountered.
The environmental monitor will maintain and update the mitigation completion form!
Completed forms will be submitted to the City.
4-35
c UJ C z
6 E
0 0
b-0 2s
d
$5 zg t
gz 2 - $8 C 5s i!
Qt 6
E
0 t
80 E - 9
80
C $5 W
c= 3 01g 3E
8 rn
0
$ a g
5 B s
i 5
a .-
4-36
4 g
2
$4 g .F gg
cr) C
0
C
.- L
c .-
C
v)
=>
Lx
!i
2
G@ Yg 2K Eg
35 z f$
$3 8s >E - rE wF za - Eg
45 82
go
OZ= zi5 Y)
w9 @E uw
5:
q
B a
0
$j 5i z
C 0 .. v) 5 * 06 E5 To CI i
4-37
E 5
2
U
v) f
Q, CIC - F ir * c gg
‘4 9-0 v) 25 P ggz $!s 3
25 c
E:
a)a c: $5
G :;s
2s
0 5; gE 5 2EC zco 2% w+ s.2 zoo ac -0- Ea $28 a€ %o
0-0 >(D fa .f Gg?
c2 2 SP Flg zg g
P i, 268
a 99-
a@Z - Q -cs 2 .cl 022
z 6 oso o 8= 32 E OQ0 P is " 5-0 028 - - cgL 5& $55 *a 5 +Q> En (3 F
-5 0
'bo CE
-u
0- gf 3 fjs E =B
2: EO E
2 0 00 oz C iE
20 50 a> cc
0:
%Z EO 2
=5i
t- o - E p
2 $ B
C i; g I$ 8 2 g ggf
ij g
$62 2 ii
.G=* B &$ 1;
H q ZQ I-
fge c !s
o+ 3 ..
c g E82 6 srs 0 e = - $8 0 !i 2 <E=
E
h - Y
C
I 0
€ 0 E23 TE< $
:Urn SfS ii
-I a. 3 L 8 5 -4-
SE
3i q 5
3 ??T U Pfg 002
0 a-f 8 >
g, ga2
SEE h-J ef 5 F pz 2 gp * 0 ,g
t E$2
0 - ?*; - 5 9% f B gg - .-
5 8s
: g ZgE g 2 SEG
0 aiu
vcn :> 'b -==
?
c
g x 'DSE 3 c g .. hj
&E 0
0
:I
3c 5s Q nu -
i 4-38
E 5 LL
C 0 z
Q) P E 0 u
C
I
yg so sg 2s
Date of Meeting: July 18, 1990
Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Schrantm called the Meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Holmes.
ROLL CALL:
Present - Chairman Schramm, Commissioners Erwin, Hall,
Holmes, Marcus, McFadden, and Schlehuber
Staff Members Present:
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney
John Cahill, Municipal Projects Manager
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer
Also Present :
2 Richard Hunn, CH M gill, consultant
Dr. Steve Costa, CH M H311, Environmental Scientist Dr. Richard Mishaga, CH M Hill, Environmental Scientist Jack Fancher, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Richard Nitsos, California Fish and Game Service
PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES:
Chairman Schramn reviewed the Planning Commission procedures
on the overhead for the benefit of the audience.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1) CUP 247x1 - MARTIN - Request for a five year extension
of Conditional Use Permit allowing a residential care
facility located on the south side of Palm Avenue
between Harding and the Interstate 5 Freeway in the R-3
Zone.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that staff is
requesting this item be pulled and continued to a date
uncertain.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue
CUP 247x1 to a date uncertain.
Commission Holmes requested the record show that his
abstention was due to a conflict of interest.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
2) EIR 86-5/SUP 90-8 - BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT - Request for the recommendation of the
certification of an Environmental Impact Report and
request for approval of a Special Use Permit to
% 4 COMMISSIONERS *
Erwin
Hall
Holmes
Marcus
McFadden
Schlehuber
Schramn
MINUTES /
COMMISSIONERS July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2
construct the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project on
property located in southwest Carlsbad, bounded by the
Pacific OceanlLa Costa AvenuelEl Camino Realland the
north shore of the lagoon in Zones 9 and 19.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, announced that due
to the complexity of the project, the staff report would
include a presentation by the consultants who prepared the EIR documents, comments by the Federal and State wildlife
agencies, and a statement by the Port of Los Angeles who is
the project proponent.
Mr. Wayne reviewed the background of the request and stated
that the Port of Los Angeles is requesting discretionary
approvals for the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project which
would restore tidal flushing to Batiquitos Lagoon while
protecting existing habitat values.
is required because dredging will be conducted within the 100
year flood plain.
will also be required because the mouth of the lagoon is
situated on City property.
In early 1980 the California Coastal Conservancy developed an
enhancement plan by working with several property owners,
local groups, the City of Carlsbad and the City of Encinitas.
When they were preparing the project on a $40,000 budget, the
enhancement group had many ambitious goals.
was opening the lagoon to perpetual tidal flushing. The
reason for the permanent tidal flushing was to renew the
lagoon for the marine ecosystem and still allow it to remain
a major habitat for migratory water fowl and shore birds.
was soon realized that a project of this size would require
an expenditure of tens of millions of dollars so the
enhancement group set their sites lower.
Early on in the process, the Port of Los Angeles was trying to develop a project inside its outer harbor, called the
PACTEX project, which would have created an offloading
terminal in the harbor and a pipeline system to Midland,
Texas, to transport Alaskan crude oil for refining. The Port
of Los Angeles needed to mitigate filling the outer harbor
and began looking around for mitigation sites. Hearing of
the enhancement group and enhancement operations at
Batiquitos Lagoon, the wildlife agencies approached Carlsbad
through their sister agencies, the Califarnia Coastal
Conservancy and Department of Fish and Game, with the
possibility of having the mitigation project satisfy the
enhancement goals in the Batiquitos Lagoon. It was then
realized that a full tidal system could be developed within
the Batiquitos Lagoon and this tidal system could serve as
mitigation credits for the PACTEX project. The enhancement
plan was prepared in late 1986, revised in 1987, and the
wildlife agencies including the California State Lands
Commission, the Port of Los Angeles, and the City of Carlsbad
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to explore the
possibility of doing a mitigation project which would restore
and enhance Batiquitos Lagoon.
The project began with preliminary engineering to test the
feasibility of the Conservancy's alternatives and it was
found that their minimum tidal alternative was not feasible
because it would close at unscheduled times. It was, therefore, not acceptable for the enhancement goals. A new,
larger tidal prism alternative was developed by the
consultants and the three alternatives were found to be
feasible from a technological and economic standpoint,
The Special Use Permit
A grading permit and encroachment permits
A primary goal
It
MINUTES F
COMMISSIONERS July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3
triggering the environmental review which began the spring of
1988.
A draft EIR was prepared in early 1989 and distributed for
public review. During the 75 day public review period the
City received approximately 45 commenting letters which
embodied about 1,100 comments. Because of the large number
of comments, it was deemed necessary to rethink and rescope
the environmental contract to respond to the large volume of
comments. The environmental documentation was completed in
June 1990. This final EIR is a joint Federal and State
document which satisfies the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
to a decision being made. review period and does not require a public hearing. CEQA
requires the decision makers to consider the environmental
documents prior to approving a permit. The public hearing
requirement is for the Special Use Permit and that is being
satisfied tonight.
Mr. Wayne gave a slide presentation showing the lagoon and
the need for enhancement. He stated that the transportation
corridors built across the lagoon have fixed the location of
the inlet which now remains closed by marine sediments.
Since upland sediments are unable to be flushed from the
lagoon by tidal action, the lagoon is rapidly filling up with
silt.
Because the tidal inlet to the Pacific Ocean is closed, the
lagoon's wetland vegetation and habitats vary from year to
year as well as seasonally. At the present time the water
has evaporated and become salty, which is good for algae but
harsh on fish.
lagoon still maintains the capability of supporting other
valuable biological resources such as shore bird and
migratory water fowl bird populations.
Preliminary engineering developed three alternatives (A, B &
C). The environmental process determined that these each created adverse impacts. Addition of mitigation to each
alternative developed three "mitigated alternatives."
three are basically the same except in the eastern basin.
Mitigated Alternative A gives the largest water volume, with
the most subtidal but the least intertidal. Mitigated
Alternative C has a very small water volume and does not
provide continuous tidal action.
The environmentally superior alternative as identified by the
environmental documentation is Mitigated Alternative B, which
is the alternative that the wildlife agencies have supported.
Mitigated Alternative B takes a channel and meanders it
through the eastern end of the lagoon, allowing construction
of very gentle side slopes of the intertidal area for maximum
habitat value.
Staff recommends Mitigated Alternative B. In addition, staff
is recommending the alternative which would be to over-dredge
the central basin, creating a pit, and disposing of the fine eastern basin sediment in the pit. The central basin is
entirely sand and meets all other requirements for beach
disposal. The sand excavated from the pit could be deposited
at two beach locations, yet undetermined. If the sediment is
moved to an inland disposal site such as San Marcos or Green
Valley, it would be costly and have serious circulation and
air quality impacts.
NEPA requires a 30 day review of the document prior
CEQA does not require the same
The lagoon has become a large desiltation basin.
Although the algae causes a foul smell, the
All
MINUTES p
COMMISSIONERS July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4
2 Mr. Richard Hunn, CH M Hill, consultant, using overheads, reviewed the background of the enhancement project, the four
initial alternatives A-D, and the six additional alternatives
Mitigated A-C, Alternative E and F, plus the "no project"
alternative.
phyed construction that could be applied to any alter ative.
CH M Hill.is not recommending phased construction. CH M Hill
recommends Mitigated Alternative B because it has many
benefits which are not available with the other alternatives. Mr. Hunn stated that two environmental scientists, Dr. Steve
Costa and Dr. Richard Mishaga, from CH M Hill were available
to answer questions.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the modification of the lagoon
will enhancq or hurt the habitat of the migratory birds. Dr.
Mishaga, CH M Hill, Environmental Scientist, Portland,
Oregon, replied that there is a lot of variability in the way
the lagoon operates. The tidal influence will change the lagoon conditions but the enhancement project has been
designed to provide habitat for migratory birds; however, it
may be in different proportions than currently exists.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if there would be more or less
habitat. Dr. Mishaga replied that there would be more
habitat, and it would be more consistent.
Commissioner Erwin inquired what will guarantee that the
vegetation and biological life forms will return once the
project is completed. Dr. Mishaga replied that the project will provide the physical conditions for those communities
and it will be closely monitored to see that it happens.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the monitoring systems.
Mr. Wayne replied that two monitoring programs would be
utilized. One, mitigation monitoring related to
construction, would be conducted by an environmental monitor.
The other, the monitoring recommended by the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, would be required by the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers permit and would be done annually for years 1,
2, 3, 5 and 10 (5 periods).
Commissioner Erwin inquired what action would be taken if the
vegetation does not reoccur or the biological life forms do
not return.
annuity for maintenance of the lagoon in perpetuity.
California Department of Fish and Game, which will manage the
lagoon, can draw from the fund to:
ensure revegetation; periodic dredging; or cleaning of desiltation basins. Mr.
Hunn added that Mitigated Alternative B does not disturb the
majority of existing vegetation and there is a condition for
the contractor to preserve and replant the vegetation from
the 7 acres which will be disturbed. The other alternatives
disturb a significant amount of the vegetation which makes
Mitigated Alternative B environmentally superior.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the sand deposits on the
beach since he has received some comments from the surfing
community. Apparently in Ventura and at another location
north of Los Angeles, sand deposits destroyed the surfing
conditions. Mr. Wayne replied that beaches will reach equilibrium profile
within one year.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the sand would be spread
evenly across the beach or if it would be deposited in one
The consultants also analyzed a nine year
9
2
Mr. Wayne replied that there is an $8.5 million
take care of planting to
whatever studies may be necessary;
He inquired if that could happen in Carlsbad.
July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION
area and the tidal action do the spreading. Mr. Wayne
replied that the conceptual design would be to spread out the
sand on a cobble bench along the beach.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he had asked Inez Yoder
several days ago to present him with her concerns about the EIR in written form.
he would like to review her comments. Chairman Schramm
requested that this be delayed until later in the meeting.
Commissioner Erwin complimented staff and the consultants on
the way the citizen comments were compiled in the EIR.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the length of the
jetty in relation to the SDG&E jetty. Hill, Environmental Scientist, replied that the SDG&E jetty
is 340 ft. long and the Batiquitos jetty could be
approximately half of that.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the effect the jetty
would have on communities to the south of Carlsbad. It is
his understanding that the Oceanside jetty, and possibly the
SDG&E jetty, has caused significant sand erosion on other
communities in this area. Mr. Wayne replied that the City
Council has contracted for independent third party review on
this item because of its controversial element. He stated
that Dr. Richard Seymour, Scripps Institute of Oceanography,
who studied the physical oceanography for the EIR, and Dr.
Keith McDonald, who studied the biology, were in the a dience
to answer questions. One of the questions posed to CH M Hill
was how long the jetty could be constructed without causing
sand transport.
Dr. Richard Seymour, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La
Jolla, CA, took the podium at the request of Commissioner
Schlehuber.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired that since the sand doesn't
seem to hold north of the SDG&E jetty that is 340 ft. long,
how long will the sand deposits which will be placed there
hold. Dr. Seymour replied that the sand will disburse in
both directions, both north and south, with most of it moving
south.
forever. Some renourishment will occur, however, due to
maintenance dredging of the inlet. In addition, San Diego
County is currently working on a regional solution to the
sand problem which will involve all of the beach cities from
Dana Point to La Jolla.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that some of Dr. Seymour's
colleagues from Scripps have not been happy with the EIR and
believe that several of the conclusions are invalid. He
inquired if this is just a professional difference of
opinion. Dr. Seymour replied that the comments he is
familiar with from Scripps people are on the draft EIR and
all of them were substantially dealt with in the final version. There seems to be no conflict at the present time.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that there appears to be
many unknowns.
to verify the accuracy of the findings. Dr. Seymour replied
that there were two areas of concern:
and 2) behavior of the sand around the inlet.
opinion, the design of the tidal prism in Mitigated
Alternative B is very conservative and will work. However,
he does believe that some physical modeling prior to actual
Each commissioner was given a copy and
Dr. Steve Costa, CH'M
4
Over the long range, the sand will not stay in place
He inquired if additional work will be done
1) the tidal prism, In his
COMMISSIONERS <
I
I
MINUTES
July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6
construction would be beneficial to design the tidal inlet
but he does not feel it is necessary in order to render a
decision.
Commissioner Schlehuber asked the CH M Hill consultant if
this would be done.
been proposed as part of the final engineering activity.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, added that the
Memorandum of Agreement states that the Port of Los Angeles
has 45 days to elect to proceed with the project after
certification of the document. If they elect to proceed,
staff will commence with permitting and final design. It has
been recommended that during final design a physical model be
constructed to look at the inlet and fine tune it. That
recommendation is being taken very seriously at this time.
Commissioner Schlehuber referred to the staff report dated
July 18, 1990, page 5, paragraph 6, which refers to construction of a 33-acre diked freshwater pond in the
northeast section of the East Basin. Mr. Richard Hunn, CH'M
Hill, replied that the draft EIR suggested a freshwater pond
but it was not to collect sediment. The mitigated
alternatives have eliminated that pond at the request of the
various resource agencies. Mr. Hunn added that the mitigated
alternatives do not contain sedimentation traps but there is
an opportunity for the eastern channel to be deepened by
dredging. When the inlet is opened up, there should be no
sediment buildup.
Commissioner Holmes commented that after completion of the
project, he sees problems with surfers and small water craft
because the signs are too small. Gary Wayne, Assistant
Planning Director, replied that staff does not feel this will
be a problem.
Hedionda Lagoon and there are no signs at all there.
Comissioner McFadden inquired about the "no net loss"
statement and if that means the Batiquitos Enhancement
Project would take care of any land loss in the Los Angeles
harbor.
establishes a mechanism to create mitigation credits to be
used to offset potential future impacts in the Port of Los
Angeles.
review, EIR and EIS, and it is a separate issue.
Representatives from the Port of Los Angeles are here and can
address that issue.
Dr. Ralph G. Appy, Assistant Director, Environmental
Management Division, Port of Los Angeles, San Pedro, CA, took
the podium at the request of Commissioner McFadden. He
stated that land lost in the Los Angeles harbor is not
wetlands but rather marine fishery and salt water habitat.
There are no vegetative wetlands being lost.
Commissioner McFadden inquired why there is no feasible
action to control the fine sediment. Gary Wayne, Assistant
Planning Director, replied that it has to do with settling
velocities.
even up to ten days.
action would move the suspended sediment out to sea.
Commissioner McFadden, inquired about the recommendation to
excavate a hole and deposit the sediment into it. It appears
to her that other locations where this has been done are
quite deep, i.e. Long Island Sound.
Hill, replied that the EIR concludes that a sand cap can
2
Mr. Richard Hunn replied that this has
There have been no problems with the Agua
Gary Wayne replied that the Memorandum of Agreement
The PACTEX project underwent full environmental
The fine sediments stay in suspension for days,
Under the current theory, the tidal
Dr. Steve Costa, CH'M
MINUTES b
COMMISSIONERS 4 July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7
contain fine sediments without any currents, and it has been
done in very shallow water.
currents in the location where this will be done will be
sufficient to scour the sand cap off and bring the fine
sediment back up. Dr. Costa replied that this is possible
near the bridges but the Batiquitos excavation must be
located far enough away from the bridges to ensure that the
current will only scour to a certain depth, otherwise the
bridges would be in danger.
completed with currents similar to that of the central basin.
The current is rapid only in the neighborhood of the bridges.
Commissioner Erwin inquired how a sediment curtain works. Dr. Costa replied that a sediment curtain cuts down turbidity
and prevents sediment material in suspension from traveling
from one point to another by putting a physical block
(curtain) in front of it.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the thickness of the sand
cap.
will be determined at the time of design.
Commissioner McFadden inquired where the water comes from
that is currently in the lagoon. Gary Wayne, Assistant
Planning Director, replied that it comes from urban
irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and natural stream
runoff .
Commissioner McFadden commented that the response to Commissioner Erwin's question on revegetation sounds like we
have sufficient money for constant monitoring but she wants
to know how we can be sure that revegetation will occur.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that the
marine system is very rich with organisms and recolonizes
quickly. There are other places where this has been done and
it is documented. He stated that Dr. Keith McDonald, a third
party biologist, could speak to this issue.
Dr. Keith McDonald, Michael Brandman Consultants, San Diego,
addressed the Commission and stated that he is a Estuarian
and Wetlands Ecologist. It is important to separate the
marine animals that will move into the lagoon from the plants
that will colonize the sides of the lagoon.
speaking, when an area is dredged out and the tides are let
in, the tides bring in juvenile forms of animals which will colonize the mud on the bottom of the lagoon, fish moving in
and out of the lagoon, and that happens immediately, even
while the dredging is taking place. There are documented
cases in Newport Bay and Bolsachica in Orange County where the areas were rapidly colonized by many varieties of marine
life. take a long time. Plants already established in Batiquitos
Lagoon will probably colonize the new areas within a period
of five years. Other species which do not occur in
Batiquitos Lagoon might not occur there unless it is
deliberately introduced.
Mr. Richard Hunn, CH M Hill, stated that the mitigation
measures were designed to avoid existing vegetation.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened
at 7:37 p.m.
The other issue is whether the
Other projects have been
Dr. Costa suspects that it will be 2-3 feet but that
Generally
The vegetation is more difficult to predict and it can
2
MINUTES
-@% y$ bt
July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8
Chairman Schramm opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Dwayne G. Lee, Deputy Executive Director of Development, Port
of Los Angeles, addressed the Commission and read excerpts of
a letter to the Planning Commission stating the position of
the Port relative to the final EIR and the project. A copy
of that letter is on file in the Planning Department.
Although the Port of Los Angeles was originally in favor of
Alternative A, at the conclusion of the final EIR, they agree
with the findings and could accept either Mitigated
Alternative A or Mitigated Alternative B. He is confident
that staff's recommendation is the environmentally superior
project.
Chairman Schramm entered two letters into the record which
are on file in the Planning Department:
* Letter dated July 16, 1990 from Joan Jackson, Coastal
Committee Chair of the Sierra Club which states that the
final EIR offers "little more than unsubstantiated
expectations" and they find it unacceptable.
- Letter from Jean Gillette, 3103 Hataca Road, Carlsbad,
which is in favor of opening the Batiquitos Lagoon to
natural tidal flushing.
Richard Nitsos, California Department of Fish and Game, 330
Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802, addressed the Commission
and read a prepared statement as follows.
"The Department of Fish and Game supports the adoption
of Mitigated Alternative B as identified in the final
EIR/EIS for the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project.
Implementation of this alternative would restore the
lagoon to full tidal action while preserving and
enhancing the existing habitat values. In addition, the
restoration of full tidal action to Batiquitos Lagoon
will provide a permanent marine habitat component which
is currently missing and only occurs on a limited basis.
The reestablishment of a fully tidal coastal wetland and
lagoon system would be beneficial to a wide variety of
fish and wildlife habitats and associated resources.
The Department of Fish and Game believes the options of
Mitigated Alternative B provide the best opportunity to
enhance the resource values of Batiquitos Lagoon."
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the long term monitoring.
Mr. Nitsos replied that nothing has been established as yet
because they do not have control of the lagoon at this point.
The Department of Fish and Game would take control after the
project is completed. design and completion of project, the department will put
together a management plan for the lagoon.
is completed it will be turned over to the Department of Fish
and Game to run as a Ecological Reserve.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the Department would be responsible to ensure that the life forms do return. Mr.
Nitsos replied that the Department would have a management
role for as long as the lagoon belongs to the Department.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the potential recreational
uses of the lagoon;
be allowed will be fishing and that there will be no boating
allowed. Mr. Nitsos replied that each reserve is handled
Between finalization of the project
When the project
he understands that the only activity to
MINUTES v$
COMMISSIONERS 2 July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9
differently according to the management objectives.
Newport Bay, canoeing is allowed but power boats are not. He
could not say whether or not boating would be allowed at
Batiquitos since it may be incompatible with the management
objectives.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about a condition of the Corps of
Engineers which states that "the permitted activity shall not
interfere with the public's right to free navigation on all
navigable waters."
Lagoon will be considered navigable water. Mr. Nitsos could not answer for the Corps of Engineers.
Jack Fancher, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of
Interior, Southern California Field Station, 24000 Avila
Road, Laguna Niguel, CA 92656, addressed the Commission and
stated that he would read a statement from Robert Hoffman, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce,
Terminal Island, CA, as follows:
In
He would like to know if Batiquitos
"The National Marine Fisheries Service supports the
adoption and implementation of Mitigated Alternative B.
We believe this alternative represents the best
compromise between the conflicting interests of the
various groups in the restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon.
Coastal tidal influenced wetland and lagoon systems are
relatively rare habitat areas in southern California.
Historically, most of these systems have been
drastically altered or eliminated as a result of human
activities. Mitigated Alternative B offers an
opportunity to restore this lagoon's system such that it
will closely resemble the historic configuration prior
to impact associated with deposition of large amounts of
sediment in the lagoon. From a natural resource
perspective, this alternative is expected to not only
preserve existing values but enhance those values as
well.
reintroduce a permanent marine fishery component which
has been absent for many years. Unique values of this
type of marine system, particularly as nursery area for
a wide variety of fish species, has been well
documented. Recent research conducted by the National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fishery Center in La
Jolla, indicates that the habitat types to be provided by Mitigated Alternative B is essential to the early
life stages of the California halibut, a species of
considerable commercial and recreational value. In
summary, we believe that Mitigated Alternative B offers
the best opportunity to meet the needs of Carlsbad and,
at the same time, enhance the natural resource values of
the region.''
The restoration of a fully tidal system will also
Speaking for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. Fancher
read a prepared statement as follows:
"The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service wishes to reaffirm
that we support the implementation of Mitigated
Alternative B.
to shore birds, water fowl, and marine fishes, as well
as improving habitat for state and federally listed
endangered species.
City of Carlsbad, the Port of Los Angeles, and other
involved public agencies have expended a great deal of
sincere effort to resolve or explain every issue related
to this project. Therefore, we recommend that your
This alternative would optimize benefits
Through the EIRIEIS process, the
July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10
Commission approve the staff report and its recommended
resolution. "
Chairman Schramm stated that the following persons requesting
to speak have deferred their time to Richard Harp:
Beverly Plant, 1861 Amalfi Drive, Carlsbad
Ann Merdinger, 2020 Subida Terrace, Carlsbad
Jody Biss, 3133 Calle Viento, Carlsbad
Jim Esposito, 1888 Amalfi Drive, Carlsbad
Dr. W. Merdinger, 2020 Subida Terrace, Carlsbad
Richard Harp, 2122 Subida Terrace, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission on behalf of approximately 700 citizens and gave a
slide presentation in support of Alternative A.
opinion of the people he has contacted, Alternative A is
superior because:
*
In the
It has the largest tidal prism which provides the best
waterflow potential;
* It is the most trouble-free, with the least maintenance;
* It provides more sand to the local beaches; and
* It provides the largest volume of water for habitat,
providing the largest food source and greatest breeding
area.
It provides the most nesting sites for endangered
species of birds.
*
Mr. Harp feels that although Mitigated Alternative B is a
win-win situation for the largest majority of parties, the
citizens of Carlsbad want Alternative A. If Mitigated
Alternative B goes forward, they feel it would do so at a
drastic cost to the existing aesthetic beauty and ecosystem, and would be a win-lose situation, most certainly resulting
in many lawsuits. Petitions supporting Alternative A are on
file with the Planning Department.
Commissioner Holmes asked Mr. Harp about his background. He
replied that he is a Bio Mechanical Engineer with 25 years of
experience.
project.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Harp agrees that the
birds would have a greater nesting area with Mitigated
Alternative B. Mr. Harp replied that although it would
provide 34 acres of nesting area, that appears to be
approximately one acre per bird.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired why Mr. Harp feels that the
officials are supporting Mitigated Alternative B.
that they are unsure about disturbing the status quo.
Commissioner McFadden inquired about Mr. Harp's reasons for
pursuing Alternative A. He replied that he lives in the La
Costa area and Batiquitos Lagoon is almost in his back yard.
He and the other citizens he is representing want a beautiful
lagoon because they look at it every day.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the wording of the
petition. Mr. Harp replied that the citizens are fighting
for Alternative A but, if beaten back, would settle for
He received no payment for his work on this
He feels
COMMISSIONERS 02
, I
I
July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION
Mitigated Alternative A. In any event, the people want the
largest body of water.
Chairman Schramm inquired why Mr. Harp's group wants a
freshwater pond as well as salt water.
is a great proliferation of birds at the east end where the
fresh water comes out of the river. In his observation, the
birds seem to enjoy the fresh water but shy away from the
salt water.
the lagoon was full. After the lagoon was drained by the
Corps of Engineers, the birds left.
Lauren M. Wasserman, 7069 Murillo Lane, Carlsbad, addressed
the Commission and stated that he was impressed by Mr. Harp's
presentation.
Alternative A because it is an opportunity to preserve an
environmental treasure.
Arnold Hoines, 2122 Saliente Way, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated he is speaking on behalf of Robert
Brown, 252 Rosebay Drive, Encinitas, who is a Physical Oceanographer with over 25 years of practical oceanography
experience and is currently an environmental consultant with
the AS Engineering Company for the Deepsea Fisheries
Development Project in San Diego. Mr. Brown's letter dated
July 15, 1990 is on file in the Planning Department. He
states that Alternative A is superior over the long term
because the tidal prism is larger and will prevent siltation
deposits in the eastern portion of the lagoon. He states
that the character of the lagoon is being changed from a
shallow fresh water environment to a marine coastal marsh.
He feels that Alternative A has a better tidal flushing
system than Alternative B and will not require future
dredging, at an additional cost to the taxpayers. In his
opinion, Alternative A will allow the ecosystem to develop
under natural conditions and it provides adequate nesting
areas and feeding grounds.
Dolores Welty, 2076 Sheridan Road, Leucadia, addressed the
Commission and stated that she would like to have the public
comment period continued so that she can digest the
voluminous final EIR document. She is most concerned that
the enhancement project may result in a loss of bird life
even though it may make it nice for fish.
John E. McCoy, 390-F Oak Avenue, Carlsbad, representing the
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation (BLF) , addressed the Commission
and stated that the Foundation feels additional time is
identified several preliminary concerns as follows:
*
He replied that there
There was an enormous profusion of birds when
He supports Mitigated Alternative A or
needed to thoroughly consider the final EIR/EIS. They have
2 CH M Hill and Scripps Institute of Oceanography seem to
have conflicting opinions as to whether or not the
recommended tidal prism will allow the lagoon mouth to
remain open.
The mitigation monitoring and long term monitoring
groups are composed exclusively of groups contracted to
perform some component of the enhancement activity. They recommend an on-going advisory role for significant
public interest groups such as the BLF.
-
- The treatment of cumulative impacts related to the
project is incomplete.
COMMISSIONERS ;
~
Mr. McCoy submitted a letter dated July 18, 1990 from
Marilyn H. Buck, President of the ELF, which is on file in
the Planning Department.
Mario Monroy, 3610 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, representing
the Beach Erosion Committee, addressed the Commission and
stated that the EIR/EIS is not clear whether the objective of
placing sand on the beach is to nourish the beach or to
into the subtidal basin, the more credits they will receive,
which is why they are encouraging approval of Mitigated
Alternative B.
complete their review of the final EIR/EIS.
She requested an additional 90 days to
MINUTES b
COMMISSIONERS $ July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14
preferable alternative because it optimizes two aspects of
the project:
water there is, the greater the probability that the inlet
will remain open; and (2) the intertidal mud flat and salt
marsh is the highest value for the birds but it has a higher
probability of inlet closure and a shorter frequency for maintenance.
condition (i.e. adequate tidal prism) and provides a safety
valve for the shore birds and water fowl that they are
seeking.
Chairman Schramm inquired about his response to Mr. Harp's
proposal for more open water. Mr. Fancher replied that Mr.
Harp's proposal for more open water is because more open
water is more beautiful. As a biologist and representative
of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, he would ask Mr. Harp
to go and look at Newport Bay which has similar proportions
of salt marsh and intertidal mud flat as is being proposed
for Batiquitos Lagoon and to compare property values.
Chairman Schrm inquired if the mud flat would have water
covering it most of the day. Mr. Fancher replied that water
is always moving every minute of every day (25 hours lunar
cycle). Within the extremes, the water will be there in some degree or other, but there may be times when the mud flats
are uncovered for a short period of time.
much more open water.
which is present between tides.
Mr. Richard Nitsos, California Department of Fish and Game,
330 Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802, took the podium at
the request of Chairman Schramm.
Chairman Schramu inquired what would happen if the Planning
Commission selects Mitigated Alternative A over their
recommendation of Mitigated Alternative B. Mr. Nitsos
replied that the California Department of Fish and Game
objects to Alternative A for environmental reasons.
prefer Mitigated Alternative B.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that Table S-2 shows Mitigated
Alternative A and Mitigated Alternative B to be very simitar
for dabbling ducks and shore birds.
Hill, consultant, replied that they are very similar but
Mitigated Alternative B provides a larger amount of that
habitat than does Mitigated Alternative A.
Mr. Fancher commented on the reference to navigable water
conditions, mentioned earlier. He stated that this is a boilerplate condition from the Corps of Engineers.
the reference to boating, he stated that this provision
obligates Fish and Game to use the lagoon for wildlife
resources and not recreation.
Commissioner Holmes inquired how successful replanting has
been. Mr. Hunn replied that replanting must have certain
water inundation levels and certain soil conditions to take
hold. The studies show that the replanting program being
recommended should be successful. However, it is possible that the vegetation may not come back as dense as it was
before because the long term studies are not available.
Commissioner McFadden inquired about beach nourishment and
whether or not a decision should be made tonight on that
aspect. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied
that the EIR discusses and analyzes two locations for
(1) the more tidal prism and the more open
Mitigated Alternative B optimizes that
Alternative A has
The intertidal water is that water
They
Mr. Richard Hunn, CH M
As far as
July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 15
placement of sand.
at a later date and another site could be selected at that
time.
disposal site.
Commissioner McFadden inquired about Inez Yoder's comment
about monitoring by a citizen panel.
this was considered but once Fish and Game takes over, staff will not be able to interfere.
Commissioner McFadde in uired about a worst case scenario.
Mr. Richard Hunn, CH M Hill, consultant, replied it may take
longer to revegetate. If the inlet does not function, it may
require redesign but there is money available to do this.
Commissioner Hall inquired whether the City has met the
requirements of CEQA regarding time allowed for public input.
Mr. Wayne responded that the City has complied with all of
the requirements of CEQA.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the effects are the same in
Mitigated Alternative A as in Mitigated Alternative B. Mr.
Hunn replied that Mitigated Alternative B provides greater
shore bird habitat which is why the public agencies prefer
it. Neither alternative produces less habitat value than is
existing. Mitigated Alternative A and more intertidal area for
Mitigated Alternative B.
is the intertidal habitat that is better for shore birds.
Mr. Jack Fancher, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, returned
to the podium and stated that the National Fishery Service
prefers Mitigated Alternative B because the water residence
time of Mitigated Alternative A is longer and less desirable. A longer water residence time may not provide the best fish
environment because when water stays in the lagoon longer,
there is less benefit to marine life and fish.
Commissioner Hall inquired if the water stands still.
Fancher replied that it does not. In other words, that water
mixes with the tidal prism.
resident water, as with Mitigated A, the less mixing and the
poorer the water quality. Mitigated Cy which would have the
smallest subtidal, has the best mixing ratio but it appears
not to be a fully tidal system.
which is fully tidal and which has slightly less subtidal
area than Mitigated A, has slightly better mixing and water
quality for fishes than Mitigated A.
to stagnate and is less desirable for a full fish community.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the difference between
Mitigated Alternative A and Mitigated Alternative B is
significant. Mr. Fancher replied that it is not significant,
but Mitigated B has better shore birdlwater fowl values and
Mitigated C is better yet, if you are only looking at bird
values.
optimize the competing interests, mainly keeping the lagoon
inlet open and maximizing the shore bird and marine life
values.
Chairman Schramm inquired if Mitigated Alternative B would
bring in more birds and fish than Mitigated Alternative A.
Mr. Fancher replied that Mitigated Alternative B would bring
in more birds. The National Marine Fisheries has determined
that Mitigated Alternative B would bring in more fish.
The actual permit process will take place
The methodology being proposed does not lock in a
Gary Wayne replied that
94
The difference is that there is more open water in
The amount of subtidal (open water)
is inversely proportional to the amount of intertidal and it
Mr.
The greater the amount of
Therefore, Mitigated B,
More water volume tends
The Fish and Wildlife Service has attempted to
I
l
MINUTES F
COMMISSIONERS 9 July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 16
Commissioner Erwin requested time to review Inez Yoder's
comments.
Assistant Planning Director, unless otherwise noted:
*
The following comments were made by Gary Wayne,
Mitigation Measure f17 adequately addresses the kelp
beds.
The Port will fund a $250,000 monitoring program which
is more than the $50,000 requested by Ms. Yoder.
There were 22 nesting Least Terns after the lagoon was
recently opened up. More water would eliminate the
nesting spaces, hence the reason for opening the lagoon.
The project will construct 35 acres of stable nesting
islands. Presently, when the lagoon fills up, any
nesting sites are endangered. Mr. Fancher added that
although the monitoring system will not be specific as
to the number of species, it will be specific as to the
acreage of desired habitat.
will create the optimum habitat for the California Least
Tern.
-
*
Mitigated Alternative B
* There is a theme in Ms. Yoder's comments that he has a
problem with, i.e. you can't manage the lagoon by
specifying how many individuals of a species will use a
particular habitat.
optimal conditions but if there are no birds, it does
not make the project a failure.
The goal of the enhancement project is the creation of a
restored and enhanced lagoon which has the possibility
of providing all of the habitats which the consultants
believe will be in existence.
You can provide the habitat and the
*
* He does not recommend any of Ms. Yoder's recommended
conditions because the philosophy behind them is almost
impossible to obtain, and control of the mitigation
banking by the group she recomends would be a project
killer.
* Dr. Ralph Appey, Port of Los Angeles, commented that the
trade-off ratios are based on habitat. They are
inflexible and established by previous permits and the
MOA.
* Revegetation will be assessed in one year and
appropriate corrective action will be taken.
Chairman Schramm inquired if the monitoring information will
be released to the public.
information will be released in the form of a document. It
is possible that there might also be workshops available for
the public. Chairman Schramm would like to see that happen.
Commissioner Schlehuber can accept the final EIR but he would
prefer Mitigated Alternative A.
Commissioner Marcus leans toward Mitigated Alternative A.
She has seen dredging problems before and is worried about
the possibility.
Commissioner Erwin would like to see Mitigated Alternative B
based on the testimony given by professionals.
liked more time for public review.
Commissioner McFadden supports Mitigated Alternative B
because of the testimony she has heard from the experts.
Gary Wayne replied that the
He would have
The
July 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 17
lagoon is for the birds and fish and will do the most for
them.
Commissioner Holmes supports Mitigated Alternative B because
he agrees with the experts.
Commissioner Hall feels that either Mitigated Alternative A
or Mitigated Alternative B will be far superior to what we
have today.
because it provides more open water, more sand for the beach,
and less chance of closure.
Chairman Schramm favors Mitigated Alternative B because it is
better for the animals. There is additional time to review
the final EIR/EIS prior to the City Council presentation.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that
Commissioners should be aware that both Mitigated Alternative A and Mitigated Alternative B have short term impacts in the
areas of biology, water quality, and recreation.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
Resolution No. 3072 recommending certification of EIR 86-5,
based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein, including a statement of overriding
considerations.
He strongly supports Mitigated Alternative A
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
selection of the environmental and agency preferred
alternative (Mitigated Alternative B) including the
sediment disposal scheme that involves overdredging the
lagoon’s central basin as the project to be implemented;
and adopt Resolution No.3073, recommending approval of
SUP 90-9, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, including a statement of
overriding considerations.
Commissioner Schlehuber requested that the record show he
prefers Mitigated Alternative A over Mitigated Alternative B
because Table S-2 does not identify any significant
environmental differences between the two.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the meeting of July 18, 1990 was
adjourned at 1O:lO p.m. to 5:OO p.m. on August 1, 1990
in the City Council Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
BETTY BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AMI KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE M1”TE.S ARE
APPROVED.
COMMISSIONERS 9
Erwin
Hall
Holmes
Marcus
McFadden
Schlehuber
Schrarnm
Erwin
Hall
Holmes
Marcus
McFadden
Schlehuber
Schramm
Erwin
Hall Holmes
Marcus
McFadden
Schlehuber
Schramm
SIERRA CLUB, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER
San Diego and Impenal Counties 3820 Ray Street
San Diego, CA 92 104
July 16, 1990
To: Gary E. Wayne, Project Manager
Department of Planning
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-1576
From: Joan Jackson, Chair, Coastal Committee
Re: Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Final EIR/EIS
The San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement
Project EIR/EIS. The Sierra Club has a deep commitment to
to the preservation, enhancement and restoration of wetlands.
The EIR/EIS does not offer sufficient information on the effect
of destroying one habitat type and attempting to create another
to replace it. The document does recognize that this informati
is not available and probably will be unavailable for years to
come. This proposed project is unprecedented in size and scope
and yet the proponents reject a conservative program that would
phase such a radical approach to wetland enhancement in such a
way as to allow for necessary adjustments to protect existing
habitat values.
The Sierra Club is greatly concerned about the effects that thi
habitat conversion will have on the Federally listed endangered
California least tern, the threatened snowy plover and the stat
listed Belding's Savannah sparrow. The Executive Summary of t EIR/EIS states ". . . the restoration of tidal action and
associated marine habitat would require the displacement of SOIT
portion of the existing nontidal mudflats and wetland vegetatic
This is an unavoidable tradeoff required if restoration of tida
action is to be accomplished." [S-291 We find the possible lose
of habitat for these and other species unacceptable. We would
also point out that the tradeoff is unavoidable only if the
project is implemented in the manner proposed. Tidal flushing
can be accomplished using less drastic means.
Sediment control is crucial to sound wetland management. The
document is deficient in that it offers no sediment control
measures.
In wetland management, "expected" results are often not
realized. The Final EIR/EIS for the Batiquitos Lagoon
Enhancement Project offers us little more than unsubstantiated
expectations. We find this unacceptable.
IO erplore. enjoy and protect (he narton's scenic resourc
<
0
_- -
--
-/ -
- __ - czG- JL-q 13: w7
&l5Cp.GdLT A
- d'd- A'
-i 1.- +.z.Ld .-G?z&-L eA& 4g ?L4-%& /4 05 A44
I
- + 1. &
a&-
y&G!(A4 &rL PZ &i?244 ya &w 4Z27L4
1
I
- 1..
- __ - - - _- __
- __ -1
- - I_ ,.-
- - - -.
__
!L- .' I t
-1
' !
i
' -dae nt54.4db) .-=q2st
-. -57 F5k4 fAd 1 -- 4- ___ M-
2%*7 c w-7 &d&&+ 4-
7- &' G, FA 7
..- LQ j JLW -2522
.-- &% vf+- t&Z d-d
.-_ - -__-
-
i. Ppdy&Y+ -7 * x-
on-.,- && .&42-5+L j
@e-
& FA &?d c7.1"" a,
a-
-e m < AkUT,,---,--,a
&?. 6Zz.Lyf '&
'- w --&& w
L.22 --*-- rnz
i. I
4a-d - + - a/&
I
1 I I
t
LJ& w +""y mFJ* z
&7 4-d 9 4v=---u' pA
ZZkd z3) -4-L-4 3zcac
. - . ..
. ..
- . .. .
.UI 7Urc4/
-' &fia
ZAG- &%y@ud&Ydfy
um+d 2 . . . ...
. . .fL?IEuv
. . .. _.__ ... .
*
, -
---
__- -_
- -
---
-4-
L. 9 rktleczdl- d 7- -
---& & 4- A- v
.-- + 7-7 P
-, u v G-eSG-2
- * L'G- A
-- 4,&.&z&e--a & '-I
25 -a&-..&AZbIhp/=
.-* 7 &4 1 & Zya e
Ff d pz% -e--- ,.
"99 - sb/zL#+Ls-g& . KA=w-
4d-6-y&--- ~ -_ -
c&z&&J&pm
-,B;ePzL7- J+-LLZe&
&,- 4-L *- -e1 uw A& _,&e 4-- -&zzu&d
_- -
< .-. + -0 79.9.
&?&&%&a- g PA&a
ROBERT P. BROWN
252 Rosebay Drive Encinitas, California 92024
(619) 753-0810
PERSONAL PROFILE Twenty-five years experience in business
management, technical writing, applied
environmental and oceanographic research related to effects of waste disposal in
aquatic environments and the development of new business ventures for under-utilized
marine fishery resources.
EDUCATION
1964
19 59 Bachelor of Science, Oceanography
Master of Science, Physical Oceanography
University of Hawaii
University of Washington
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1984 - Present Self EmDloved Deepsea Fisheries
Development Project, San Diego, California. Conducted an extensive literature search on various types of deepsea fisheries resources available off the West Coast and Gulf of Mexico. Participated in the design
and testing of numerous types of deepsea
shrimp traps and related fishing
techniques. Participated in several
exploratory fishing trips to locate productive shrimp harvesting areas.
Developed and tested at-sea methods for
producing a high-quality shrimp product for
the wholesale market.
mviro-tal Consultant for various
private engineering and seafood processing firms.
Honolulu tlawai 1, a seafood venture firm. Partner, Pacific Marine Fisheries,
Honolulu, Hawaii. Operated the 76-foot fishing vessel "Hawaii Makai". Conducted
cornniercial f ishinq operations for spiny lobster and deepwatcr shrimp in the
1978 - 1984 Preside& Inter Marine Proteins, Inc.,
Northwestern Hawailan Islands frow 1981-83
Responsible for supervision of the
design, construction and operation of the "Hawaii Makai", establishment of quality
control procedures and the marketing and sale of the product.
1975 - 1978 Manaser. Ocean Sciences, Lockheed Missiles and Space Corporation, San Diego,
California. Responsible for the overall
activities of the Ocean Sciences Department including organization and administration
of technical personnel and programs,
financial control, facilities planning,
new-business planning and marketing activities. Various projects included:
Environmental monitoring of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station; seafood waste disposal in American Samoa; environmental monitoring of deep-ocean
manganese module mining operations; and ocean thermal energy (OTEC) effluent
modeling. Also served on the National
Academy of Engineering/National Academy of Sciences Panel on Deep-Ocean Mining Technology.
1972 - 1975 Banaser. Envlronmenta 1 Servicea, Living Marine Resources, Inc. (LMR), San Diego, California. Responsible for organization of technical programs, new-business proposals and contract liaison. Conducted
a review and analysis of the available literature on the effects of suspended
materials in aquatic environments for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared Environmental Impact Statements €or several companies in American Samoa and California. Served as Program Manager in Saigon for a
United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) sponsored program for
the purpose of preparing a Fisheries
Management and Development Plan for South Vietnam. Participated as Project Leader in a nationwide evaluation of the needs of the
U.S. fishing industry for direct government financial assistance.
1970 - 1972 L. Environmental Sciences Divi SiQn,
Plcssey Environmental Systems, San Diego,
California. Initiated the establishment of
the Environmental Sciences Division.
Responsible for program direction and
general management of twenty-five personnel
engaged in environmental research. Managed
and participated in cl wide variety of
research programs including: a two-year national survey to produce analyses of
long-term temperature changes as related to
variations in freshwater fish populations;
a national survey to document the socio-
economical effects of water pollution on marine and freshwater recreational beaches; a one-year study to determine ways in which
remotely sensed data from satellites and
aircraft could be used to assist fishing
technology in the tropical tuna and Alaskan
salmon fisheries and visual inspection of deep-ocean dump sires off Southern California utilizing the research submarine
"Deep Quest".
1968 - 70 Staff Physical Oceanosranher, ADDlied oceanos raphv Division., Di 11 ingham
Corporation, San Diego, California. Project Manager on a major contract awarded
by Solid Waste Management Office of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a study of the status of ocean dumping from twenty United States coastal cities. The report was utilized by the President's Council on Environmental Quality to
formulate a national policy for regulating
ocean dumping. Responsible as Project
Manager on a contract for investigating the
water circulation adjacent to a proposed
electrical power plant in Tampa Bay,
Florida. Participated as Staff
Oceanographer on a major study of oil spill
clean-up and control techniques and
equipment for the American Petroleum
Institute.
1967 - 1968 Senior Marine Systems Analyst, System
Development Corporation, Santa Monica, California. Participated in the National Data Program for the Marine Environment sponsored by the President's council on
Marine Resources and Engineering.
Responsible for conducting a national survey of the data requirements for the
harvesting, processing, research and resource management segments of the U.S. fishing industry. Assisted in the preparation of contract reports and a
transition plan to attain national
coordlnation in marine data management.
1966 - 1967 mf f phv F< 1 c.31 O-!i;;tnou-.r ~ci->n IC
Division, Interstate Electronics Corporation, Anaheim, California. Oceanographer and project manager €or an
evaluation of geostrophic current
prediction techniques for the U.S. Navy’s
Antisubmarine War fare Environmental
Prediction Division (ASWEPS). Conducted
bay resonance and oscillation
investigations, wave refraction studies, and analyses of littoral drift and other
beach processes.
PhvsJcal OceanograDh ez, U.S. Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, Honolulu, Hawaii and
La Jolla, California. Participated in the planning of new data collection programs and in preparation of monographs and
descrlptive oceanic reports for use by
other projects and programs. Scientific Party Chief, supervising other scientists at-sea in collection of samples and
gathering of related oceanoqrapf ic and meterological data. Assisted in planning
and execution of large-scale surveys of
Pacific Ocean areas such as the Tradewind and Eastropac programs for the Tuna Forecasting Program. Conducted investigations on the nature of the thermocline and oceanic fronts in relation to fishing efforts. of Commercial Fisheries Graduate Fellowshi€
for 1963-64. Served as a consultant on
several ocean out fall site studies for
various private engineering firms.
Author and co-author of approximately 45
technical reports dealing with
environmental research and marine resource
development.
Denver, Colorado; Marital Status: Divorced.
I
1960 - 1966
Awarded U. S. Bureau
PUBLICATIONS
PERSONAL DATA pirthdate: May 28, 1933; pirthnlace:
BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION
July 18, 1990
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1200 Carl sbad Vi 11 age Drive Carl sbad, CA 92008
RE: Preliminary Comments on Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Final EIR/EIS
Dear Planning Commission Members:
The Batiquitos Lagoon, Foundation continues to support the concept of a lagoon enhancement project and in principal the idea of restoring tidal flushing. As you know, during the past two years the City has been engaged in an environmental review of the project. The Foundation has been deeply involved in this process and will continue with the effort. The Foundation is pleased to note that the Final EIR/EIS represents a significant improvement of the Draft EIR/EIS. The document has been strengthened by inclusion of mitigated a1 ternatives and designation of an environmentally preferred alternative.
Insofar as the Final EIR/EIS has only been available for review for about 2 weeks, the Foundation is not in a position at this time to offer comprehensive comments. However, even after a brief review we have identified a number of preliminary concerns detailed below. Due to the keen public interest in thii project, we urge the Planning Commission to delay its recommendation to Cit; Council until it has had time to thoroughly consider the preliminary concern: presented at this meeting by the general public.
Model i nq
The importance of obtaining sound modeling data cannot be overemphasized as i provides the only measure of the potential success of the enhancement desig alternatives. Because the tidal modeling provides the basis for designing th project, the Foundation is concerned about the conflicting conclusions reache by CH% Hill and Scripps Institute of Oceanography (SIO) pertaining to the siz of the tidal prism generated for each enhancement alternative. CH2M Hi7 repeatedly states that the lagoon mouth will stay open, while SI0 just as firm1 suggests the mouth will close. The frictional coefficient is the main point c contention between the CH% Hill and the SI0 predictions. Although the Cit established in January 1990 a process for peer review of this document, the Fin; EIR/EIS does not contain their comments. It would be helpful to have availabl the input of Dr. Richard Seymour, who participated in the peer review proces5 on the subject of the tidal prism.
P.O. Box 3103
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Preliminary Comments on Batiqui tos Lagoon Enhancement EIR/EIS Page 2
Monitoring
While the modeling efforts are critical to the pre-project planning, mitigation and long term monitoring plans are critical to the post-project evaluation effort. Adequate long term monitoring is essential for two reasons. First, because of the sensitive nature of this project, construction work must be monitored continuously and the environmental consultant must have authority to stop the work. And secondly, because this is a pioneering project which will serve as a model for other wetland enhancement projects, a carefully documented record must be maintained of issues, problems and impacts of the project for up to 10 years after completion.
The plans proposed in the Final EIR/EIS provide an excellent general outline of the efforts required. However, the Foundation is concerned that the Mitigation Monitoring and Long Term Monitoring Groups are composed exclusively of groups contracted to perform some component of the enhancement activity. The Foundation strongly urges that the monitoring plan include an on-going advisory role for significant pub1 ic interest groups such as the Foundation, the Coastal Conservancy and the scientific community in order to assure objective evaluation of the project.
In addition, we have two other concerns pertaining to the Long Term Monitoring Plan as follows:
There are no budget estimates for the cost of conducting the monitorin< program.
It is our understanding that monies will be set aside in an escrow accoun’ for perpetual maintenance for use by the Department of Fish and Game Given the certain need for routine maintenance, what assurance exists tha sufficient funds will remain to actually conduct the monitoring efforts We strongly urge the City to prepare or obtain budget estimates for th monitoring effort before accepting the plan.
2. The overall plan describes a set of activities that will be conducte however, it lacks an experimental design.
It is not clear what questions the monitoring plan has been designed t answer. For instance, can the monitoring plan differentiate betwe4 success in the individual lagoon basins or only for the project as whole? Additionally, the plan is still lacking in specific goals ai corrective actions that will be implemented if the goals are not achieve(
1.
Cumulative ImDacts
The treatment of the cumulative impacts related to the project appea incomplete. For example, the East Basin dredge fueling station appears to located in the project recently proposed by Odmark and Thelan (Broccato Batiquitos Shores). It is not clear if the development plans of Odmark a Thelan have been considered in the Final EIR/EIS. In addition, the impacts ha
Preliminary Comments on Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement EIR/EIS
Page 3
not been discussed associated with the proposed widening of Interstate 5 nor the construction of the parking lot at South Carlsbad State Beach which will likely preclude dredge sediment stockpile as dunes in that location.
In summary, the Foundation is pleased to note the overall improved quality of the Final EIR/EIS which is essential for informed decision-making. We commend the City of Carlsbad for its persistence in moving the project along and for its diligence in responding to public interests and comments in the preparation of the Final EIR. The Foundation will continue to review the Final EIR/EIS to provide more comprehensive comments to the City Council at their August 14. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
President
TO: Carlsbad Planning Commission
FROM: Inez Yoder
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
1) 3each nourishment shall be implemented in such a way as to caus no degradation of kelp beds.
2) California Flsh and Game shall ke funded by the Port cf L. A
($50,000.) for a Monitoring Program which shall be specificall
designed for this project. This program shall be completed an1 'subject to public review before project start. California De
partment Fish and Game shall write this program setting perfor mance criteria and standards for achieving a biologically func
tioning restored lagoon. This program shall address habitat fo selected species (including abundance and diversity). One line o
an example might be: Construction of Tern habitat shall suppor-
30 pair of Least Tern.
3) This Monitoring Program shall include an appropriate budget as
signed to each item within the program (identify staff time
vehicle cost, etc.). Appropriate questions to determine biologi cal parameters and functions in the project area (from the firs dredging to the completed, biologically-functioning, restore lagoon) shall be written to guide the monitoring actions.
4) A Blind Trust, funded by the Port of L. A., shall be set up
This fund shall be used to establish and support an independen Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Review, Committee. (This Committe
shall be patterned after the Marine Review Committee.) It shal
have five members with representatives from the Regulatory, Pub lic and Academic sectors. BLERC shall review the monitoring
study the project area's biological functioning if needed an
provide an annual report for public review.
5) Any banking of mitigation credits shall be determined by th
BLERC from their findings on biological functioning.
6) The trade-offs set forth in the Final EIR/EIS document shall b compiled before project start for review and evaluation whe
project is completed. This evaluation shall be published fo public review.
7) Revegetation shall be assessed in one year and appropriate cor
rective action taken.
4 .--
qLs71: &a?
rnk
c"$l;i pr
August 1, 1990
Mayor Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mayor Lewis:
We are unable to attend the council meeting of August 14th and
would like this letter placed on record.
We have lived in La Costa since 1974. We purchased our lot
primarily for the view of a beautiful water-filled lagoon.
i3e are not only interested in adequate nesting grounds for the
birds but more water for fish and water fowl and more sand to
replenish our beaches.
We have only to look at the groins placed in various spots in
Imperial Beach supposedly for sand retention, the City of Del
Mar's sand tube and the Camp Pendleton, Del Mar jetty in
Oceanside, to name a few of the projects recommended by the so
called experts that have failed miserably. They recommend and
walk away and the locals are left to pick up the pieces.
You five members have been here a long time, have studied the
issue closer than anyone and we are confident you will vote for
what is best for not only the birds and fish but also the
residents who are very interested in the enhancement of our
beautiful lagoon.
We urge you to vote for Mitigated A.
Thanking you.
Sincerely,
/.J. -
Geor e Clute
M @Lvk2LxL 's Tlute
2466 Unicornio St.,
Carlsbad, CA 92009.
~A~:RAMENTO ADDRESS COMMIITCES
t f HICS COMMITTE
.5A(.2?AMENT<> !ikt)l4 GOVERNMENTAL E
CONSUMER PRO
LOCAI. CAWFUNMI
NAI\II<AL HBSOLic
b'dArER. PARKS AN
STATF CAFiTOL
I!) 1 $;I 445.2190
I ~h I UICT OFFICE
3000 PI0 PIC0 nWF
SUITE 200
C.AWLSBA0, CA 92000
tc119) 434.1 7d8
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS CHAIRMAN
August 14, 1990
The Hon. Claud "Bud" E. Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mayor and Councilmornbers:
I understand the Council will consider tonight two mitigation plans €or the restoration and enhancements of Batiyuitas Lagoon. T request and encourage the Council to approve the "Mitigated A" Plan.
Among o,ther 'things, it 9s my belief Plan A will
provide greater assurances that the Lagoon will remain opon to tidal flushing, I am convinced that sufficient habitat for shoreline birds will. aI.sc:, be
provided under this option. I hope you will give this recommendation every consideration.
Best regards,
and Council Members
P&.S,+ Msmbar of the Assembly
Seventy-fourth District
RCJ? : p
Chk (-----\ __--
-t
1 cu L ;fa r rt i 8 TEgi !3 1 ut u r P
WILLIAM A CRAVEN QiL p@FF/lf SENATOR -
38TH DISTRICT
90-51 VICE CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE ON RULES
I August 14, 1990 I 1
Mayor Bud Lewis City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad CA 92008
Subject:
Dear Mayor Lewis:
Tonight the City Council of Carlsbad will be considering the
Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project and I wanted to take a
moment to express my thoughts on this very important subject.
As you well know, this plan will greatly benefit not only the
City of Carlsbad, but residents throughout the state. It is a wonderful opportunity to restore and enhance the natural
environment, particularly a resource as scarce and valuable as
coastal wetland. In this day of diminishing state and local
funds, you truly have a unique opportunity to restore a degrad
natural resource through a willing funding source.
It is my understanding that you are currently at a stage in th review process which is critical to the project success.
Obviously, because there is not a precedent for this type of program, issues could be limitless and debated indefinitely.
Obviously, even after your decision is made, hundreds of detai will still need to be addressed. However, I believe that the most vital issue to be resolved at this point is the choice of project alternative which best meets the broadest public
interest, and in my opinion, that must include visual as well biological considerations.
Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project - Final EIR/EI,
-r
1 -_ - --_ __ >x5 __ - - '-5'*-5-- .- 3 ------ -== - .- - - - __ -:-I._ - -- - -I
c % . .-+
August 14, 1990 Page Two
Of the ten explored and evaluated alternatives, only Mitigation Plans A and B are effectively functional; and, when you take in1 consideration visual impact, Mitigated A truly offers a larger
water body which creates an enhanced visual environment and whic
serves the largest number of people.
Therefore, I would hope that at tonight's meeting a thorough discussion of the importance of the visual impacts can be addressed and you will join with me in supporting Mitigation
Plan A.
Cordially,
WILLIAM A. CRAVEN Senator, 38th District
WAC : bf cc: Aletha Rautenkranz, City Clerk
&)/ST.* - @Leak- bag cI”.$ q4t. WORLDPORT
Tom Bradley Mayor City of Los Ar
Board of Harbor Commissioners
Jun Mori Esq President
E Grace Payne LL D Vice Presia
Roberi G Rados Sr
Ronald S Lusning
Peter Mandia Secretary
Ezunial Eurts
Executive Director
August 9, I990 Floyd Clay
r
Mr. Claud “Bud” Lewis, Mayor
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue)
Carlsbad, CA 92008
n ATTATTTTAC T 3 n-nn7y E~JHA~JCE;,?ENT ~~QJECT VTh- 1’11,, ~~ A T
YA XI I v L L A U 3 S’LTBJECT UL 1. i* W VI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTETATEMENT (ETREIS)
Dear Mayor Lewis:
In November of 1987, the City of Los Angeles and City of Carlsbad entered into an unprecedented interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game and State Lands Commission towards the establishment of restoration project at Batiquitos Lagoon. This MOA contains provisions for modification of the restoration project through compliance with the Californiz Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) througl
preparation of an EIR/EIS.
As indicated in our “letter for the record” for the Planning Commission Hearing held on July 18
1990, (attached), the Port believes the Final EIR./EIS represents a fair and unbiased environmenta
assessment with the proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. Further, the informatioi
before you and the public process involved provides a sound basis on which the City Council cai
make an informed decision without further delay.
Review Period. Completion of the EIR/EIS has included a 75-day review period on the Drai
document (45 days are required), and a 45-day review period on the Final EIREIS prior to th
City Council Hearing. Review of the Final EIR/EIS has been facilitated through detaile
responses to each and every comment received on the draft.
Public Forudnteraction. During the EIWIS process there have been five public workshor three public hearings and individual meetings with many of the commenting parties. I
addition, there have been numerous press releases on project updates and two newsletters.
Agency Interaction. Significantly the entire process of arriving at a preferred alternative h<
been coordinated through numerous meetings with the resource and permitting agencic
including USFWS, NMFS, CDFG, SLC and EPA.
Technical Credibilitv. A significant amount of time, funds, energy and effort have bec
invested to ensure a sound engineering and biological basis to the project. For the Fin
EIR/EIS this has included reconfirmation of the project basis’ through detailed responses comments on the draft, and verified through independent third party review of the document.
Port of Los Angeies 425So Pa/os VerdesStreet P 0 Box 151 San Pedro CA 90733-0151 213519 3400 Telex 182387POLASPRO FAX An Afirmafive AcrionEqual Opportun,fy Empioyer
r The decisions now before the Carlsbad City Council represents the culmination of over four years
of technical planning, meaningful and protracted public interaction, and an unprecedented coordination between Carlsbad staff, their technical consultants, and federal and state resource and permitting agencies.
In keeping with the provisions of the MOA, and within 45 days of certification/approval of the
EIREIS by Carlsbad or the Corps of Engineers (whichever occurs last), the Board of Harbor
Commissioners for the Port of Los Angeles, must approve or disapprove proceeding with final
design for the selected project. Based on findings to date, either Mitigated Alternative A, or
Mitigated Alternative B would restore marine values to Batiquitos Lagoon and could be recommended for approval to the Board of Harbor Commissioners at that time.
The Port acknowledges and applauds the significant efforts of Carlsbad Planning Staff, their consultants, and all parties participating in the EIR/EIS preparation review process in their efforts to optimize this beneficial project. We look forward to your favorable and prompt findings on the environmental document, project approval and selection of alternatives.
If you should have any questions regarding this information, please contact our staff representative Dr. Ralph Appy who can be reached at (213) 519-3497.
\
EZUNIAL BURTS
Executive Director
EB :RGA:tmg Attachment
a.
July 18, 1990
F
c
Ms. Sharon Schram, Chairperson City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 2075 Los Pahas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
SUBJECT: BATTQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FINA:
Dear Ms. schram:
In November of 1987, the City of Los Angeles and City of Carlsbad entered into an unprecedente interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nation Marine Fisheries Service, California Depment of Fish and Game and State Lands Commissic towards the establishment of a restoration project at Batiquitos Lagoon. This MOA, among 0th things, contains provisions for modificarion of the restoration project through compliance wth t California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEF thrVugh preparation of an EIR/EIS.
The Port has reviewed the Final EIEWIS for the Batiquitos project, and Carlsbad’s staff report
the project, and believe these documents represent a fair and unbiased environmental assessrx and analysis of the proposed project. IF there is any shortcoming to the document, it is t significant benefits of the proposed full tidal alternatives are not adequately emphasiz
particularly in relation to the No Action Alternative. In parricular, it should k emphasized t fdiIure to implement a tidal alternative at Batiquitos assures accelerated loss of the existing value. the la, won.
A significant issue for consideration by the Port is Carlsbd staff’s recommendation to se
Mitigated Alternative B as the restoration alternative for implementation. At the inception of MOA process, and as reflected in the draft EWEIS, Alternatix A was the alternative proposec
he Poit, since &is dirernaLk pr0vkk-d he most marine resources values and, therefore, credi1
be appli’ed toward Port development projects. However, as a result of the environmental rev process, which inciuded unprecedented coordination among all parties, the project alternari.
including Alternative A, have been modified through application of spec;fc mitigation rnessr Based on the findings in the Final EWEIS, both Mitigated Alternative A and Mitigated Alrern: B meer enhancement objectives with Mitigated Alternative B king the agency and environmen preferred alternative. Mitigated Alternative A provides the most marine fisheries vdue (CTC
and Iess risk of closure whiIe protecting existing habitat values, while Mtigated Alternati.
provides Iess marine values, has a greater although acceptable risk of tidal inlet closure
provides grater value for bird populauons. WhiIe Alternative A provides the most adts a
m acceptable project 5om he Pods standpoint, the Port does recognize, and is sensitive tl
significant environmentai issues and varied interests of the parties participating ir
environmental review process. As ;f iesuit. the Port would consider eirher Mirigated Altemac
or B if they were to be approved by CxMnd.
~TVE?UhW?TI‘AL W4cT ?.E?ORT/STATEME mfETR/E IS)
*<I. * --
Ln keepins wirh the provisions of the MOA, and within 45 days or‘ certific~uon/~pprovd of ;he EWIS by Carisbad or the Corps of Enghecrs (whichever wcm !as[), tile Boud of Hubor Commissioners for the Port of Los Angeies, must approve or disapprove proce-dg wirh find design €or the selected project. Based on findings to date, either ,Midgated Alternative A, 01 Midgated Alternative B would restore marine values to Bauquitos Lagoon and could be
recommended for approval by the Board of Har’mr Commissioners at thx time.
The Port achowledges the sign5cant efforts of CSrisbad Planning Staff, the2 consulmu, and al parries participating in the EIR/EfS preparation review process in their efforts to optimize thi beneficid project We look forward to your favorable recommendations to the Caririsbad Cis Council, and would like to reserve the opporruniry to comment funher, if required, at the Cic Council Hearing.
E you should have any questions regarding this information, plae contact our staff represennuv Dr. Ralph Appy who can be re3ched at (213) 519-3497.
sinc~ly, \ Ac . DWAYNE Ti G. LEE
Deputy Euehive Director of Developmenr c
v
W:jp
bcc: Executive Director De?. Exec. Dir. :.Iaritine Affzirs
7 Emi.ronme~td
Eqcine er inc 3
City ,Ittorney 2320
-
#539 pi32 Gi-'E-lA-'% Tl-lE 15:26 ID: ~~*tKIL~tll~lll~t~ GfiLGtlTEp TEL tin:213 237-u5q3 TIIpI- --
Y
@it1 Mo~ltttl
attu piall
2W N. SPRING
LOB ANQLLES, CA noom 239, ciw
401 saw
of i%D
(Ilitp nf (pi001 $n&r RUTH OALANtER
COUNCILWOMAN
00UL;t 8IXTH ol8TllCr
August 14, 1990
Mr. Gmy E, Wayne
City of Carlabaa
2075 Laa Pahe Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1576
War Mr. Wayne;
After reviewing the Batiquias Lagoon Etharmmnt Project Fhal EIR/ELS, 1 must mn that I find this dccument to be substantively Inmnplete
Project mlager DeparbEnt of Plhg
and promdwa f ly inadequat~. This claim 16 mseu on we roiiowmrJ:
(1). The Alternatives discussion in the F-1 EXR/EI;S differ8 significantly frcm the Draft EIR/EIS. Several of the Alternatives ham heen significantly redefined inmrprating new information not tom in the original descriptim of the altemtive,
adequate definition of an optimal tidal prism.
tidal prim ia critical to fully understanding which alternative muld kst enhance pasticular habitat values,
(3). The Final EWEIS does nat adequately respond tm Carmen- received on the Draft EIR/EIS. Major disagreemXIts, of both scientific and technical nature, are not afforded the full discussion my me
entitled, Disregard of such substantive concerns in8icat3s a les8 than ularough and shortsighted analysis for the entire project.
myexrent of the lagoon upon cunpletion of the project. With respect to mitigation mnitoring, the historical record speaks very poorly for itself. implmtation of the mitigation measures euqgested h the ESWEIS?
Most importantly, there is no discussion of haw upland sedin?znts will be prevented fran entering the lawn. long-term managestrent problem for Batiquitos Lagoon manawt, yet the
dDcumznt lacks a discussion of this challenge.
(2). With respect ta Batiquitos -goon, this doetrment lacks an Dafinition of the ideal
[4). The Final EIWEIS lacks a meaningful propdsal for long-term
What steps will be taken by the involved agmciee to ensure
This will be a primary,
CHAIRWOMAN. RULES AND ELECTIONS COMMITWE
VICE CHAIRWMAN, COMMERCE, ENERGY 6: NATURAL RCSOURCLB COMMllTEE MEMBER. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY R WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
#c-- _d,-_cc_--s liUG-14-'913 TUE 15: 27 ID: c" i.iCILWOP1Ft.I GF1LGbJTER TEL t.ICi: 212 237-.35J9 J6j83 PO3
In conclusion, let m alao state that I sbriyly object to the use nnd
application of Port of L3s Angelas mitigation fwas in a region not directly iml>acW by activities conducted by the Port of me AnqQlcs.
Thank you for the opprtunity to CQrmtnt on this document.
&& rn ci?uwI'c;K
Councilwanan, Sixth District
m: Ikm
I
L Wl.
-+% '*
Slicwvliiic~ +CU+ ( wiw
August 3, 1990
Colonel Charles Thomas
District Engineer U. S. Army Corps of Engineers L. A. District P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, Ca. 90053-2325
Re:
Dear Colonel Thomas:
our Scientific Advisory Board members are in the process of reviewing the Final EIR/EIS for the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement
Project. Due to the size of the document and the complexity of the project they need more time to perform their review. There-
for we ask that you extend your review deadline of August 13 tc
August 31.
Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Final EIR/EIS
Sincerely,
Inez Yoder,
President
cc: Gary Wayne, Project Manager
Planning Department,
City of Carlsbad
I
j'fl) tbrth F.'/ (itmtrto l(rnl .%tk +I/ F.;~tfttlU. (*I %?()?+
0 The EIR indicates that both mitigated alternatives A & 1
- Which goals are not achieved? - Are they the same for each Mit. A & B? -
- How were the enhancement goals established? - Who established these goals?
Is there any agreement between environmental experts, scientists, and/or the resource agencies as to which habital type is better?
Are birds more important than fish?
Ask the resource agency reps - if Port mitigation were not L consideration what would be your agencies' goals for the enhancement of Batiquitos Lagoon?
According to Elizabeth Cooper in a letter received by OUI staff last Friday the No Project Alt is preferred because it maintains the high value resource and the potential loss of the resource through sedimentation can be corrected in the future with minor periodic dredging that is less disruptive tc
the resource.
_. b
Y achieve 13 of 15 enhancement goals and that is the most.
Were visual resources included in the enhancement goals Why not? -
0
0
0
- Is the existing habitat of high value?
- Which has the highest resource value Exiting or Mit. A & B?
- Which has the highest resource value between Mit. A & Mit. B?
She also contends that sedimentation over the next 50 years will reduce shorebird habitat by 25% under the No Project Alt.
and the Mit. B Alt would reduce shorebird habitat by 83%. I
thought that retention of habitat value was a requirement of
the project.
0
- Can you respond to Ms. Copperls comment?
- Don't both Mit. A and Mit. B retain the existing habitat
values?
0 You mentioned that a continuously tidal system was a primary
enhancement goal.
produce a tidal system?
- Isn't Mit. B's tidal prism at the lowest confidence limit to
- Will Mit. A have less chance of closing than Mit. B?
Which Alt. Mit. A or Mit. B will provide the best habitat for fish?
0 Hasn't there been a serious reduction of habitat for nurseries
for habitat and white sea bass?
Will the proposed development create this much needed habitat?
c:eir.mis
- f.
b
AVlARA
August 1, 1990
Honorable Claude Lewis Mayor CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan
Dear Mayor Lewis:
Attached are the comments submitted to your staff and the Army Corps of Engineer
regarding the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Final EIR/EIS. We believe
that the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project is of monumental importance to
Carlsbad, San Diego County and the State of California. It is literally unprecedentel in many ways. Needless to say, the project is of utmost interest to Aviara.
As you are well aware, the Aviara Master Plan will provide a variety of visitor-semi1
facilities to serve thousands of tourists, as well as residents. The heart of Aviara
caters to Carlsbad residents and visitors who will choose to come to Carlsbad as a
beautiful destination resort. The Aviara project is clearly the largest property affect<
by the lagoon enhancement effort. In the short and long-term, the relationship between the lagoon project and the Aviara development will touch thousands of
residents and visitors. 1
Given the degree of potential impact on Aviara, including residents and visitors, we
believe that close communication regarding our resort facilities construction and
lagoon enhancement is vital. You will see this position reflected in our comments. For example, a hypothetical construction schedule is offered in the EIR/EIS docurne
which shows East Basin dredging underway in the summer of 1992. The Four
Seasons Hotel is scheduled for opening in May of 1992. A world-class hotel grand opening overlooking dredges and earth movers, is not acceptable and should definite1 be considered in scheduling the lagoon dredge program. At this point, we really do
not know the final lagoon construction schedule. This specific coordination point on1
illustrates the absolute necessity for close communication. To date, there has been n discussion to coordinate the hotel/lagoon projects.
I
2Oil P\Lc'\l\i: t\l:<PL>Kr RL>i@ SUITt 206 c\f<I<G\l? ~\lllOX\l\ Q'OOO (6iOl~31-11~0 f '\ ~bld~'"1-~''~~'
c1
5
HonorabIe Claude Lewis
Mayor
CITY OF CARLSBAD August 1, 1990
Page 2
The City Council is in a very unique and important decision-making position as a
permitting agency and project applicant. The EIR/EIS document states "...CarIsbad will identify and select an alternative project that it has determined to be in the public interest and most suitable for implementation." The various collaborating S ta and Federal resource agencies established seven self-imposed criteria which dictate - their project priorities. One of the criteria not on the priority list is visual impact o
aesthetics. me City of Carlsbad, fortunately, does not have that constraint.
At a recent public forum, sponsored by the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation, Robert
Hoffman of the National Marine Fisheries Service, made a very salient observation. His comment was in response to a member of the public expressing concern over tht
possible negative visual impact of agency-recommended Plan Mitigated B. He pointe out that, because of the seven criteria agreed to by the resource agencies, they really
could not deal with visual impacts, and that there was only one agency which could
consider aesthetics, the Carlsbad City Council. You can, and should, consider the .
significance and community benefit of visual impact.
During the long and comprehensive environmental review of our project, the most
recurring concern expressed by a wide cross-section of interested parties, was visual
impact. East of the freeway, the lagoon and Aviara are a single visual package. We
believe that Mitigated Alternative A, offers the best resource protection and is the most visually attractive. The City Council is in the sole position to decide which alternative is reflective of the broadest "public interest."
The EIR/EIS document routinely discusses Mitigated A and B together in contrast to the other alternatives. Although the biological specialists may argue the narrow differences between Mitigated A and B, the overall desirability of A is apparent. Tht EIR/EIS document, under Summary of Environmental Effects, page S-15 states,
"Neither of these mitigated alternatives (A&B) is expected to result in significantly
adverse long-term effects on other existing lagoon resource." When the visual benefit5 of Mitigated A are considered, there is no question it offers the Q& well-balanced
project.
One final, and possibly most important observation regarding Mitigated A. Mr.
Dwayne G. Lee, Deputy Executive Director of Development with The Port of Los
Angeles, testified at the July 18, 1990 Planning Commission hearing, and stated in his letter dated July 18, 1990, that the Port could support either Mitigated B as
recommended by the resource agencies or Mitigated A, depending on the action of
the City. Since the Port's funding support is pivotal to the implementation of the
enhancement work, this is very good news, and leaves the City Council free to choose
the alternative in the best interest of Carlsbad.
-. ..
Honorable Claude Lewis Mayor
City of Carlsbad
August 1, 1990
Page 3
We urge you to allow us direct access to the decisions which evolve regarding projec
implementation, and hope you agree that Mitigated Alternative A is the wisest choicc
for environmental considerations and the most aesthetically beneficial for the community.
D.L. Clemens
Vice President/General Manager
DLC: kaf Enclosure
cc: Mayor Pro Tern AM Kulchin
Councilmember Eric Larsen
Councilmember John Mamaux Councilmember Mark Pettine Raymond Patchett, City Manager Marty Orenyak, Director of Community Development
Michael Holzmiller, Director of Planning /
Isadore Sharp, Chairman of the Board, Four Seasons Hotels
Michael Chase, President, Hillman Properties West, Inc.
Robert Fox, Vice President/General Manager, TSA Development Company
4295 51st Street
San Diego, California 92115 August 3, 1990
Mr. Gary Wayne, Project Manager Department of Planning
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Car lsbad, Ca 1 i f ornia 9 2009 -15 76
Dear Mr. Wayne :
I would like to express my deep concern regarding the proposed Batiquitos Laqoon Enhancement Project. Wetlands are an intricate and complex ecosystem vital to the survival of a myriad of organisms including many avian species. As a field biologist, and Masters student in shorebird biology at San Diego State University, I am very concerned about the loss of shallow, tidally influenced habitat that is critical for foraginc shorebirds. Due to severe human encroachment the wetlands of
southern California have diminished greatly in the last fek decades. Destruction of wetlands should be of paramount concerr due to an estimated 95% land loss in some California coastal areas. We also should keep in mind that the prfmary cause for extinction of wildlife is the loss of critical habitat. Shorebirds have to compete for prime real estate in southerr California and one look at aerial photographs will tell that humans have definitely been the victors. The little area that ie left for roosting and foraging shorebirds should be preserved and not be dredged for a deep water lagoon. It should also be taken into consideration that Batiquitos Lagoon is a part of the Pacific Flyvay and therefore a critical and vital resting and foraging site for thousands of migratory and/or resident species. The loss of this lagoon to a deep vater system is a serious threat to shorebirds and therefore, Batiquitos Lagoon should not be considered an appropriate site for this mitigation project.
Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion on the Batiquito:
Lagoon Enhancement Project.
-
+;?; oJ+-JJ
Patrice Ashfield
cc: Rick Harlacher
I
c
AVI ARA
August 8, 1990
Mr. Gary Wayne
Assistant Planning Director
City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mr. Wayne:
We have reviewed the final EIR/EIS documents and have the following comments:
1. We strongly believe that the most balanced alternative dredging scenario is Mitigated Alternative A It is recognized that the participating agencies createc
a list of seven criteria for testing each alternative. It is also recognized that th
self-imposed list of performance standards are founded solely on the narrow
special interests of the participating parties.
Our experience in the environmental review process has led to the conclusion that a very broad range of issues need to be addressed and balanced to best SI the community. Aesthetics was not one of the seven environmental criteria
agreed to by the participating agencies. However, visual impact wa one of the
most prominent and controversial issues in the consideration of the Aviara EIR
It is unclear exactly how the narrowing of the environmental review process, in
the case of Batiquitos enhancement, was effectuated somewhat arbitrarily durin; the period between draft and final document. We believe the City of Carlsbad
as a permitting agency, must consider visual impacts a part of its environmenta review, and is not bound to review only the agencies stated performance criteri
The final EIR/EIS document states "...Carlsbad will iden* and select an
alternative project that it has determined to be in the public interest and most suitable for implementation." No doubt "public interest" spans a wider specmi of needs that those seven criteria established by the participating agencies. It
our position that Mitigated A offers the best combination of environmental
enhancement and protection in concert with the most visually attractive setting,
The heart of the Aviara project, which spans one mile of the lagoon north sha and incorporates views to the lagoon from virtually all upland areas, is a visit0 serving complex. Thousands of visitors and residents (will) "view" the lagoon
daily. It is difficult to discount the importance of aesthetics given the
prominence and context of the lagoon project.
rn''"**'**.sn Ainn*-rnr D,-\n CIIITC >nA ~~otca~~ C \IIF~W\II p')nc)9 (h19)931-1190 F+\(619)031-;9jo
b
Mr. Gary Wayne
August 8, 1990
Page 2
2. In our comments on the draft EIR/EIS we expressed concern about an area on the north shore near golf course hole number one, which has an "inlet" relationship to the lagoon. This area has been historically severely impacted by off-road vehicle use and uncontrolled flooding/siltation. Because of the proximity of this area to the wetland and some dispersed wetland indicator plant species present, it has been decided (we believe, without due consideration) to leave the area in its present state.
Aviara would like the opportunity to stabilize and enhance this area for a
number of reasons. First, the area is directly below a trail head and interpretive center on the north shore trail, and offers an excellent site for enhancement for
educational purposes. Second, if left in its present state, the area will be further
isolated by lagoon work on the south and the lagoon trail on the north. It is not clear to us how this separate, degraded (topographically and biologically) area could be more valuable left untouched in contrast to its integration into the immediate lagoon environment.
Aviara requests the flexibility to offer a enhancement plan for the inlet area in order to achieve a more viable environment, and to offer the north shore trail users a more complete educational experience. We would be willing to work with the regulatory agencies to achieve their objectives if allowed the opportunity. Attached is a location map and perspective of the subject location.
In regard to our comments and final EIR/EIS response relative to separation of
the north shore trail and the lagoon environments, we wholeheartedly agree that
alternatives to traditional fencing exist. In the near future we plan to submit a
plan to the City and participating agencies showing a fencing/separation plan. 11
is our goal to provide a workable solution which balances the various trail functions and protection of the lagoon enhancement.
We are pleased to see the addition of both short-term and long-term monitoring
programs. However, the programs as presented are simply a framework for more detailed mechanism to be formulated later. We acknowledge that more
"project design" specifically is necessary to serve as a foundation for expanded administrative content.
We request the inclusion (at a non-decision making level) of Aviara in the
development of program details for the following reasons:
3.
4.
the Aviara project is the largest property, and probably most immediately
affected, on the east basin of the lagoon.
2
Mr. Richard Harlacher
August 8, 1990
Page 3
short-term and long-term activities and enhancement project viability,
primarily in the eastern basin, will have a direct and significant effect on
lagoon oriented, visitor serving facilities.
decisions made regarding the Aviara facilities must be made with the mol current and valid information possible in regard to lagoon construction ar project performance for maximum benefit to the public.
5. We are very concerned about the actual construction schedule for the
enhancement project. A "hypothetical" schedule is offered in the final EIR/EI
document, but it is accompanied by a disclaimer which indicates that he actual
schedule is not yet known. When considering impacts of lagoon enhancement
construction activities, such as, noise, dust, air pollution, odor and traffic one
must consider the Aviara project one of the most potentially effected. We, therefore, request individual access (for our information only, not decision
making participation) to the information on lagoon construction scheduling as :
becomes available, so that decisions regarding Aviara development can be
adequately coordinated. --=-ck D.L. Clemens
Vice President/General Manager
DLC/lao
EIR.alo
[ Zn z-
Q a 2
7 0 i= a 0 0 1
I- W J 7 Y\d4 / -
1
>.
.......... .......... .......... ...........
...............
.......... .......... m .............
r:
.- - f
9
z 0 0 (9
1
Elizabeth Copper
227 F Avenue
Coronado, CA 921 1 a
619 435-2687
2 August 1990
Gary Wayne, Project Manager
Department of Planning
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009 -1 576
Comments on the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Final Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement
It is incumbent upon the agencies to select the alternative with the least impact and that is clearly
the no project alternative, While long-term infilling of the lagoon is not resolved by the no project
alternative, the high value resources are maintained so that genuine enhancement of those
resources may be pursued. The death of Batiquitos is not imminent. The document states (VIII,
3-12) that there will be an approximate 25% reduction in shorebird habitat in 50 years with the
no-project alternative. With "Mitigated" Alternative B there will be an 83% reduction in that habitat
(from 395 acres under existing conditions to 68 acres of high value shorebird habitat)
immediately with implementation of this project. The immediacy of need is not for Batiquitos but
for the Port which needs its mitigation credits. This document finally acknowledges that the high
values for shorebirds and dabbling ducks may be "dampened" a nice word for dramatically reduced. This document does not purport that the enhancement plan will maintain existing
values, but that existing values will be retained to the degree that is feasible. This plan would
be unacceptable if it were an independent enhancement plan but it is not. This project is a
mitigation plan with more significant impacts than the project being mitigated and there is no
mitigation for the mitigation. This plan is precedent setting in its magnitude and in the proposal
to mitigate wetland losses in other wetlands. If this were a flawless project that precedent would
still be of concern but becomes of much greater import when significant loss to existing wetland
values wiil resut. Impacts to the California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover are
inadequately addressed. There will be a reduction in the historical nesting acreage for both
Special Status species which is not acknowledged in the document and both short-term impacts
resulting from the construction phase and long-term impacts from lost nesting acreage are
unmitigated, another disturbing precedent of this project. The current practice of opening the
lagoon in the spring assures available nesting habitat for both species. The Western Snowy
Plover, a species deserving of listing as endangered because of the precipitous decline in the
breeding population in recent years may well be extirpated as a breeding species from Batiquitos
which has historically been a stronghold, because habiiat requirements will not be satisfied.
This project is driven by the basic premise that a fully and continuously marine system represents enhancement regardless of the impacts on existing conditions. It is also implied that
t
implementation of this project is the only mechanism to achieve a marine system. Whether th
lagoon should be fully tidal remains to be resolved, but that is not the issue. me issue whether this project is appropriate to Batiquitos in its treatment of this wetland resource. it is n
contention that it is not.
This project deserves to be elevated by the Environmental Protection Agency to allow fc
objective review and a supplemental EIS to address significant changes in the alternatives.
Batiquitos is too valuable a natural resource to treat in so cavalier a fashion, but more importai than Batiquitos itself is the potential damage to be done to the system which protects our natw
resources. Mitigation must have some meaning. We can't afford to sacrifice what little is left
Following are comments on specific aspects of the EIWEIS:
Volume I
* Major Findings and Conclusions. S-7. These findings and conclusions are written
to imply the absence of marine associated habitats in Batiquitos. While the lagoon is not tidal many of the bird species using the lagoon are marine-
associated and their habitat functions as if the system were marine. The
statement that no other resolution exists to deal with fine sediment deposits is
incorrect. Small-scale, long-term removal is a potential option which would not
require destroying Batiquitos to save it.
Lagoon Enhancement Options. S-9. The "extreme variation" that currently exists
in the system supports a significant diverse and sensitive avifauna. The charge
of the resource and permitting agencies is not the attainment of stability but the
preservation of resources. In this case under the "extreme' conditions Batitquitos
is of "extreme" value and those values should not be reduced to achieve a more
mediocre but more stable set of conditions.
Alternative Projects. The "mitigated" alternatives are significantiy changed in a
number of respects from the original alternatives but the justification for those
changes is not dearly provided in the document. It would appear that a supplemental EIS is necessary. In that supplemental document there should be
complete review of the data gathered in south San Diego Bay which apparenw
was used to redesign the slopes in the mitigated alternatives. The Port has been
kind enough to provide me that information but it needs to be available for public
review and needs to be expanded. One of the things that seems immediately
apparent from examining the data provided by the Port is support for the
contention that narrow strips of shoreline regardless of the slope are of
significantly lesser value than broad strips of habitat. According to Table 3-9 the
actual acreage of habitat under "mitigated' alternative 8 that will fall in the
functional shorebird habitat range of +1.9 to +3.9 MUW is only 86 acres and of
that only 68 of those acres will fall in relatively broad strip habitat. Given these figures the reduction from the maximum 395 acres the cunentty functions as
shorebird habitat would be 83 percent.
Table 5-2. This is a simplification of the potential effects and is indicative of the
*
%
bias inherent in this process.
Conversion of habitat in the Lagoon S-16. The 'reduction of shallow water habitat
is acknowledged but the impacts of that reduction are not. There is no support
for the assertion that habitat value can be maintained. The document predicts a
no better than equivalent acre-for-acre habitat value. Throughout the original
Ehancement Plan and the Draft ElWElS it was asserted that Alternatives A through
0 would maintain existing values. Significant adverse effects are now
acknowledged for those alternatives but the same unsupported assertions are
being made for the "mitigated" alternatives. It would appear that improvements
have been made in the "mitigated" alternatives but they do not begin to offset the loss of habitat.
S-23. Implementation of the enhancment plan for Batiquitos is acknowledged to
cause the irreversible change of the lagoon's existing conditions. A 404 C
determination is clearly called for.
S-24. The assertion that the no-action alternative will result in irreversible change
is absurd, Given the infilling rate predicted in this document, there is ample
opportunity in a 50 year or longer time-period to deal with the potential long-term loss of this wetland system.
S-28. The displacement of the mudflats and wetland vegetation is acknowledged and then dismissed as an unavoidable tradeoff to achieve restored tidal action.
lt should be acknowledged that it is an unavoidable tradeoff only of this project
and is a tradeoff that should be unacceptable given the relative scarcity of the
resource to be lost.
S-33. Reference to the Agency Preferred Alternative suggests that the Agency decisions have been made about this project before it has completed public
review. This is an unacceptable prejudice to insert in a document of this import.
In reality the fundamental decisions regarding the existing values and the need for
tidal flushing were made by some agencies at the very beginning of this project
with the original draft Enhancement Plan. While the plan has undergone some
modification in response to expressed concerns the fundamental concerns with impacts to the existing avifauna have been ignored throughout the process. This
project has been a mitigation plan for LA. Port fill from the beginning and it has
been the lack of mitigation opportunites elsewhere and the interpretation of the
mitigm policies that have driven this project nor is it what enhancemnt is all
about. Enhancement of Batiquitos has always taken second place to the need
for Port mitigation and that is not what mitigation is all about.
S-35. The long-term environmental quality for some things will be enhanced, but
those biota being enhanced are of lesser rarity than the things that currently exist
in the lagoon that will be diminished.
1-2. The extreme fluctuations under existing conditions support high Value
extremes for shorebirds, dabbling ducks, Snowy Plovers, Least Terns and other avian spedes. These extremes are achieved and maintainable in a simple and
relatively predictable way and it is those high value extremes which must be
*
*
*
*
1
presewed.
3-1 4. The short-term effects producing disruption and loss of feeding, nesting and resting habitats for some Species is undefined in its duration and unacceptable
without mitigation. The law may allow overriding Condiderations to supercede the
need for mitigation but the precedent set in abandoning mitigation requirements
for endangered and proposed species such as the Least Tern and the Snowy
Plover as well as the shorebirds and dabbling ducks is frightening and unjustified
by the potential benefits to be derived from this project.
4-1 7. The staging and storage of construction materials on the newly created tern
sites is highly undesirable. A desirable substrate is apparently a significant factor
in the selection of nesting areas by the tern. A compacted and disced site is not likely to be suitable for tern nesting. A sand substrate with a high shell content
is the preferred substrate for the tern and generally requires weathering to allow
the shell material to surface.
Volume II. Response to Comments:
The document failed to respond to a majority of the concerns expressed in my comment!
Among other concerns, the document does not deal with the Regional importance of Batiquito
to shorebirds or dabbling ducks other than to acknowledge them to be of relatively high valuc
and to acknowledge that these maximum values will be reduced. The validity of the Habita
Evaluation Process and the qualifications of the participants are asserted to be sufficienl however, the mistakes in the process would be evident to any ornithologist familiar with southeti
California coastal avifauna. The HEP participants included no ornithologists, the backgrounc
most well-represented was fisheries. The decisions rendered regarding Batiquitos' existing anc
project values have most certainly been arbitrary and capricious. The response to the conceri
with reduction in historical nesting acreage for the California Least Tern is simply incorrect.
have monitored tern nesting at Batiquitos since 1976 and prepared the maps of historical nestins
areas and know them to have been given to the MIS. This issue has been ignored throughou
the process. Construction impacts to the tern are unmitigated, construction impacts tc
shorebirds and dabbling ducks. tf Least Terns were dealt with in such a cavalier manner in othei
sytems in this County there would be few left. The response to the request for a biologica
opinion on this project is unsatisfactory. A Biological Opinion buried in the Pac-lex EIR does no
provide adequate review of impacts resulting from this project. I have worked with the FWS foi
fifteen years with regard to Least Tern issues in this County and know that implementation of this
project without mitigation for impacts to the tern is wholty inconsistent with treatment of terrl
elsewhere in the County. tt has consistently been the policy of #e FWS in this County to require
at minimum maintenance of remaining historical habitat and to require mitigation for potential
nesting season disturbance. Predator Control at this and other sites would be potentiai
mitigation for construction impacts, a compensatory measure regularty required elsewhere in the
County. For this project nothing is required. Predator controls for the Least Tern by tern
monitors has been tried and does not work. Predator control work needs to be left tc
professionals in that field and adequate funding must be provided to make that possible.
It is acknowledged that there will be significant adverse impacts resulting from the constructior
phase and that these impacts can't be mitigated. A finding of overriding consideration that would
allow significant adverse impacts without mitigation would constitute an arbitrary and capricious
decision on the part of the agency, tt is asserted that the removal of the Port's mitigation needs
*
*
4
as a driving force in this project would not result in a SignifiCantb different enhancement plan and
that the benefb of the current plan are not acknowledged. I have acknowledged the benefits,
it is the damage resulting from this project that has not been acknowledged in this document.
The Port's needs for subtidal fisheries habitat and the resource agency concern with replacement
of that habitat have obscured the value of Batiquitos in its existing condition and have produced
a plan directed towards satisfying those needs. Without Port funding this project would not
proceed but that leaves room for a project with a different scale, a different goal and a different
time-frame conducive to enhancement of existing high-value resources. The underfunding of the maintenance account would be clear if any of the projected tasks and goals were looked at with
regard to cost. This Concern deserves a better response, including an outline of projected
expenditure of the account. The potential 75% loss of habitat is based on the figures provided. While on any given day the maximum 395 acres may not be available it represents the maximum
potential acreage which is typically achieved under the current regime during the fall migration
period for shorebirds. This stated concern is not a simplification of the issue, it is the issue. You
can't take away 3/4 of the habitat and maintain the same population. It may well be that the
intertidal zone created by this project will have a healthy invertebrate food source for shorebirds
but achievement of that does not compensate for the magnitude of habitat loss.
Volume 111.
Appendix A: Long-term Monitoring Plan
* A-7. Birds. The sampling method is fine but the need is for truly experienced
ornithologists to perform this monitoring. While DFG personnel are certainly
capable generalists no one locally available has the skills to perform this task. It
is not likely that this monitoring plan is achievable without retaining observers from
the private or academic sectors. The cost will be significant if the cost of the MBA
surveys is a reasonable indicator. I am concerned both about the skill of the
personnel retained to do this monitoring and the capacity of the account to fund
this monitoring when coupled with the other costs likely to be assigned to that
account. One of the things notably absent in this process is quantified goals to
when it comes to avian use of the lagoon, how many of what species will be
expected to occupy this system at what times of the year. Historical data from the
California Shorebird Study could be combined with the results of the MBA data
to define those goals. Stated goals would clarify the predicted end results and
afford the opportunity to seek reparation either within this system or elsewhere if
the goak cannot be met. It should also be noted that DFG faces significant Staff
reduction8 among itS biologists and additional staffing will be required to manage
and monitor Batiquitos.
A8. Species of Special Concern. Monitoring of Snowy Plovers should not be
treated as an adjunct to Least Tern monitoring. Because of the precarious nature
of the coastal population and recent precipitous declines in that population in
southern California and the ignorance of Snowy Plover habitat requirements
acknowledged in this document the Plover requires monitoring in its own right
which should not be restricted to the nesting season. Weekly surveys during the
breeding suweys for this species and for the tern are inadequate. Monitoring
should be done evq other day. Monitoring done of either species done oniy
from a safe distance will not allow reproductive success to be monitored with any
\
degree of accuracy. Frequent monitoring is also essential to assist predator control efforts which should be mandatory.
Appendix F: Effects on Regional Habitat Values
The discussion of the regional context is as superficial and misleading as in all precedinc
documents associated with this plan. Appendix F is clearly a rehash of the same inaccurate anc
misleading information intended to support the project rather than to provide an objectivc
delineation of existing data. Contrary to the documents contention the most recent anc
comparable data are not used. Much of the information is incorrect or misleading, for examplc
the protrayal of the Santa Margarita River is wholly misleading, suggesting a complete absencr
of channels and mudflats. You only have to drive by on the freeway to see how incorrect thii
table is.Christmas Bird Count data As far as impacts to the avifauna are concerned, putting thc
value of Batiquitos in its proper context within the Region is the crux of the debate, It is in thi
part of the document where the efforts to obfuscate are most obvious. It would appear that thc
author of this section of the document was undoubtedly handicapped by inadeuqate funding t
do a good job and by ignorance of the avifauna of San Diego County as well as a general lac
of understanding of the habitat needs of the bird groups of greatest concernWhile new data ha\
been included none of the existing information that indicates the importance of Batiquitos for fi
migrating shorebirds or dabbling duck information has been included. Data from the South Sa
Diego Bay Enhancment Plan Study which clearly indicate the reduced used of dabbling dud
in marine habitats is not addressed. While King (,..) is cited in the References, r
acknowledgement is made of the value of brackish systems for waterfowl, nor does tt
document use the data gathered for the Draft EIFUEIS to assess the relative value of Batiquitc
for dabbling ducks. This dWUm8nt persists in suggesting that the fact the water levels will 1
consistent throughout the year is of sufficient value to outweigh the replacement of dabbling duc
habitat. This is an absurd assertion. Dabbling Ducks occur primarily during the late fall ai
winter months in this County when the water levels at Batiquitos are ideal for this group of birc
* Section 2.0. Existing Habitat Values at Batiquitos, Birds. It was essential for this
portion of the document to be done accurately, objectively and as completely as
possible to allow a fair assessment of the project. Unfortunately, this section is
superficial, incomplete and inaccurate and certainly not objective. No recent
shorebird information is included despite the fact that strveys were done for this
project The choice of material for comparison is almost meaningless - Christmas
Bird Count Data from two adjacent lagoons and shorebird data that is almost
twenty years dd. The level of discussion is not appropriate to the issues raised
by thb project. Data are available that support the contention that Batiquitos is
the bat coastal lagoon for fall shorebirds in this County and data are available
that show it to be second only to San Elijo for dabbling ducks but them data are not included in this discussion, (though the literature is included in the References.
Without a fair portrayal of existing conditions it is not possible to have a fair
impact assessment nor is proper public review possible. This section is perhaps
the best indicator of the aribtrary and capricious nature of the decisionflaking
associated with this project. The inadequacy of this section alone renders the
document inadequate.
Table 2-3. This table represents data compiled in 1985 but not necessarily data *
f
gathered in 1985. There are Clear inaccuracies such as the habitat distribution at
the Santa Mwgarita which is certainly not absent channel and mudflat habitat as even a drive-by on the freeway will indicate. The relatively factual aspects of this
table such as the percentage of Channel and mudfiats at Batiquitos is not
referenced in the discussion as an indicator of existing values.
The entirety of this discussion wifh relation to birds is biassed to support the project rather than to provide a fair portrayal of the existing value of Batiquitos and
potential project impacts. Data are chosen selectively to support the project.
have been of high value to shorebirds when open, but fails to address the fact
that it was fundamentally the shallow water system that it is now.
Table 2-4. The lagoon was opened in late April or early May of 1988 and was
superb for shorebirds in the fall of 1988. Why are these data not included?
Table 2-5. Christmas Count Data are used all too frequently in documents of this
sort without acknowledgment of the failings of such data. Christmas Bird Counts
(CBC) are conducted by observers with highly variable skill levels, the coverage
is seldom complete nor is it adequately defined and the primary goal for most
CBC participants is a maximum species number. The skill required to do accurate
counts is tardy achieved by the casual amateur bird observer, the primary
participant in these counts. These data do not represent good systematic
scientific data and should not be used for such narrow comparisons. During the
time frame of the CBC's Buena Vista underwent signficant change with all of the
shorbird habitat removed in the name of enhancment. Batiquitos went from a
primarly open system to a primarily closed system. The data are not discussed
in relation to those events in any way. It is not the kind of information discussed
in CBC's.
The document asserts that there is a clear negative correlation between the
numbers of shorebirds and ducks at Batiquitos but does so in the absence of
information regarding the dosed or open condition of the lagoon. The document
profers water levels as an explantation for the variation in numbers. However,
another possible explanation is that the observers looked at ducks more than at
shorebirds or looked in parts of the lagoon where ducks were mor8 numerous.
Gim that the lagoon was open at least part of that period particularly during the
earilier years it iS not reasonable to assert that fluctuating water levels account for this varhth. Consistency in numbers at Agua Hedionda is not necessarily a
posithre Micator of reiative value but it is implied here and clearly stated elsewhere in the document that consistency is of greater importance than
maintaining the existing high values. Whether such a contention stems from bias
or ignorance or both it is absurd and reflective of the arbitrary and capricious
nature of the document.
Table 2-5. Given the indusion of C8C data in this document, there should at least
have been a fair discussion of the results. The table indicates BatiquitoS to be
superior to both adjacent lagoons in all comparative categories. For dabbling
ducks the mean for Batiquitos is almost twice that for Agua Hedionda and five
* Figure 2-3. The data gathered during the Shorebird Surveys show Batiquitos to
*
*
*
*
a
times that of Agua Hedionda (a fully tidal system). The document acknowledges
that Bum Vista and Batiquitos are of higher value for dabbling ducks than Agua
Hedionda and suggests that brackish conditions are the reason. Doesn’t this
debunk the contention that making Batiquitos marine will retain existing values for
dabbling ducks? During at least some of that period Batiquitos was an open
system (personal observation) which suggests that the shallow water habitat of
Batiquitos is important in maintaining dabbling duck populations.
The section on birds closes with an acknowledgement that the lagoon has a
temporally varied environment but fails to point out that the temporally varied
environment works to the maximum benefit of dabbling ducks and fall migrating
shorebirds. Of all the Counties coastal lagoons, Batiquitos is by far the best for
shorebirds in the fall and second only to San Elijo Lagoon (a primarily closed and
brackish system) for dabbling ducks.
*
Section 2.2.7
* 2-35. While flooding has been an historical problem for the Least Tern at
Batiquitos it is a problem that is resolvable by the timing of the opening of the
lagoon. That there are potential resolutions other than implementation of this
project argues strongly against the project in the face of the dramatic reduction
in historical nesting acreage that will result.
2-35. The above statement applies equally if not more so to the Snowy Plover.
During the 1990 nesting season Batiquitos under the current regime has one of
the highest populations, if not the highest, in the County. This species unlike the
Least Tern is not wholly colonial and would not be expected to do as well in the
small compressed sites that will result from the implementation of this plan.
2-37-2-39. The Belding’s Savannah Sparrow populations may have in fact
increased but a substantial contributor to the variation in numbers relates to the
extent of observer coverage. The sparrow persists under the current regime. This
species would potentially benefit from implementation of this project but data
suggest that this lagoon has not been among the high value areas for the species, that many other locations exist and improvement for the sparrow is not
justified given the potential losses from project implementation of the project.
2-39. cdilbmia Least lem. The portrayal of existing conditions for the Least Tern
is incomplete and inaccurate. Of all the coastal lagoons, (except the Santa
Margarita where the terns have extensive available beach habitat) Batiquitos has been most consistently used for nesting by the tern and has supported the largest
average population. The document fails to indicate this or to identify the acreage
of historical nesting areas at Batiquitos. Nesting data are available from 1973
through 1989, though the consultant didn’t bother to acquire it.
2-39. Western Snowy Plover. The Snowy Plover no longer occurs in nearly all of
the lagoons. The population in San Diego County has declined dramatically in the
*
*
1
last five years and the species has been extirpated from many of its historical
breeding locales (Copper, pers. obs.). This species in this County, historically one
of the sttongholds of the population, would appear to be in much greater jeopardy
than the Least Tern. The California Shorebird Surveys referenced earlier indicate
Batiquitos to have been one of the most signficant sites for this species, but that
literature was not addressed in this section. While Snowy Plovers often nest in
Least Tern colonies, Snowy Plovers very rarely nest on small islands. There have
been no more than one or two nesting attempts by the Snowy Plover at San
Elijo’s tern islands, they have never nested on the F.A.A. Island in Mission Bay,
nor are they known to have nested on any of the islands created in Buena Vista or San Dieguito. They do nest on Bolsa Chica’s islands but only in small numbers
with a marked preference for the island with an immediately adjacent saltpan that
is only seasonally inundated. These birds require large territories and the tern islands will not satisfy their needs. Fencing of tt?e tern islands to protect the terns
may well prove additionally detrimental to the possibility of Snowy Plover use of
the tern sites. This project may well extirpate the Snowy Plover as a breeding
species from a site which historically and to date is one of it’s most significant
breeding areas in the County.
Section 3.2 Biological Resources
The stated basic premise is that the overall value of Batiquitos as fish and wildlife
habitat can be improved by making the system tidal. A tidal system might
enhance Batiquitos, but not when it is to the detriment of the high value resources
that currently exist. A tidal system is necessary to satisfy Port mitigation needs
but for Batiquitos the primary goal should not be to achieve a tidal system but to
achieve a truly enhanced system. The document acknowledges repeatedly that
the existing system will be irrevocably converted and that dabbling duck
populations will be traded for marine fish, marine invertebrates and marine birds.
None of these resourcBs is of equal value either legally or in terms of scarcity of
resource to the dabbling duck population. The document asserts that shorebird
populations can be maintained despite the removal of approximately 75% of the
existing habitat but the document fails to provide any scientific support for that assertion. Batiquitos is currently one of the very best shorebird and dabbling
duck habitats in San Diego County and this project proposes to significantly reduce those values in the name of mitigation and call it enhancement. This is a travesty of the system and is unacceptable.
tt may be that the system would be enhanced by being marine if that were achievebk without reduction of the most valuable habiiats. Throughout the
document concern is expressed with infilling of the lagoon through sedimentation,
but the problem is repeatedly identified as stemming from the constrictions to the
system resuttjng from the construction of Highway 101, the railroad and Interstate
5.
* 3-3. Is the constraint that existing values not be substantially reduced? The
mandate is to retain existing values which this plan fails to do. The document
4
1
acknowledges the reduction of some existing values - what are they and why is
that acceptable?
3-8. EelgmS may colonize this lagoon but species such as the Brant which are
dependent on eelgrass occur very rarely and Only in very small numbers at Agua
Hedionda and are not likely to make use of this habitat. This is another for fish
benefit and should be protrayed as such.
3-9. The document states that feeding and habitat requirements will not change
but that is not necessarily the case. It is clear from the preceding documents that
the primary food source for the fall shorebirds at Batiquitos is primarily insect life.
The coversion to a marine invertebrate food source may alter the habitat
requirements signficantly.
3-1 0. This document persists in advocating reduction of extremes as a beneficial
end result of the project. Unfortunately, among the extremes to be reduced are
the extreme high value of this system under existing conditions for fall shorebirds
and dabbling ducks. lt is absurd to suggest that these are extremes that need to
be reduced, they are the existing conditions that must be maintained.
3-10, Grebes and Diving Ducks. Grebes and diving ducks are likely to increase as a resutt of implementation of this pian; however, these species rarely occur in
any signficant numbers in any of the estuarine systems. The diving ducks occur
primarily on the open ocean and in large bays as do the Western Grebes. While
these species have suffered population declines in the bay systems the reductions
in recent times relate to human disturbance from boating. Agua Hedionda, a tidal,
open water system has few of any of these species. Eared Grebes have always
shown a marked preference for the salt ponds on south San Diego Bay over any
other habitat or location in this County. These species need protection in their
preferred habitats but Batiquitos will not be among them even if it is fully tidal. To
suggest a trade of reduced values for dabbling ducks or shorebirds for this group
of birds at this location is not reasonable.
3-1 1. Dabbling Ducks. It is an absurd contention that dabbling duck use will be
increased in any way by implementation of this plan. Dabbling ducks are not
primarily marine species. The results of the South San Diego Bay Enhancement
Plan (in which one of your peer reviewers was a participant) dearly indicate that
a marine system wil not attract either the diversity or the numbers of dabbling
ducks currently occurring at Batiquitos. The dabbling ducks are not here during
the 9wnm(~ and early fall and therefore the alleged absence of available habitat
under exbting conditions has no bearing. This is currently the second best
coastal System in the County for dabbling ducks and to reduce that value is unacceptable.
3-1 1. Shorebirds. Again this document proposes reducing the extreme high value
that currently exists for fail migrant shorebirds in order to provide more mediocre
conditions available year-round. The goal should have been to maintain existing
conditions or enhance them. tf the lagoon were opened earlier in the spring (in
March for example) than is the current practice this would acCOmodate the peak
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
?.
of spring shorebird migration.
3-12. Habitat Use. In this section it suggests an approximate 25% reduction in existing shorebird habitat in a 50 year period. While the eventual infilling of the
lagoon is undesirable, that is a problem with other potential resolutions than
destroying Batiquitos to save it. A 25% loss in 50 years is better than the 60-75%
loss of habitat for shorebirds in three years that would result from implementation
of this plan.
3-13.
for dabbling ducks is well-known. This group of birds occurs primarily in fresh
and brackish systems and occurs only locally and in small numbers in marine
systems.
* 3-13. Shorebirds. Again this document proposes to “dampen“ the extremes, in
other words to render the best coastal lagoon for fall shorebirds as something
less. The document assumes that habitat values will be comparable acre-for-acre; even if this assumption is correct this does not addres the impact of a close to
75% reduction in the habitat. In addition, it is acknowledged that the recovery
period for the infauna is unpredictable. In other words, the period to achieve acre-
for-acre habitat comparability is unknown. No mitigation is offerred for the indeterminate time lost of the entirety of Batiquitos for shorebirds, nor is there
mitigation for the acreage of habitat lost.
Not discussed in this section are tern species and while the California Least Tern is discussed with the special status species it should be mentioned that Forster’s
Terns have recently colonized Batiquitos Lagoon. This places Batiquitos among
only four areas in coastal southern California where the species breeds. Forster’s
Terns have bred in the west and central basin of the lagoon under existing
conditions. The nesting and roosting areas in the central basin will be lost and
affects on the western colony site of project implementation are unclear. Any
reduction of the nesting habitat would represent a significant loss.
Regional Discussion, 3-1 5. Because other sytems are exploring enhancement
plans, does not justify this project. Most of the current enhancement plan projects
have been unwilling to accept Port monies or Port involvement because of fear
that Port mitigation needs will drive the plans rather than the unique needs of
each of these coastal systems. A reasonable fear. This part of the document
sounds pekrfully like advocacy for signficant dredging of all our coastal estuaries.
if thb project represents how other systems would be approached this is a
frightening precedent to set.
Speclal Status Species See above for comments relating to the California Least Tern. It is acknowledged that changes would occur to the nesting and feeding
habitat of the species but that the effects of the project cannot be determined
because too little is know about Snowy Plovers. This is unacceptably cavalier
when it comes to a species which is functionally endangered, though not formally
listed as such.
*
* Dabbling Ducks. The relative value of a brackish versus a marine system
*
*
I
I do not feel that the majority Of my comments on preceding documents associated with thi!
project have been adequately addressed. The issues have been raised repetitively and 1 wist
my preceding comments to be included as part of the record.
Sincerely,
--.
Elizabeth K9d Copper ;-;.pj
,,kV Y, . C.LI\V, -~ - ._ ___
* HUG- 10- 1390 'X3 : 57 FROM COMM I S I ON T Ci 16194380894 P.02
#
c c
WOmDPom I
Tom BraO'lau. Mayor. Clly d Lo$ An@
B08rd CI Ha&r ComMrSstOn81%
dun Mort, Ew.. PreMwt E. Grew Payne. LLD.. Wm PWSI~Q Robm G. Rams. Si
FbyU CIay
male S. lush~ng Peter MMia. Secmtwy
&unra! &t?s Exmove llrreclor
August 9,1990
Mr. Claud "Bud" Lewis, Mayor City of Carlsbad 1.200 Carlsbad Vige Drive (Elm Avenue) Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: BATXQUITO$ LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FINAL
Dear Mayor Lewis:
h November of 1987, the City of hs Angela and City of Carlsbad entered into an unprecedented intexagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department o€ Fish and Game and State Lands Commission towards the establishment of restoration project at Batiquitos Lagoon. This MOA contains provisions for modification of the restoration project through compliance with the California Envkunmentd Quality Act (CEQA) and Nationat Environmental Policy Act (mPA) through
As indicated in our "letter for the record" for the Planning Commission &&kg held on July 18, 1990, (attached), the Port believes the Final ETR/EIS represents a fair and unbiased environmental assessment with the proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. Funher, the information before you and the public process involved provides a sound basis on which the City Council can makc an informed decision without further delay.
r I IMP-WRTISTAEMENT EELEB) L
prepration of an BTWEXS.
* Reyiew Pen 'd. Completion of the EIRJZIS has included a 75-day review period on the Draft document (45 days are required), and a 45-day review period on the Final EIR/EIS prior to the City Council Hezing. Review of the Final. EI;R/ETS has been facilitated through detailed responses to each and every comment received on the draft.
PttblicYon rrdrntera ctioq. During the EIR/EIS process there have been five public workshops three public hearings and individual meetings with many of the commenting parties. In addition, there have been numerous press releases on project updates and two newsletters+
Agencv Tntee. Significantly the entire process of arriving at a preferred alrernative ha: been coordinated through numerous meetings with the resource and permitting agenck: including USFWS, NMFS, CDFG, SLC and EPA.
TechnicrtlC redibilitv. A significant amaunt of time, funds, enetsy and effort have beer
invested to ensure a sound engineering and biological basis to the project. For the Fina EIR/IEIS this has included reconfirmation of the project basis' through detailed responses tc comments on the Mt, and verified through independent third party review of the document,
+
Po~?o'tcsA~glg(BQ 42s So Falos Verdes Sfreef P 0 Box 757 San P@dro. CA S0733.0151 213/579-3400 7ebx 18-238fPOlA SPRU FAX';
An Aflnarwe AchOrJEQuat d~~mndy~w~Uyw
KLU bY;XtKUX ILLLLYI LLT, CL~LU I c __ __ - __
b RUG-19-1990 QEi:57 FRQM COMMISION TO 16194380294 P.83
t
The decisions now before the Carlsbad City Council represents the culmination of over four yeas of technical planning, meaningful and protracted public interaction, and an unprecedented coordination between Carisbad staff, their technical wnsultants, and federal and state resource md permitting agencies.
In keeping with the provisions of the MOA, and within 45 days of certificatiodapproval of the EXR/EIS by Carlsbad or the Corps of Engineers (whichever occurs last), the Board of Harbor Commissioners for the Port of Los Angeles, must approve or disapprove proceeding with final design for the selected project. Based on findings ro date, either Mitigated Alternative A, or Mitigated Alternative I3 would restore marine values to Batiquitos Lagoon and could be recommended for approval to the Board of Harbor Commissiuners at that time.
The Port acknowledges and applauds the significant efforts of Carlsbad Planning Staff, their consultants, and all parties participating in the EWE preparation review process in their efforts to optimize this bneficial project We look forward to your favorable md prompt findings on the endmental. document, project approval and selwction of altmadves.
If you should have any questions regarding this information, please contact our staff representative Dr. Ralph Appy who can be reached at (213) 519-3497.
EZUNIAL BURTS
L, Executive Director
EB:RGA:rmg
1
.
LkA
WORLDPORT
Executive Director s Report to the
Board of Har6or Cornmi
July 18, 19%
Ms. Sharon Schram, Chairperson City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 2075 Los Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 920094859
SUBJECT: BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FINA
Dear Ms. Schram:
In November of 1987, the City of Los Angela and City of Carlsbad entered into an unprecdentt interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nation Marine Fisheries Service, California Deparrment of Fish and Game and State Lands Commissic towards the establishment of a restoration project at Batiquitos Lagoon. This MOA, among otf things, contains provisions for m&cation of the restoration project through compliance with t California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEP through preparation of an EIREIS .
The Port has reviewed the Final EIR/EIS for the Batiquitos project, and Carlsbad’s staff report 1 the project, and believe these documents represent a fair and unbiased environmental assessme and analysis of the proposed project. If there is any shortcoming to the document, it is tf significant benefits of the proposed full tidal alternatives are not adequately emphasizr particularly in relation to the No Action Alternative. In particular, it should be emphasized tl failure to implement a tidal alternative at Batiquitos assures accelerated loss of the existing values the lagoon.
A significant issue for consideration by the Port is Carlsbad staff’s recornmendaaon to sel Mitigated Alternative B as the restoration alternative for implementation. At the inception of I MOA process, and as reflected in the draft ElR/EIS, Alternative A was the alternative proposed the Port, since this alternative provided the most marine resources values and, therefore, credit be applied toward Port development projects. However, as a result of the environmental revi process, which included unprecedented coordination among all parties, the project alternath including Alternative A, have been modified through application of specific mitigation measui Based on the findings in the Final EWEIS, both Mitigated Alternative A and Mitigated Alternai B meet enhancement objectives with Mitigated Alternative B being the agency and environmenu preferred alternative. Mitigated Alternative A provides the most marine fisheries value (ma and less risk of closure while protecting existing habitat values, while Mitigated Alternanv provides less marine values, has a greater although acceptable risk of tidal inlet closure, provides greater value for bird populations. While Alternative A provides the most credits an an acceptable project from the Port’s standpoint, the Port docs recognize, and is sensitive to significant environmental issues and varied interests of the parties participating in envhnmental review process. As a result, the Port would consider either Mitigated Alternauv or B if they were to be approved by Carlsbad.
F~O~NT~ ‘ IMPACT- RF~RT’STf4rn.W,NT mRmS)
I
In keeping with the provisions of the MOA, and within 45 days of certifcatiodapproval of th EIWEIS by Carlsbad or the Corps of Engineers (whichever occurs last), the Board of Hark Commissioners for the Port of Los Angeles, must approve or disapprove proceeding with fin; design for the selected project. Based on findings to date, either Mitigated Alternative A, ( Mitigated Alternative B would restore marine values to Batiquitos Lagoon and could t recommended for approval by the Board of Harbor Commissioners at that time.
The Port acknowledges the significant efforts of Carlsbad Planning Staff, their consultants, and a parties participating in the EIR/EIS preparation review process in their efforts to optimize th beneficid project We look forward to your favorable recommendations to the Carlsbad Cii Council, and would like to reserve the opportunity to comment further, if required, at the Ci Council Hearing.
If you should have any questions regarding this information, pleast contact our staff representatil Dr. Ralph Appy who can be reached at (213) 519-3497.
Sincerely,
\ At
DWAYNE .LEE Deputy T Ex 've -tor of Development
M:jp
I. pn
UIY~TSD STATES o~paFItMrNt 01: COMMERC
N8tiOnd C)88dO and A-mphWia AdmbiStnti
a c -. I* if&\ 1 i NAVONIU MV RWWIES SERVICS
300 S. Ferry Street Terrainal Zsland, California 90731
'\.,CJ \ Southwest Region
AUpSt 9, 1990
Colonel Charles S. Thomas District Enginerr or Angeles District Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2711 Los Angelas, California 90053-2325
Dear Colonel Thomass
We have reviewed the Final XXR/EI$ relating to the Batiguftos Lagoon Enhancement Project. The following commen*s represent t position of National Marine pisherims Somice (NMFS) as relatec to the issuance of permit (Public Notiue No. 88-21?) for the w( described in that docuent.
NMFS supports the adoption and implementation 02 Mitigated Alternative B. We believe this altarnative rapresents the be& compromise aaaong the conflicting concerns of the various groupr who have an interest in the restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon.
Coastal tidally influenced wetland and lagoan 8ysCemo are relatively rare habitat areas in southern California. Historfcally, most of these systems have been drastically alte
or eliminated as a result of numan activities. Mitigated Alternative B offers an opportunity to restore this Lagoon oys such that it will closmly rgsedle the historic configuration
prior to impacts associated with deposition of large amounts c scdiment in t=he Lagoon.
From a natural resource persg+ctive, thig alternative is expec to not only preserve existing values but enhance th08r v8lU*S well. introduce a permanent marina fishery component which has been absent for nmny para.
The unique values of this type of marine system, particularly nursery areas for a wide variety of fish species, has been we: documented. Recent research conducted by our OWn Southwest
Fishery Center in La Jolla, for example, indicates that this ' of habitat is essentfal to the early life 8t8geS of the California halibut, a species of considerable commercia1 and recreational value.
Finally, given the considerable controversy amsociated with proposed work, we bexieve the &ntplrmentation of an adequate 1 tom biological monitoring program is a critical element of t
CEhr restoration 02 a fully tidal system will also re-
d'i {Q I*.,
16197209461 ?.as RUG-13-1998 14:21 FROM WORLDPORT 3rd F1. TO
(/
*... .
overall project. monitoring issue by means 02 a proposed condition to the Corps‘ permit (page 4-41, condition ZO), Section a. .of that condition may impose an unaccaptablo constraint by arbitrarily limiting I cost of that program. We, therefore, recommend the adoption 0:
this specific condition with thm deletion of Section a.
shauld you have any questions regarding our Co’IPments, please contact Robert Hoffman of my staff at (213)514-6663.
While thm Final EIWEXS addresses the
Sincerely ,
Regional Director
cc: PSFWS, J. Fancher EPA, L. MicheTi CDFG, R. Nitsos mu0 R6 APpY
---- - "UU A4 Ad>- A- A- 4 ; %G* 13 '90 t2:13 &ri -* - -
stm 4c clu-w# mota
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
sreX*MLNtO. CIUlcIHU trwraft
e#IoI WIMYIAU, *
P.0, =?ox ,Ute*
(926) 445-3531
August 20, a990
me Ricbrd Iar?lachar UlS. Amy Coma oF Ilngin*.ts
Lea Art902.8, Caftiornia 90085-1325
Pear #r?, ilarlaahmr t
Tho Dapartamt: 02 Fimh and O~ar hrs rwfawad thm Fhrt hVfZO~#nt$2 Impaat RepOrt/&%'Vh8nra423f81 -8af StatWlrRt EI8) gor th 8atiguicor trgoon znhancaaaat trofactl Tbr 83 de~ttta.nb hu~udas rn anal rfr of &lBp28lU8R%8tb8 Of 8 edfk 7aiCri atbn &oaaur.a to aztwaat Va8 A I, md C, &Oh WQ d wild3 fa bpaotse Thr doauraant ihnt$i *I ~ftigrted Altarnativr a* tha 8WirWlZ8*Z¶t8~~ IU Or&@? altW8%8tfVa* 8nd r8aomend &e t.8, Cor 8 8f Zn inrrrr8 PgnrZ %e t?W ErR/Er8 ala tWU8 all 4 .X rht8 parmi t hclu ing 8p.clA.f mdLthn8 $0 ZOt@Ut ex PF 8k,l¶g rasouzeaa, Cor the &pmntat en e2 WLtiqat@d llt@mrtiV* 9, Mitigatad Aitrmbtfv. pZ0Vib.S 8 tidal mtcb Will Fallllt in UWltiI¶WU8 kIdrl WriOn Wh&h p 8VAd ng -0
u UhtQ Ir.nUh oea. Pexrftf
1 3 YP 1 f miga f iiemfty raduca prrvtourt idrnthrd Wh (L
! e a
gr*rt.&t rlln OP ht;@rt;idrl abpa8 Whhh 8U OS% a% € fi%h'lB ?E rhdtobird an ! watarfawz U8 8, erprcially in
a,n\onba*n !I 8 $0 he80 8PaCi81 COndAtbn%1
4f We UOtiCy With %h B 2iXldin
Pa*
8FC8 C8bl.l hOW.VOX, WI r$8omtn8nd tbe. f&hW 1 llq two
t e gartorn Barin* Tha r8htroduotion ol 8euk nuoua %ldal rotion rho grwider for tha rarrtabtfrbzoant of 8 marine &co8y&tuar
Prapesrd Spacial conb2tions &fatad on pagrr 4-38 throu h 4-42 ar6 wwat1
1, MQd&w eUndkt&on 1s fa inelude l).,.or an a&rvltion drt8minOd by ZmllOUr$l ap-Ci+ll basad 911 an mrrly 8.8SOII n.8t WWWn*
2. Ddata aoadition 2o-a. tha Zong-trrm nonAtogiAq plan s,ry rosurt: in & plm which wit1 not p20vida an adoqurta asaoswmni oil biorcrgLoaL abiectr 02 the enhancvmrnt prajact.
m+ irrc~urfon OP a dollar mamt For
P.3 .&pG :3 ',=+ 1t:Jcr 4. I 4
c Mr a Richazd Itatlachar -2- AUgU8b LO, ZPSO
In addition, rdjUab8ntr to tha hal qrrdtnq fan in ordar: to m%izAi28 UWfO~ nnovy plovrr nrstfng hrbltak in t g crartam ortAan Oi th Eastax:
Uontfnu8 and which ZaQUh8 tnr ~..L.X raauft (fra. I tha maxinitation ot wrote= rnowy prover nrotfnq hab tat fn the emtern parti- o# %he astern barin).
Should you hrvr my qwrthnr, p&aaro eontaot Mre Richard NitaQa,
330 a0td.n 8&83n, 8uLtm 50, Lrrng ZIa~eh, Cl%iidX3lia 90809,
We 0. 8maZIS rrcownand8 hUO~O~rtLUn Qf Binor
' basin. The prOci8r R8tW@ of th888 &Wr ad UrtlllUZlt8 fa bl tha roowe, ot baing datarmimk, wo ~~~~~~d C a fltaatim ~g 4 fpooial CondLaion whia ri20wr thir hi My doair E, 28 aCfort to
EnvimnS8ntrt 8ar~ aae DiV$$ion, Plpa-Wt Og phh rl?d aa&O &a phon. BU-aS A8 (233) 8104mr ,.
slnc*x.ly,
OFA~SRII~ ~iltr.4 RY niob.eg 8. ttoamusr tor . Diraetor Fat8 Botttaddlli
QQ: cfty of Cirlebad Plantring Da artaanb 2075 h8 &a. Drivo carlrbrd, CA 9200s
CC;'T liz- 2406 j RCl) By: <ER@x TELELOPIER 7016 ; 8-13-9121 1:SdPM ;
b 91-1~ 13 '98 14: 02 SIIUTH~IEST p.2 3
i ' UA1cIEO STATES DEPARTMEW OF COMMER I Natianrl Oculnic and Amo8phorie Adminiam *
NAtfONAl MARM HSHEAlES SERVICE southwest: Region
300 Sa FE:~ Seet Terminal Island, California 9073
August 13, 1990 P/SWFu3 :RSH
Mayor Claude A. Lewis City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. (Elm Ave.) Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Hayor &wis:
me National Marine Fisheries Service has had considerable
involvement in the development of alternatives for the Batiqui Lagoon Enhancement project. hplementation of Mitigated Alternative B. alternative represents the best cumpromise between the conflicting interests of the various groups who have an intere in the restoration of mtiquitos Lagoon.
Coastal tidally influenced wetland and lagoon systems are relatively rare habitat areas in southern California. Historically, most of these systems have been drastically alte Or eliminated as a result of human activitias. Mitigated Alternative 8 offers an opportunity to restore this lagoon sys such that it will closely resemble the historic configuration prior to impacts associated with deposition of large amounts c sediment in the Lagoon.
Frola a natural resource perspective, this alternative is expec to not only preserve existing values but enhanca those values well. htroducs a permanent marine fishery capponant Vhich has been absent for many years.
The unique values of this type of marina system, particularly nursery areas for a vide variety of fish species, ha8 been WeJ documented. Fishery Center in La Jolla, for example, indicates that this t of habitat is essential to the early litc. stages of the California halibut, a species of considerable colPBPercia1 and recreational valw .
Recently, there ha8 been considerable interest in this projeci from residents who live near the Lagoon, They have expressed their desire, from an aesthetic point of viow, for the implementation of Mitigated Alternative A. we believe the aesthetic differences betveen Xitigated Alternative A and Mitigated Alterative B are relatively minor given that the configuration of the west and central birsins would remin the same under both of these alternatives. Eowever, from a
Our Agency supports the adoption We believe this
The restoration of a fully tidal systea will also re-
Recent research conducted by our own Southwest
/q (b
%..,
RCV By:yERrllX TELECIJb‘1ER “QlD ; 9-13-90 1:55PM ; (-1-1 7T 133- 14 i
L F. 3, - PUG 13 ‘90 13:02 SOUTHWEST PEG. PjMFS
biological standpoint, Mitigated Alternative B is expected to superior to the other alternatives currently being considered
In summary, we believe Mitigated Alternative B offers the bes opportunity to meet the needs of the City of Carlsbad and at same time enhance the natural resource values of the region.
Sincerely,
Regiona E.C. -3 lerton Director u-
24e
P.
RC'b EY:xEROx TELECGPIER 7010 ; 9-13-90 2: llp~ ; - - 3 714 s43 411e*
RUG 13 '90 14:12 FWS-LNFO 714-643-4118
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION Federal Building, 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niquel, California 92656
August 13, 195 Claude IrBudts Lewie, Mayor City of Carlabad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008
Re:
Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) wishes to take the
opportunity of the pending City Council action on the referenced item to restate our recommendations.
The completion of thir set of documents and reportre is the culmfnation of an unprecedented series of field studies, public workshops, advisory committee meetings, interagency conferences,
public dialogue, and participation by the Service. ft is the View of the Starvice that the Final Environmental Impact Report/Statarnent for the Batiquitos Lagoon Project adequately addresses the issues and constitutes an appropriate and credible
basis for necessary decisions. Therefore, it is recommended the the documents be certified as complete.
The Service further recommends that the City Council endorse "Mitigated Alternative B" as the agency and environmentally preferred alternative. This alternative would optimize benefits to shorebirds, waterfowl, and marine fishes, as well. ab improve nesting and feeding habitat for State and Fedrrally listed
endangered epeciea.
We also wfoh to taka thir opportunity to commend the City of
Carlsbad, and especially its planning staff, a8 well as the Por of LO8 Angel88 for thoir responsible and forthright efforts tha* have brought th8 proposal to this point of decirion.
Batiquitoe Lagoon Project Final EIR/EIS Certification and Identification of a Preferred Alternative
1 $jff$tki&4L .ef rey D. Opdycka
iI:Southern California
Field Supervisor
BY:YEROX TELECOPIER '010 ; 8-13-90 5:20P~ ; - - '3 014 6113 1113- 2401
P.2 RUG 13 '98 17:28 FWS-LNFO 714-643-4118
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FJ
FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION
Laguna Niguel Office Federal Building, 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92656
August 13, 199
Col. Charlea Thomas, District Enginear Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Dist.
P.0. BO% 2711
Loa Angaleo, California 90053
Attn: Regulatory Branch
Re: Permit Application 88-217, City of Carlsbad,
Dear Colonal Thomae;
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has been very C~osely involved in most aepects of the Batiquitos Lagoon Project, including Cooperating Agency on preparation of the Enviromenta Impact Statement (EIS), and consulting with the Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (1-6-89-F-44). You are nearing the very important point of a record of decisio on the EIS and isruancr of the necessary pennit with special conditions.
In recant monthr, Mr. Rick Harlacher of your Regulatory Branch had bean your reprasantative and had been effective in assuring the Service that the few unresolved matters would be addressed.
However, h8 has sinca resigned. we hope that our conatructivc working rrlationship on this important matter can continue.
By lettmr dat8d July 14, 1989, we convayed our view., at the time, to the Corp8 of Engineerr, on the subject of recommended permit conditions, the Final EIS, and the Section 7 Consultatic Contemplated special conditions to the propored pernit wers the included in the July 1990 Final EIS on pages 4-35 to 4-42.
The Service continues to support the issuance of a permit for 1 "Mitigated B" alternative, with special condition8 specificall] aimed at avoiding any adverse affect upon the California laast tern, a Fed8rally listed endangered bird. However, the precis4 wording of the spacial conditions has not yet been established
Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project
0 PCV B'f:*.EROY TELECOPIER 7010 ; 3-13-98 5:20p~ ; - - 3 -J~J 653 4115+ 24055
p. 3
AU(; 13 '90 17:21 FWS-LNFO 714-643-4113
t
2 Colonel Thomas
Therefore, We request that the Service, Corps, and other involved agencies convene a meeting before pemit issuance, to establish
the exact wording of the special conditions to be incorporated into the permit.
The Service representative remains Mr. Jack Fancher who may be reached at (714) 643-4270.
""""lk &A
Broo * Harper Off ice Supervisor
cc: CDFG, Reg 5, Long Beach EPA, Reg IX, San Francisco NMFS, Terminal Idand City of Carlsbad Port of Lo8 Angela0
3
9
Mr. Rick Harlacher @Ec"EiVED
P ro j ect Manager
Reg ul atory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325
AUG i 3 'qgt!
'ITy Of CAWL$BAD DwuR PROC SERV, Dlt
7 August, 1990
RE: Comments on the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Final
E1 R/ E I S:
Dear Mr. Harlacher:
The concerns of Buena Vista Audubon and the National Audubon Society
regarding the proposed enhancement project, as set out in our previous
correspondence, remain in large part. We would like the scoping letter
of the National Audubon Society, as well as the letter of comment in-
cluded in the EIR/EIS, to form part of our official comments on the final E IR/EIS.
Our fundamental concern remains that the the basis for determining an
enhancement plan has not been the biological needs of Batiquitos ta-
goon, The
project which will emerge from this environmental review will be the
"least environmentally damaging" alternative which provides continuous tidal flushing to the lagoon. This will entail destructlon of the existing
highly productive and regionally rare shallow brackish water habitat al Batiquitos. Further, the pressing needs of the Port of Los Angeles fo
mitigation credits will determine the project timetable, in contrast to thl
slow, adaptive, experimental approach to wetland restoration favored b:
wetlands scientists, and essential in a complex functioning ecosyster
such as Batiquitos.
We strongly object to such an offsite mitigation project being Carrie
out in an exlstlng highly productive wetland. Our objections wou
vanish were the Port able to receive mitigation credits for enhancir
the existing habitat values at Batiquitos, enabling a site-driven mitig( tion plan to be developed.
but rather the mitigation needs of the Port of Los Angeles.
F
BVAS comments, page2.
Our concerns from the beginning have been with the regionally signifi-
cant value of Batiquitos to dabbling ducks and shorebirds, as well as Its
regional importance as a nesting site for many avian species. The final
EIR/EIS, in response to our comments and those of others, acknowledges
the loss in peak habitat values for dabbling duck and shorebird popu-
lations which wilt occur as a result of any of the action alternatives
(~01.11, p. 367, and elsewhere). In our opinion, the EIR/EIS severely
underestimates the importance of this loss. We repeat that dabbling
duck populations in California are at historic lows, and that loss of
wintering habitat has played an important part in this decline. Batiq-
uitos lagoon is the second most important site in the region for winter- ing waterfowl. The contention of the EIR/EIS that the more stable con-
ditions of the "enhanced" lagoon will compensate for this loss of ex-
tremely productive winter and fall habitat does not make sense. In the
introduction the EIR/EIS lists "stability" of avian habitat as a goal;
elsewhere it recognizes that the variability of the habitat at Batiquitos
is ~IY why this lagoon supports such unusual avian species diver-
sity and abundance (voIJ1, p 360).
In general, the EIR/EIS continues to be extremely optimistic about the
timetable for habitat recovery at the lagoon after dredging, and the
eventual quality of the community which will recolonize the lagoon. No
attempt is made to address the invasion of the lagoon by exotic species;
and no discussion is made of the toss of the fringing marsh habitat due
to the lowered water level in the lagoon. (Although deepei, because of
dredging, the "enhanced" lagoon would be at sea level. In the winter it
is now several feet above sea level because of the cobble berm.)
The EIR/EIS gives the eventual sedimentation of the lagan as a rational
for this project. In 40 to 50 years, there may well be loss of avian
habitat from sedltmentatlon, as wetland Is converted to upland. If this
project goes forward, the destruction of avian habitat will be accom- plished within 3 years. There are other less destructive and less costly
ways to deal with sedimentation.
In view of these concerns, we would like to request that this project be
elevated to the EPA for review. We note that this is one of many simi-
lar projects to be carried out by the Port of Los Angeles under Its 2020
plan, and hence has important implications for coastal wetlands through- out the region. We understand that many of the regulatory agencies in-
volved In this project are operating under established policy as regards
mitigation requirements, and that to modify such policy as suggested in
paragraph three above, or in the. referenced letters of the National
Audubon Society, has wide implications. This is Indeed an argument for such EPA review.
t
BVAS comments, page3.
Finally we note that there may well exist an honest difference of opinlon
about the best feasible option for Batiquitos Lagoon. We acknowledge
the time and effort which
has gone into the project thus far. At the same time, we would like to
point out the objections to the project which have come from the local
scientific community from the beginning: in particular from J. Zedler, a
biologist who is a national expert in coastal marsh restoration, and espe-
cially in sytems similar to Batiquitos, and from E. Copper, an ornitholo-
gist who is a national expert on the Least Tern, and the ornithologist with the most familiarity with Batiquitos Lagoon.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~
Karen Messer
Conservation C h ai r
Buena Vista Audubon Society
b
.( Irllr. -5 . W
Shoreline Study Center
---a9 F &&Gad&
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS &ti2 y, --
rrr\/ wll I cF r,'- ' -- ,-.
Regulatory Branch
Attn: Mr. Richard Harlacher
300 N. Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, CA 90053-2324
Re: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC?
FEPORT/STATEMENT, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, AND REQUEST FOE
PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING ISSUANCE OF A COE PERMIT AND THI
FINAL EIS FOR THE BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
P.O. Box 27 11 DE\-E',CP. "')cZ 2:-
Dear Mr. Harlacher: 13 August 1991
The Shoreline Study Center is very concerned about the condition and loss of Californ
coastal wetlands, particularly in San Diego County. We are keenly interested in protectin,
preserving, and even restoring wetlands habitats where ever that makes good sense. We ha\
monitored the proposed Batiquitos Lagoon "restoration" project in great detail from tk
beginning. We have read every single project report and each of the appendices, some five (
six times; all 26 inches of them. We have submitted numerous objective comments, sponsore
workshops, and discussed this project at length with many wetlands experts. In all we ha
voluntarily expended over ZOO0 manhours.
Our primary objective has always been to support sustaining the productivity of Batiquit
Lagoon by promoting the best project possible that has the highest probability of structurally a~
functionally enhancing the existing and potential ecological uses of the habitats associated wi
the lagoon. We continue to urge that careful thought be given to every aspect of the propos
"enhancement" project including the institutional framework within which the project is bei
proposed and the manner in which the concept of "mitigation" is being applied.
We are fully aware of the extraordinary environmental complexities of this project,
controversial chances of success and precedent setting nature, and the highly visible attention ti
it has received; all of which is fully warranted. We are still very concerned that this proj
could be inaccurately labelled a success, thereby promoting more ineffective "enhanceme
projects at the expense of existing systems. We are equally concerned that this project could
labelled a failure and jeopardize future "enhancement" projects. Good supportable decisions
dependent on preparation of a technically rigorous, unbiased environmental analysis.
199 vo,-th El Camlno Real Suck 411 Encinth. CA 9202.1
'i
Mr. Harlacher Page 2
To our knowledge this is the first EIS to be prepared for a wetlands "enhancement"
project of this size and one in which one system of habitats is being converted to another system
of habitats. Accordingly, it should receive close public and regulatory scrutiny. To date, the
public has conmbuted an unprecedented effort and commitment to seek a project that is
ecologically sound and the best fit for Batiquitos Lagoon. We alone have submitted over 30 9i of the public comments on the DEIS/ELR. To date we have heard little from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Disnict. In fact, all we have heard is public announcements
printed in the newspaper and that the project manager assigned to this project has changed 3
times.
The proposed project is not a routine, easily implementable project with a predictablc
outcome. In fact, the appiicant's proposed project will probably require taking 10 steps backwarc
(i.e. almost to 0), in order to move 12 steps forward We have serious doubts that even if thc
proposed project were implemented that it would even move 3 steps forward in the short tern
and perhaps 5 or 6 steps in the long term; leaving the lagoon in a "worse" condition and not il
an "enhanced" condition. Since the DEIS/EIR was not well received by anyone, including thc
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Vicksburg) and generated so much question, doesn't that sugges
that this project merits an in depth review!
Based upon the data provided in all the engineering studies reported to date and in tk
DEISEIR, we do not think that the project will work as urouosed. We remtfullv find tk
FEISEIR to be an inadequate and biased resDonse to the auestions and issues raised by tk
public since the beginning of the scoping process. through drafting of the EISEIR, and endin
with the final EISETR.
Accordingly, we request the following actions:
1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District should hold a separar
independent public hearing.
2. A Supplemental EIS/EIR should be prepared on the basis that significant, unmitigatc
project impacts persist, new ones have been identiEed as a result of the FEISEIR, and ma
serious questions have still not been resolved.
The Shoreline Study Center appreciates the opportunity to participate in the environmen
review process. We appreciate your attention and consideration of our requests. -+ Inez Yoder,
President
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Resgonses to Comments on the DEIS/EIR.
The responses to comments provided in the FEISEIR give continued cause for serio,
concern about this project. We fully realize the state of the infancy of our understanding of ho
these systems work and how we might go about "enhancing" them, but this F'EISEIR does nc
Many of the responses:
o Are based on conjecture
o Are unsupported
o Identify another agency as being responsible (often CDFG) o State that more information will be developed later
o Are generally vague o Are unresponsive to the questions/comments, etc.
Many of the responses appear to be well-reasoned and sound adequate, if the genera
assumptions of project are accepted, e.g. the modeling of the tidal prism and inlet performance
However, we can not help but wonder what we are left with except one big experiment that ma!
take a long time to work and may become to expensive in the future to maintain in the Iong term
2. Memorandum of Agreement.
This pre-project agreement amongst the regulatory agencies continues to bother the public.
It would appear that this agreement has established a level of project "acceptance" amongst the
participating agencies prior to the EIR/EIS process of review and that it would restrict the scope
and depth of review by these agencies in subsequent legislated participation in this project. It
is possible that the "Environmentally Preferred Alternative" has been made to fit the "Agency
Preferred Alternative", and neither may have hit the target.
3. Biological Monitoring Promam.
The information provided on the content of the biological monitoring program is a good
start but it is still very incomplete. Leaving this to be completed at some future date by CDFG
is inadequate. At this time there is no real sampling design, identification of what questions will
asked (and whether the parameters monitored will enable those questions to be answered),
indication about how performance will be measured, and how what or how remedial actions will
be undertaken and under what circumstances and why. (See vol. II, p. 60, item 13-5). Item XIII,
10 (p. 12-13) of the Memorandum of Agreement indicates that there is a budget of $200,000 per
year (1987 dollars) for both monitoring and maintenance. If the jetties require repair or must be
extended, then this work would be accomplished at the expense of the monitoring activities. We
have seen this movie too many times before. In fact if these costs exceed $200,000, this is
grounds for canceling the MOA (Item XII, 6(c), p. 6). Moreover, since the described monitoring
plan (Figure A-1) has not been priced, how do we know how much of this can be done anyway?
The means for comparisons to local and region conditions have not been specified.
.
h
4. Inadequacy of the Baseline Information.
The baseline data are still inadequate, even though the FEISEIR has argued that there is
sufficient information for decision makers to make an informed decision. Much of the "baseline"
data were compromised by macro lagoon alteration events, so it is difficult to know what is red
in this DEISEIR and FEIS/EIR and what is not real.
5. Project Alternatives.
There has been considerable valuable effort to rethink the proposed project alternatives.
This should have been done in the first place! Much credit is due to the public for pressing for
this action. However, even more effort is still warranted. The public is still given the simple
choice of "dig a hole or don't dig a hole". Only now it has matured to reducing some of the
excavation in the eastern basin. In other words, the project has been conceived as an engineering
challenge, rather than development of a plan for definition, ranking, and then enhancement 01
biological attributes. The project has proceeded backwards from the start. The question has beer
"What biology can fit into the engineering" rather than "What engineering is needed to suppon
and enhance the ecological needs of the lagoon system". If more tidal prism is justified, whq
not get rid of the railroad spur in the western basin, and the property owned by the State Land
Commission on the north shore of the western basin adjacent to the coast highway?
Serious thought ought to be given to discharge (seasonal?) of treated wastewater (tertiary
into San Marcos Creek to supplement the tidal prism, provide additional habitat, etc. as anothc Alternative to be considered in combination with consideration of the other alternatives. Fu
consideration would require a complete modeling effort to explore the tidal behavior an
interaction of the freshwater and sea water in time and space.
The Managed Water Level Alternative (Alternative F) was misunderstood in tj
FEISEIR. What was asked for was What to do if any of the other dredging alternatives fai Alternative F, as defined in the FEISEIR, does not include any dredging. A failed dredgii
project would obviously have been preceded by some level of dredging. Since a failed dredgii
project is a very real scenario, this alternative should be given much more rigorous attentic
This would also be included as part of a Contingency Plan.
6. Mathematical Modeling.
We just do not know whether to believe this stuff or not! We are very concerned t
the resulting models are too much of an abstraction from the real world. We only have 48 hc
of site specific data from which we must extrapolate to all other tide levels. All inferences ab
tidal behavior and habitat acreage projected an derived from modeling of a single average t
the "synthetic project tide" (See Fig. B-3). We think that this is an insufficient basis
modeling the behavior of the lagoon. None of the figures that describe the degree of t
inundation for each of the project Alternatives represent spring or neap tide level condition
.
*
7. Dredge Material Disuosal as Beach Nourishment?
Questions concerning whether the sediments were really appropriate for beach disposal
and whether the sediments would remain on the beach were incompletely answered The answer
that this is not a beach disposal project is not adequate and is actually very disturbing. If many
of the public are under the impression that the beaches will be restored this is a serious
misconception. Furthermore, there is a very real chance that the discharged sediment could
impact the local kelp beds. Sediment does move offshore at greater depths than -30 ft.
8. Tidal Inlet Desim.
There is a very real chance that cobbles may enter and collect in the inlet between the
jetties. To our knowledge, the mathematical formulas that reveal the current speed necessary to
move various sized cobbles are derived from studies of stream beds, which have little to do with
oscillatory coastal shore processes. Moreover ebb tide flow may be countered by sea swell, and
result in a pulsatile ebb current, not a steady flow. The DPDR (1988) points out that we have
" ... virtually no experience with cobble beaches". Neither the DEISEIR nor the FEISEIR
indicate what current speeds have been actually observed in the mouth of Aqua Hedionda
Lagoon. We were able to measure an instantaneous ebb tidal velocity of 3.5 ft/sec and a
maximum 20 sec average speed of about 2.5 ft'sec during an ebb tide that approximated the
"synthetic project tide". This whole issue of inlet current speed and cobble size needs much
further study.
9. Incorporation of Previous Comments.
On previous occasions we have submitted numerous comments on the proposed project,
some of which were adequately treated in the FEISEIR, and many of which were not.
Accordingly, many of our previous comments continue to be of concern to us and we include
them here by reference and regard them to be part of the official record. In addition, we have
identified the following concerns:
1). The future widening of 1-5 will alter the tidal response of the eastern basin, thc
resulting acreage of habitats.
2). It will not be feasible to store dredge spoil within the state park property when *
becomes a parking lot, which could also impact the future maintenance dredging acuvit!
3). The proposed project should reflect the most recent interpretation of federal and stal
"mitigation" policy, presently being reviewed in Washington.
4). Pumping offshore seawater into the lagoon via an intake facility to compensate fi
the lagoon slurry water that will be needed (lost) to pump the dredged sediment to beac
disposal site(s) will result in a significant impingement and entrainment of marine lif
If 3.8 million cu yd of sediment were disposed of on the beach as a 15 % slurry, tf
would require a minimum discharge volume of sea water of 21,533 million cu yd
4,349,733,333 gal. If this were discharged over a period of 150 days, the discharge c
I
P
would be approximately 29 million gallons per day. This discharge volume would exceed
that of the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility.
5). We were very pleased to read the comments prepared by the two external reviewers
(K. MacDonald and R. Seymour). The level of the response would suggest that the rest
of the project would have benefitted from an external review as well. The ACOE ought
to consider an independent review of this project (e.g. ACOE Vicksburg, USEPA, etc.).
We still do not understand how the preparers of an EISEIR can legitimately critique their
own engineering!
6). Local sedimentation control or&nances and enforcement policies ought to be equal
to or greater than that suggested by the Coastal Conservancy in their Batiquitos Lagoon
Enhancement Plan.
7). The disposal of dredged sediments on the beach ought to be closely coordinated with
other dredge disposal projects in the area, i.e. Aqua Hedionda Lagoon and Oceanside
Harbor.
8). The proposed site for a dredge fueling station and staging site/fuel storage in the
eastern basin conflicts with property owner’s (Odmark/Thelan) plans for the same
property.
9). There are no rigorous Contingency Plans for any of a wide range of types of projec
failures ... except the vague assertion that it will be the responsibility of CDFG
Contingency Plans should be identified for:
0
0
0
0
0
0 Offshore delta formation
0
Mouth closure due to accumulation of cobbles
Sand cap sinks or erodes
Loss of offshore kelp beds and/or hard substrate
Failure of Least tern nest sites
Requirement for repair or extension of jemes
Invasion of undesirable opportunistic species
x
COMMENTS ON THE "RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS" IN THE FEE
FOR THE PROPOSED BATIQWOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
PAGE C0"T No. OUR COMMENT
4 2-8 It is evident that there is still considerable confusion amongst the agencies as to
who has responsibility for short term and long term "monitoring" this project. The
answer provided is inadequate.
The concern for a net loss of wetlands is not beyond the scope of this document.
The answer is inadequate.
Candidate sites for revegetation mitigation should be identified on a map, becaust
the possible need for from 7 - 67 acres for revegetation is a substantial area whici
could affect selection of the "best " alternative.
Development of a "contingency plan" for failure of the tidal inlet should not b
left to the last minute or to the CDFG. Failure of the lagoon mouth is definite!
a part of this project!
The sketchy monitoring program is devoid of a real sampling design and has ni
been integrated with the '1success11 criteria. The proposed monitoring plan is st
inadequate and probably under funded.
The statement that " ... the six-agency agreement requires a judgement from t
parties that the specific project selected for implementation, and described as su
in the FEISEIR, be in substantial conformance with the agreement" precluc
definition of any alternative which might be ecologically superior. In other won
the Environmentally Preferred Alternative must equal the Agency Prefer
Alternative by requirement and by definition!
If the monitoring results can " ... not be used to reevaluate the HEP for Batiqu'
Lagoon or to recalculate habitat credits differently from those in the agreemc
then the USFWS must be convinced that the project will work 100 %. Vi
happens if this project fails 100 %. Why do we have engineering perforrna
criteria but no biological performance criteria specified for this project?
response is inadequate; local and regional have not been factored into
monitoring plan. The suggested annual sampling frequency is unjustified
inadequate.
A permanent beach monitoring and nourishment plan has not been specified
disposal during winter (a period of maximal erosion) is ill-advised. An
inadequate.
Another bridge for pedestrians and emergency vehicles independent o
Carisbad Boulevards bridge(s) should be deleted.
7 3-1
12 3- 14
15 3-17
18 3-26
27 4-24
28 4-34
35 6-3
35 6-6
4
*
37 6-1 1 The state beach south of the proposed entrance would not be available for storage
of dredge materials as dunes. It will become a parking lot. Where will future maintenance dredge spoil be disposed?
Why wasn't widening of 1-5 considered in the environmental analysis and
performance modeling of the lagoon restrictions? 47 10-2
51-52 12-1 - 12-6
57
Responses are inadequate.
The response to the request for "caution and recognition of the experimental
nature of ecosystem manipulation" is inadequate.
This warning alone ought to be sufficient for the ACOE to scrutinize the proposed
project in detail! The answer is woefully inadequate.
59 13-3
60 13-5 Measurement of project "success" is very important to the public! The answer
that it is the responsibility of CDFG is inadequate. Specific criteria must be made
available as a condition to the permit. The baseline data are still inadequate and
insufficient to make an "informed" decision. The applicant elected to focus on
engineering feasibility studies from the beginning, and must now back peddle to
consrruct vague biological scenarios. This approach has lead to an inadequate
basis for evaluation.
64
71
13-14 The FEISFIR has not corrected "low quality of analyses".
13-39 The answer to the suggestion of use of wastewater to supplement stream water is
inadequate.
Revegetation should be a part of the project and not paid for out of funds
allocated to maintenance or to monitoring.
100 14-8
103 14-16 We concur with the CDFG that a "supplemental" DEISEIR should be prepared
The response to this request is inadequate.
b
i 3Y- ADDS.GDGhi StfcREl L CE STUDY =FUTEX
I.
Comments regarding the adequacy of the monitoring plan as it relates to benthic
invertebrates and fishes, technical appendices A and F of the EIR/EIS
The benthic invertebrate monitoring design is inadequate to assess the changes
in the benthic assemblages that are likely to arise from the proposed project.
The rationale for monitoring the benthos is weak and in some csases, incorrect.
The objective as stated is to characterize the marine Lnvertebrate food
resources for birds and for commercially and recreationally important fish
species. While this has merit, I believe that the primary reason for studying
the benthos should be that this community or assemblage is the best indicator
of the health of southern California lagoons and estuaries. Fishes and birds
are mobile and are thus able to escape or avoid unfavorable conditions.
Benthic invertebrates by their sessile nature, cannot move to more favorable
habitats. Thus, the assemblage reflects the stability of the environment at c" ny given point in time. Disturbances such as freshwater input and coinciaenti
mouth closure can result in the loss of the entire benthic biota, depending
upon the the rate of freshwater inflows and the duration of exposure to reduce(
salinity. For this reason, twice annual sampling is insufficient to
characterize the annual variation in the benthic community in response to such
variables as rainfall, runoff and salinity dilution. Quarterly sampling is th
minimum for addressing seasonal variation. The presentation of March-April an
October as the extremes in seasonal variation of invertebrate populations is
false.
December-January. There are data available from quarterly sampling programs a
other San Diego County wetlands that demonstrate the highest species richness
and densities of benthic invertebrates in the summer and the lowest values for
both in the winter. If anything, spring and autumn are very similar; one
representing a gradual reduction in density and species richness with the onse
of winter, and the other representing a gradual increase with the warmer
temperatures. The sampling dates appear to be chosen strictly on the basis of
migrating birds. This is important and needs to be done. Again, quarterly
sapling is minimal in any to attempt to characterize a benthic community
during the year.
During the first year of sampling the number of samples taken should be
flexible rather than fixed and should involve feedback from each prior saqle
For example, to adequately establish a baseline of invertebrate populations
following construction certainly requires more than the 5 stations with 5 cor
at each that are proposed. Due to the large surface area of the lagoon, this
represents a very small subsample and will likely miss rare species including
exotics. Perhaps more stations with fewer samples would accomplish this with
relatively little added cost.
There is evidence that exotic invertebrate and fish species are becoming more
of a problem in southern California wetlands. During sampling in 1989-1990 1
found yellowfin gobies (Acanthogobius f1avimanus)in Tijuana Estuary, LoS
Penasquitos Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, Sweetwater Marsh, and the Santa Margari
River Estuary, The Asian mussel Musculista senhousei was found in SweeWateI
Marsh and Los Penasquitos Lagoon, as well as their dense populations in Missi Bay. Exotics, especially invertebrates, are often better able to exploit an
area that has been physically disturbed. The massive dredging called for in
this plan, especially in the middle and eastern basins, may provide these
species with the competitive advantage that will result in their dominance 0
indigenous species.
The greatest degree of seasonal variation is in June-July versus
Simply stating that this may happen and that the
3 t
,k
consequences of it happening are not known, as is done in Appendix F of the
EIR/EIS y is insufficient argument to proceed with large scale disturbances.
In Appendix H4 Tidal Inlet Design Issues,it is apparent that there are no
guarantees that the mouth will not close desipte the construction of the
jetties and yet there are no provisions for the effects of such closure on the
fish and benthic frwertebrates of the system.
regional wetlands has demonstrated that mouth closure and salinity dilution
from freshwater inflows can result in nearly complete extirpation of fishes and
invertebrates. This can occur following a single stoltm as has occurred at Los
Penasquitos Lagoon or can happen repeatedly througout the year due to
fluctuations in fresh and salt water inflows as has happened at San Elijo
Lagoon. As freshwater inflows are a greater issue in the winter than in the
summer, sampling during this time is essential.
Again, evidence from other
*
\
FROM: Dolores Welty 2076 Sheridan Road
Leucadia, CA 92024 (619) 942-9897
-+.-a TO : Gary E. Wayne I Project Xanager PS i; % g 0 -4 K D City of Carlsbad
De2artinent of Planning 2075 Las Palinas Drive
Carlsbad I CA 92009-1576 CiUG 1. 0 ';3"
CI'7-Y CF CA!?I-.pA2
DEL'ELC?. PBCC SE;?V. 3, 'J. iZick Harlacher I 2roject :VIanager
U.S. Ariny Cor2s of Engineers
P.O* Box 2711
LOS hgeles, CA 90053-2325
3ATX: AUGUST 13, 1990
C33NCERNING: BatiGuitos Lagoon Znhancenent Project
Final Environmental Iin2act Report/ Env i r on in en t a1 I xpiic t S t a temen t
Gentlmen:
Thank you for this opgortunity to coinment.
I a;a reGuesting that the Final Environinental Impact Statement bS
elevated to the level of the Environaental Protection Agency to allow for objective review. There are also reasons to requzst a
su22leiaentary EIS to address significant cnangss in the alterna-
tives
I also request that the U.S. Army Cor;?s of Engineers hold a public hearing to raview this 2roject.
;+y rzasons follow:
.
1
Welty/2
1) Batiquitos Lagoon is an ecosystem of high environmental value to wildlife s?ecies, including federally endangered and
threatened avian species. (EXHIBIT A)
2) The EIWZIS does not adequately describe the existing values of Baticjuitos Lagoon.
a) The bird counts made specifically for this project xere
not inapged and were not corr2lated with water ltvels. Failins to correlate bird use witn water lsvel aakes bird us2 at Sati,ui=3s seem wholly unpredictable, dii3Cou;Iting tne iaportancz Gf Batiquitos to bird life. (EXHIBIT A)
5) 24udflats rank high in value to birds. (EXHIBIT B) 3vsr the, this 2roject will reduce mudflat acreage at Batiquitos
replacing 60% of it witn salt narsh and o2en water. (APPENDIX F, page 3-8, Summary)
Saobling ducks which now uss the lagoon will be redclced or non-existent at Satiquitos if the lagoon Secoines a tidaily flushed systein. (APPENDIX F, pages 3-11 and 3-13) Is this desirable? I)aSbling duck nuinbers ar2 at an all tise low.
2) Th?g number of taxa of benchic invsrtzbrates at
Satiquitos coinparss favorably wit:: the nurnber at other San 2iego County coastal wetlands. ;iu an t i t at ivt and ciu a1 i tat ive
comparisons were not nade in tile Zi?./ZIS.
"Retaining migratory bird habitat to the greatest d+irse feasible" was a saecific goal of this 2roject. Yet the XE)A Sird surveys perforzed for the EIR/ZIS were not extended to covsr the migratory season (EXHIBIT A). Other bird infornation is unrsliable for assessing inigratory bird usage of Batiquitos.
3) Without the most accurate tally possible of existing values, how can any docuinent purgort to assess the iinpacts of destroying the existing Batiquitos Lagoon ecosystein by attempting to rqlace it with a tidally flushed system?
4) This project in coabination with fill at the Port of Los Angeles will result in a loss of habitat values and wetlant! acres.
5) Xitigaced Alternative C ,nay be the best for SatiGuitos, but bssausz it offars the port 0 (NO Credit) aitigation credits, it cannot be chosen as it fails the test of "continuous tidal flushing" to ?rovids a narine environsent.
c)
(APPENDIX F, 2.2.5)
e)
(EXHIBIT C)
*
~elty/3
Since the Port must establish marine habitat, tidal flushing has become the 2riinary factor upon which mitigation alternatives have Seen based. Tidally flushed estuaries are certainly valuable,
but fresh/brackish water wetlands are also valuable, and no
studies to compare their valaes have been made.
Where, then, is the empirical evidence to support the contention
that changing Batiquitos to a tidally flushed lagoon will be beneficial.
If Port mitigation needs were not driving this ?reject, ths plan to enhance Batiquitos environaental values iaight be huc;ely
different. For exaqle:
a) Since bird abundance is de2endent upon gater level, tne easiest and chea2esc enhancenent alternative inijht be tne
nani2ulation of water level in Batihuitos by periodically o?sning
the mouth of the lagoon to the ocean and/or adding rwlaixd watsr from the soon-to-~e-2stablisked ponds on the adjacent Aviara ?ro?sct.
5) Each basin night jenefit from differing and se2arate treatxents.
c) The 3aas caused by the trans2ortation corriJors could. be removed or significantly shortened over the next 50 to 300 years as 1-5, 101, and the railroad ne23 to be repaired or ex2anded.
The lagoon could then repair itself more naturally over the.
d) Excessive siltation could be reinoved froin the east basin
by the Aviara Troject progonents in accordance witn the condi- tions put u?on that project by the Coastal Coninission.
5) A 2articularly disturbing as2ect of this initigation 2roject is the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California 3e2artinent of Fish and Game, National Xarinlt Fisheries, and State Lands signed the Xenoranduin of Agrseiilent along with the Port of
Los Angeles and the City of CarlsSad before the EIR/EIS began. Is this usual? If so, how can objectivity obtain in any 2rojsct
if those parties who have environazntal oversight agree on the
basic thrust of the project befors site specific research is available? The ecology of wetland systeins is not well known.
Tidal flushing and dredging were established as being beneficial
to BatiGuitos prior to research into existing values. Even though nature is natural11 infinite in its variations, the seasonal variability of BatiGuitos was assumed to be undesirable without su??ortive research and without knowledge of regional needs.
L
We 1 ty/ 4
Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game agreed that tidal flushing would benefit Batiquitos Lagoon PRIOR TO the gathering of data for tne Draft EIWEIS, this official stance was and is not unanimous. Discussion of the gains and losses of this project caused passionate controversy in those agencies as it did in the public sector.
The dredging restoration of Upper Newport Bay (California) by the
Port of Long Beach for mitigation credit has been used by the Resource Agsncies as a 5ood exain2le of predicted success for Batiquitos.
Rowever, recent evaluation of U2per Newport Bay by the California Coastal Coinmission states, "The U23per Newport Bay 2roject resul- ted in a more brackish wetland systen than was antici2attd and, therefore is not the decjree of in-kind consensation as the aarine
habitat it was designed to replzce." (EXHIBIT D)
Xy psstion is to what habitat, then, do the Resource Agenciss
attribute tne increased values of Up2er New2ort Bay? It seex logical that the increased values of Up2er New?ort Say are dirzctly attzL5utable to '3rsckb.L rather than narino habikst - and brac!;ish is predoainant at Batiquitos at this tixe. Batiqitos does not need to be dredged in order to gain brackish
habitat. On the contrary, drzdging will reduce the valuable brackish habitat.
6) An environaental iiqact that was not addressad in any of the docunents pre2ared for this groject concerns the impacts of
the dredge pipeline that will draw wat2r fron the Pacific Ocean into BatiGuitos Lagoon in order to kee2 the dredge Sarje(s) aflsat and provide the water needed for dredging.
It is necessary to import ocean water into 2atiduitos to facili- tate the dredging. Batiquitos does not contain enough water even at the fullest point to allow for the kind of dredging that is promoted 5y this plan. The lagoon would soon be sucked dry.
The proponents surely must plan to lay a pi2eline from the ocean into the lagoon to provide water for dredging. What kind of line and what size? How will it work? What will be the loss Of marine life sucked into this line and ground out with the sludge?
We1 ty/ 5
Figuring one fish per 20 cubic feet of water and 2,000,000 cubic
feet of water per day, tnat's 100,000 fish per day of dredging. This fish loss has not been factored into the plan. Will these
fish be ground up and deposited on the beach with the sand spoils? If sof how will their presence affect recreational use of the be ac h , both qu a1 i tat ive 1 y and yuan t it at ivel y ?
The proponents do not inclJde any discussion of this assect of tne impacts of the proposed dredging plan.
7) A most glaring omission in this EIR/EIS is the oiiiission of quantitative and Gualitative environaental 3oala or standards by
wnich to judge the success or failure of this 2roject. Since tne monitoring has been delegated to the California Departrnent or' Fish and Gaxef and since the C3FG does not intend to be concerned with this aspect of the 2roject until the project is completed, they have not pre2arzd any material for the gublic to review. No biological criteria for success nave been ?osited, and no list of
rqresentative ssecies nas been prsparad.
8) I am still not satisfied with the proposed zlan for manufacturing least tern nesting sites. Least terns ara picky. They like Batiqitos, but they have to be decoyed into using Sm
Zlijo, and thsy' do not use the rnanufactursd Buena Vista Lagoon
islands with success, even tnough those islands have been in existence for many years.
The rationale offered for the failure of the Buena Vista islands might have to be resurrected in the futura and applied to Bati- qitos after dredging.
9) The irnpacts of proposed development on the property
bordering Batiquitos Lagoon has not been addressed in this docuinent. Batiyuitos Lagoon enjoyed a nearly pristine environment along its shore; until 1985. Xuch of the existing
value of Batiquitos is probably dependent upon tht ungraded, undeveloped upland shores. Since the north snore projects have already been proposed and inapped, their im?acts ugon the Batiquitos wetlands should be investigatsd.
Considering the amount of use tile trail system already su;??orts, shouldn't a wider buffer zone be considered for the remaining shoreline? Some states already require a buffer of 1000 feet.
What iinpact will these developinents have on the lagoon because oj increased light at night , high density housing , roadways anc vehicles f etc
Welty/G
10) What will be the effect of this project and the
11) I wish to incorporatz by reference my previous concerns and
construction impacts on the hydric soils of Batiquitos lagoon?
my remarks at the scoping meeting.
Specific comments follow:
Volume 111, Final EIwEIS
Appendix A: Long Term Monitoring Plan
Page A-1, Paragraph 5: How can “critical inforination such 5s
evidence of disturbance or predation losses . . . be rc?orted to
the CDFG within one working day” when monitoring will not be done on a daily basis? This sentsncs misleads the reader into thinkin,- that a monitor will be on site on a day to day basis rather than the 30 day intervals indicated by Figure A-1, page A- 2.
Page A-2, Figure A-1: Wouldn’t the bird data, which is to be collected monthly, have more value if it were coordinated wit;? the food supply (benthos) and availability of feeding arszs (watsr destil, amount of exposed beach or mudflat area, tides, tiine of day)? I believe benthos sampling and bathymetric measureinents should be gathered and ma2psd at the same tiine as the birds are counted and mapped. These data should bs
coordinated
Page A-3, Paragraph 5: What is the long term effect on other s2ecies of the use of rotenome or cjuinaldine used to kill or inmobilize burrow-inhabiting fish? What will be the effect on the rate of colonization of the burrow-inhabiting fish themselves, considering that this poisoning process will be exercized every three months throughout the first three years?
Pages A-6 and A-7: The description offered on these pages of tha techni;;ues of bsnthos sampling are enlightening. Bird species and abundance counts should be correlated with benthos counts. A comparison of existing benthos species, abundance and bionass
with the after-project marine benthos qecies, abundance and bionass could be one way of judging the success of the 2roject.
This information should be corrslated with bird s;?ecie and abun- dance for a true picture of the effect of the project.
1
~elty/7
Appendix C, Overview Of Sedimentation Studies:
Page C-33: Grain Size distribution of Recently Introduced Sedi- ments: Where is the map that locates the sites of the test bor ings?
Appendix D, Preliminary Design of Mitigated Alternatives:
Page D-8:Criteria and Key Resource Values that Affect Mitigated Alternatives: "The project should not substitute inanalade habi-
tat systems that require significant long-tern managenent efforts
whers existing vegetation provides comparable value to the area."
Gf ?articular concern are the existing least tern nesting sites. Xanmade tern sites in Carlsbad have not perforined. Terns do not nest at Buena Vista Lagoon where the tern nesting sites were constructed out of dredge s?oil top2ed by sand. Sincs the
same technique that caused tern nesting failure at Buena Vista lagoon will be followed at Batiquitos, I believe the result will
be the loss of least tern nesting sites, further endangering this
protected species.
Would it not be better to avoid iapactiny and despoiling the existing laast tern nesting sites rather than destroying and then rsconstructing them? Why can't tbesse sites be left untouched?
If it is iapossible to leave these sites untouched, why don't the resource agencies require that a manmade site be constructed and
ba proved successful before the groject is allowed to continue?
How many nesting pairs of terns can be accomnodated on nesting sites totaling 32 acres? Will 32 acres allow for an increase in
?airs of breeding terns?
Does easy access by monitoring personnel also mean ease of access
by predators?
Page D-IO, paragraph 1: It is not true that the wetland wildlife
functions of a freshwater marsh are wholly retained by avoiding disturbance of the brackish marsh. Dabbling ducks will avoid using Batiquitos Lagoon when the water level beyins to fluctuate with the tidss.
Page E-11 Western End of East Easin: Is it desirable to havl vehicle access to the least tern nesting site near the park an(
ride? It is necessary? Why can't the monitor walk?
We1 ty/ 8
Page D-12, impact the nesting sites by a total of 7 acres,
provided in the eastern basin?
Figures D-24, 25, 26, and 27, %year flood Recovery Curves for Mitigated Alternatives: By these charts, I see that it will take approximately 2 weeks for salinity levels to return to nor.na1 after flooding occurs. ??hat is the 2rojected die-off of nari;le creatures duriilg this tine? Will these creatures survive the 3uick dras in saliaities and the extended fzesh water habitat following these floods? If not, what is the srojectec! r2covzri
time for the lagoon biota?
Appendix F, Effects on Regional habitat Values:
Lstter from Deszrtaent of the Army, Cor;?s of Engineers,, Zaviron- mental P.esources Sranch:
The enclosures (4) to which the letter refzrs were not included.
Why not? I would es2ecially lik2 to see the location of "the above ground ~i~elinz,," and "the staging areas."
F. 1-1 to F.l-3: This three 2age section purzorting to give the regional values of Satiquitos Lagoon is prooE positive of the 2aucity of biological information available €or this as?ect. The studies that are available are not comparable and were not sinul- tanaous. Even the bird studies wade expressly for the "oatiyuitos Lagoon EIil/EIS failtd to include the winter months, a tLxe crucial to iilijratory birds, and were begun after the engineering
sdtudy which drained the lagoon in slay of 1987 during a tine of
hi3h use by nesting waterfowl. V?hen the nouth of Batiyuitos Lagoon was opened in :.lay, 1987, nestini; was interrupted, e;gs and
nestlings were abandoned, and an algae blanket covered most of
the lagoon, sxothering the vegetation. Picklsweed in the west basin has not yet racovered. None of this data found its way into the EI~;Z/EIS.
It is convenient to assume retention of values that have? never
Seen docuii~ented, but it is not ethical to do so.
F. 2.1.2: This section implies that the seasonal shift froii ponded water in "Le winter and early s2ring to "mostly driing .nud and saline OK hy2ersalin2 shallow water in late suiilrner and fall"
occurs naturally. That is not the whole truth.
Eastern End of the East Basin: What is the projected
upon nesting tern populations of the reduction of area of nearly half of the area
Welty/9
Until recently, La Costa Spa had permission from the Resource
Agencies to open the mouth of the lagoon and drain the water whenever high water threatened their upstream golf course. Their perxit has since expired and the new owners did not wish to continue the practice in 1988 or 1989. The EXWEIS does not discuss this aspect of water level manageinent in any of their documents.
F Page 2-4, last paragraph: In fact, the differences of the water surface area -- approxinately 460 acres on July 27, 1939
contrasted with the water surface area of 42 acres on July 17,
1987 -- is directly attributable to the degree of human aani;ula- tion of the lagoon. The mouth was opened in Xay of 1987 by CH214
Hill and the water was drained out. This did not happen in 1989.
The fact that huinan maniplation is largely ressonsibls for the variability of the system is noc discussed in this EIa/EIS.
Page 2-14: The discussion here attempts to locate birds ser acre
in both "shallow" and "dee?" waters. Neither "shallow" nor
"deep" water is defined in the A22endix.
Page 2-28: The discussion of the lack of fish nuxbers found in
June 1988 iflight also be attributt3 to the opening 02 the xouth of
the lagoon in ;*lay 1987. Durins the time the mouth was oi~3en in
May 1987, it was possible to stand on the 101 bridge and visually
obsarve large nunbers of fish and fingerlings go out to sea.
Fishing was good for two weeks off the mouth of BatiGuitos as
marine fish came to feed off tke abundant fresh and brackish water sgecies disgorged into tha ocean from Batiquitos Lagoon.
Page 2-34: I don't know what "small numbers" of Brown Pelicans
means. As I write this paper, there are more than 100 Brown
Pelicans sharing the central basin with a like nuinber of Egrets. TI-iese Pelicans have been using the west and central basins in numbers over 100 all this month (August, 1990)
Page 3-8: The exchange of one habitat ty?e for another dsscribed
in this section assumes but does not prove a higher valus for the
ty2e that will result than for the ty2e that will be destroyed. In fact, mud flats ap;?ear to be the most often used as well as aost valuable type of habitat for feeding. I enclose a page fror
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Series that graphs feeding habits Of birds. (EXHIBIT B)
We1 ty/ 10
All Xitigated Alternatives predict a loss of mudflat to salt
marsh -- from 183 total acres under mitigated Alternative A, to
207 total acres under Xitigated Alternative C. :4itigated Alter- native B is 2redicted to add 196 new acres of salt inarsh. This replacement of inudflat by salt marsh is a LOSS of value to Bati- quitos as a single system and to the regional wetland balance. Xudflat is in short su2ply in San Diego County.
Page 3-11: Do dabbling ducks actually congregate xhere the tides
altzrnately e:r?ose and c3ver the shoro? I think not. Pa5e 3-11 indicates that these ducks would “feed on flora and fauna of intertidal miudflata when the tide is out and then dabble over these sane rnudflats during high tide.” Perhaps. It is iaore likely that they they would leave the area unless they could find spots where the water ponded and where they could find m.
Page 3-11: 30th Xitigated A and B will result in a decrease in shorabird numbers. As proposed, “The full mudflat area would be available in spring only on low tides,” a seasonal availability
that does not corresponZ with the present use of the lagoon by shorsbirds.
At this tise, shorebirds are most in evidence at Batiqitos during the late suamer and fall season before the winter raiils begin. The EIWEIS does not contain evidence to support a
greater need for mudflats during the spring than during the fall.
It is all very well to have mudflats available, but if they are
not available in abundance when needed , than their availibility cannot be considered a plus.
Page 3-12, paragraph 2: Here, a 100 acre loss of mudflat is
predicted over the No Project Alternative life of the lagoon. This is a loss over 30 to 50 yeiirs of 25% of valuable and rare
habitat. However, under any of the proposed alternatives, it is projected that the mudflats will become vegetated salt marsh in an alteration time of 5 years. Therefore, the Mitigated Alterna- tives project a 50% loss of valuable rare rnudflat habitat occur-
ring over a mere 5 years.
This is a catastrophic loss and is unacceptable. The loss of the
mudflat acreage is the loss of the highly valuable existing
habitat.
Welty/ll
Page 3-14: In fact, according to the Calculations on this page, potential shorebird habitat at Batiquitos Lagoon under mitigated
B after complete restoration is figured at 144 acres total. 144 acres is approximately a 75% reduction of existing viable summer and fall shorsbird feeding habitat under the usual management
practice of manipulation of water level by opening the lagoon
mouth, This loss is not acce2table under the constraint of maintaining existing values.
Of further concern is the statement (page 3-14, second paragraph)
that "the above discussion ASSE4ES that the mudflat habitat values will be relatively comparable acre-for-acre between the existing conditions and the mitigated alternatives." (Emphasis added). It is not appropriate for this document to ASSU24E a comparison of such biological inportance. This project is committed to NO LOSS OF WETLAND VALUES iis much as it is comnitted to tidal flushing. $800,000.80 was s?ent to assess ths ability of engineers to establish tidal flushing beyond "assuining," and at least into the realm of "hope." The comparable value of tidal mudflats to existing mudflats have also assessable conpo- nents, i.e*, size, degree of slope, composition, grain size, forage material, etc., that should and could have been assessed to remove assumptions and establish this statement on inore acceg- table scientific grounds e
Colonization by exotic species is more likely in disturbed wetlands than in undisturbed. A dredged and graded Batiquitos Lagoon is a disturbed wetland. The EIR/EIS addresses this possibility (page 3-20) but cannot offer preventive remedies or repair s tr ateg ies .
Page 3-25: The discussion on page 3-25 of the effect of Lagoon
dredging project upon the Least Tern, the Western Snowy Plover,
and the California Brown Pelican is not reassuring. This docu-
ment posits a theoretically negative effect u?on these species by changing the lagoon to a tidally flushed system. Currently Least Terns forage primarily inside shallow areas of the lagoon. Would
foraging become more difficult with tidal flushing? Plovers nest
and feed on nontidal flats, and the full impact of lagoon resto- ration on this species is difficult to determine on a regional basis. The importance of lagoons and estuaries to the Brown Pelican is also poorly understood.
4
Welty/l2
Appendix H, Coastal Processes:
Pages E-9 through H-13: Factors that contribute to the
uncertainty that the mouth will remain open to the ocean are clearly stated on these pages and should prompt careful consider- ation.
The proponents recommend being "conservative" in their calcula- tions because of these factors. "Conservative" means an expanded tidal prism; i.e., more area dredged. This solution is good for engineers, but bad for wetlands.
Thank you very much for your attention to my concerns.
Res p ec t f u 11 y t
Dolores Welty
-_ - - --
ME
Table 11-1, continued
Abundance -- 5/1/87 6/5/87 7/17/87 8/28/87 io/i9/87
FRINGILLIDAE - PINCHES
Carpodacus mexicanus 113 116 158 263
Carduel is pal tria 7
Carduelis tristis - 2
house finch 67
8 lesser goldfinch 31 19 11
2 American goldfinch 14 15
TOTALS (species/individuals): 97/4539 89/2044 87/4511 95/4531 97/6812
INFORMATION CONCERNING WATER LEVELS:
May 21, 1987: facilitate engineering studies, reducing the levels of water in the ’ lagoon and exposing acres of salt panne in the eastern basin.
October 10, 1987: The first of the seasonal rains refilled Batiquitos, covering the emergent salt panne
Lagoon mouth opened by CHZM Hill to
’
~
EX HI Table 11-1 -
BATIQUITOS LAGOON .. --BIRDSURVEYS -
.- ,y';?-t-. . 1987-1988 - ::.
Abundance
5/1/87 6/5/81 7/17/87 s/za/a7 10/19/87 ---
PODICIPEDIDAE - GREBES
Podilymbus podiceps
8 3 14 10
Podiceos niqricollis
6 3 1 5 Aechmophom occidentdis
4 1 1 10
51
71
8
5
4
pied-billed grebe
eared grebe
western grebe
Clark's grebe
Clark's or western grebe
Aechmophorus clarkii - - - 2
Aechmophorus sp. 1 - - 20
PELECANIDAE- PELICANS
- 7 1 - 1 Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican
PEIALACROCORACDAE . - CORMORANTS
Phalacrocorax auritus - 2 - 19 4 double-crested cormorant
ARDEIDAE - HERONS
- Botaurus lentiginosus - - - 1 American bittern
least bittern
great blue heron
great egret
- e
Ixobrychus exilis e
Ardea herodias 3 3 7
Casmerodius albu 2 a 31 3 2
4a 28
'2 . Nyc ticorax nyc ticor&% - -
2 1 - 3 6
Egretta thula 21
Butorides striatus 2 1
32 snowy egret 109
1 4
6 3
green-backed heron
black-crowned night-heron -
TERESKIOR-AE - IBLSES
4 4 Plegadis chihi 25 3 32 white-faced ibis
BI0/0?870BOlf 11-3
Table 11-1 I continued
Abundance -- 5/1/87 6/5/87 7/17/87 8/28/87 10/19/87 - 12
ANAmDAE - WATERFOWL
- - - - Chen caerdesce-
snow goose Branta bernicla
brant Anas crecca green-winged teal
Anas platyrhynchos
mallard
Anas acuta northern pintail
Anas discors blue-winged teal
Anas cyanoptera cinnamon teal
Anas clypeata northern shoveler
Anas strepera gadwall
gadwall/mallard hybrid
American wigeon
- -
- - - - 1
12
--
- - 1 367
252 107 125 155 73
--
-
-- 3 2 32 652
- - 2 5
219 47 17 65 69
r - d
- --
-
- 10 1,244 1, - 3 -
426 43 5 18 221 -
Anas strepera x &. platyrhynchos - - -. - 1
7 - - 10 312
- - 11 85
-
Anas americana
Aythya americana
Aythya collaris
Aythya af f inis
Melanitta perspicillata surf scoter Bucephala albeola
Mergus serrator red-breas ted merganser
Oxyura jamaicensis ruddy duck
-
redhead 75
ring-necked duck 2
lesser scaup 7
a
bufflehead 11
- - - -
- - 22 -
7 1 - 1
- - e e
- - 3 - 3
305 682 28 21 17
ACCIPITRIDAE - HAWKS
- - 2 2
- 1 2 3
- - - 1
- - - 2
Elanus caeruleuj black-shouldered kite Circus cyaneus northern harrier Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk
Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk
-
1
-
-
4 2 3 4 1 -
BI0/07870BOlf 11-4
- 'f -
a-
Table 11-1, continued
Abundance -- 5/1/87 6/5/87 7/17/87 8/28/87 - 10/19/87
ACCIPITRIDAE - HAWKS (continued)
Buteo jamaicensis - red-tailed hawk 3 1 2 4
FALCONIDAE - FALCONS
Falco sparverius American kestrel 1 1 1 1 4
PHASXANIDAE - PHEASANTS & QUAILS
Callipepla californica California quail 2 20 55 20 -
RALLIDAE - RAILS 6: GALLINULES
Rallus limicola
Porzana Carolina
Gallinuia chloropus
Fulica americana
Virginia rail 5 2 2 3 2
sora 4 - - 1 2
cam rnon moorhen - 2 5 2 6
American coot 901 125 49 58 1,119
CHARADRIIDAE - PLOVERS
Pluvialis squatarola
Charadrius alexandrinus
C haradrius se mipalmatus
Charadrius vociferus
black-bellied plover - 4 1 7 32
snowy plover - 10 47 43 3
semipalmated plover 3 26 90 52 94
killdeer 30 40 36 22 79
RECURVIROSTRIDAE - STILTS & AVOCETS
Himantopus mexicanus
Recurvirostra americana
black-necked stilt 62 103 338 153 31
American avocet 14 113 4a 5 22 -
SCOLOPACIDAE - SANDPIPERS
Tringa melanoleuca
Tringa flavipes
greater yellow legs 2 7 14 6 5
lesser yellowlegs 1 - 6 13 4
B10/07 87 0 BO If 11-5
Table 11-1, Continued
Abundance
-_L_ 5/1/87 6/5/81 7/17/87 s/za/s7 io/ig/a7
sc0 LOP ACID AE - SANDPIPERS (continued)
CatoptrophoruS semipalmatus - 6 17 6
Actitis macularia
1 3 3 9
Num enius phaeopus - 1 10
Nu m enius am ericanus - - 1
Limosa fedoa
20 16 17
Arenaria interpres - - 2 1
1
3
willet
spotted sandpiper
whimbrel
long-billed curlew
marbled godwit
ruddy turnstone
red knot Calidris alba 6 sanderling
- 60 Calidris mauri 4 western sandpiper
Calidris minutills - 51 107 339 . 2 least sandpiper
Calidris bairdii - 1
Baird's sandpiper Calidris melanotos - 2
pectoral sandpiper
- 15 Calidris alpina
dunlin
Limnodromus griseus - 23 1 short- billed do w it c her 1 145
long-billed dowitcher
dowitcher
common snipe
W ilson's phalarope
red-necked phalarope
red phalarope
- -
- -
3 -
-
Calidris canutus - - - 16 2
- - 120
1,751 2,018
-
- - -
- - -
- - -
Limnodromus scolopaceus - 6 1 54
Gailinago gallinago - 5
69 Limnodromus sp. - 12 - - -
- - -
- Phalaropus tricolor 2 66 63 . 1
Phalaropus lobatus - 45
Phalaropus iulicaria -
- - -
e e e e
11-6 BI0/07870BO If
- -. - _-
Table 11-1, continued
Abundance
5/1/87 6/5/87 7/17/87 8/28/87 10/19/87 --
LARIDAE - GULLS, TERNS & SKIMMERS
Larus Philadelphia
Larus delawarensis
Larus californicus
Larus sp.
- Bonaparte's gull 3 - - -
ring-billed gull 21 6 81 7 10
California gull 19 27 4 5 9a
ring-billed or
California gull - - - - -
Larus occidentalis
Sterna caspia
Sterna maxima
Sterna elegans
Sterna hirundo
Sterna forsteri
Sterna ant illarum
Chlidonias niger
Rynchops niger
- western gull 4 41 . 6 1
Caspian tern 4 7 11 8 -
royal tern 1 - -
elegant tern 1 - - e
- -
-
- - - common tern 1 -
Forster's tern 59 27 - 7 23 58
least tern 49 17 29 24 -
black tern 1 - -
black skimmer 2 1 - -
- -
-
COLUMBIDAE - PIGEONS & DOVES
Columba livia -
St rep top el ia chi ne nsis
Zenaida macroura
rock dove 1 9 7 55 4
2 spotted dove - - - -
mourning dove 17 14 19 37 56
TYTONIDAE - BARN-OWLS
Tyto alba - - com mon barn-owl 1 - -
CUCULIDAE - CUCKOOS & ROADRUNNERS
Geococcyx californianus - greater roadrunner 1 - - -
Bl0/07870BO If 11-7
Table 11-1, continued
Abundance -- 5/1/87 6/5/87 7/17/87 8/28/87 - 10/19/
APODIDAE - sw~~
Chaetura vauxi
Aeronautes saxataiis
Vaux's swift 57 - - - -
white-throated swift - 1 - - -
TROCHILIDAE - HUMMINGBIRDS
Archilochus alexandri
Calypte anna
Caly-pte costae
Selasphorus, sp.
black-chinned hu rn rn ingbird 1 4 - - -
- Anna's hummingbird 9 13 19 15 28
Costa's hummingbird 2 - -
rufous/Allen's hummingbird - - 4 - -
- -
ALCEDINIDAE - KINGFISHERS
Ceryle alcyon belted kingfisher 2 - - 2' 1
PICIDAE - WOODPECKERS
Picoides nuttalfii
Picoides pubescens
Colaptes auratus
Nuttall's woodpecker - 3 3 2 -
downy woodpecker - 1 1 1 1
northern flicker - - 2 - 2
TYRANMDAE - TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Contopus sordidulus
E mpidonax diff icilis
Sayornis nigricans
Sayornis saya
M yi arc hus cinerascens
Tyrannus vociferans
Tyrannus verticalis
Tyrannus sp.
western wood-pewee - - - 1 -
west ern flycatcher - - - 2 -
black phoebe 8 30 17 24 25
e 5 Say's phoebe - - e
ash-throated flycatcher 1 1 - - -
Cassin's kingbird 1 3 3 2 1
western kingbird 10 -
kingbird - 1 - -
- - -
-
BI0/07870BOlf 11-8
7’e~)a I ‘* 1 1 . I , t,/,;, t, 1 :, j,r:,j
3
Abundance
5/1/87 6/5/87 7/17/87 8/28/87 10/19/87 - --
HIRUNDINIDAE - SWALLOWS
Tac hycine ta bicolor
tree swallow
Tac hycine t a t halassi na
violet-green swallow
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Riparia riparia 5 6 - northern rough-winged swallow 8
bank swallow
cliff swallow 400 219
barn swallow
I - - 5 2 20
1 1
1
- - -
-
- - 1 - Hirundo pyrrhonota - -
98 2 Hirundo rustica -
3 42 -- - - 12
CORVIDAE - JAYS & CROWS
Apheloco ma coerulescens
Corvus br ac h yrhync hos 1 4 1 14 -
7 10
Corvus corax
scrub jay
American crow
common raven
- 3 6
- 1 3 2 -
AEGITHALIDAE - BUSHTITS
Psaltriparus minim us
176 174 53 112 64 bush tit
TROGLODYTIDAE - WRENS
Troglodytes aedon
house wren
Thr yo m anes be w ic ki i
Be w ic k’s wren
C isto thorus palus tris marsh wren
- - 5 9
3
3 -
- 1 - -
37 40 47 55 47
MUSCICAPIDAE - KINGLETS, GNATCATCHERS, THRUSHES & BABBLERS
Regulus calendula - - - Polioptila caerulea -
blue-gray gnatcatcher - - Polioptila meIanura
2 6 5 4
ruby-crowned kinglet -
- - -
3 black-tailed gnatcatcher
BI0/07870BO lf 11-9
Table 11-1, continued
Abundance -- 5/1/87 6/5/87 7/17/87 8/28/87 10/19/
MUSCICAPIDAE - KINGLETS, GNATCATCHERS, THRUSHES & BABBLERS (continua
Catharus guttatus
Chamaea fasciata
hermit thrush
wrentit
- - - - -
2 7 6 5 5
MIMIDAE - THRASHERS
Mi mus polyglot t os
Toxostoma redivivum
- 2
2
northern mockingbird 1 4 1
- - - California thrasher -
MOTACILLIDAE - WAGTAILS & PIPITS Anthus spinoletta water pipit - - - - 4
PTILOGONATIDAE - SILKY-FLYCATCHERS
Phainopepla nitens -. - - phainopepla 1 -
LANUDAE - SHRIKES
Lanius ludovic ianus - 2 2 7 7 loggerhead shrike
STURNIDAE - STARLINGS
Sturnus vulgaris - 93 European starling 7 18 7
VIREOHIDAE - VIREOS
- - - 2 Vireo gilvus warbling vireo 1
EMBERIZIDAE - WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS, BUNTINGS'& BLACKBIRDS
1 2 - 2 Vermivora celata
orange-crowned warbler
yellow warbler
yellow-rumped warbler
palm warbler
-
Dendroica petechia - - 4
Dendroica coronata - - - 107
Dendroica palmarum - - 1
- -
-
- -
11-10 BI0/07870BO If
Table 11-1 I continued
1
1
I
1
II
9
1
1
f
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
!
1 BI0/0787080 1 f 11-11
Abundance
5/1/87 6/5/87 7/17/87 8/28/87 10/19, - --
EMBERIZIDAE - WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS, BUNTINGS h BLACKBIRDS (contin
GeothlrpiS trichas
Wilsonia pusilla
Pheucticus melanocephalus
Guiraca caerulea
Pi pilo erythropht ha1 rn us
Pipilo fuscus
Spizella breweri
Pooec e t es Era rn ine us
Passerculus sandwichensis
Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi
Melospiza melodia
Melospiza lincolnii
Me 10s pi za geo rgiana
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Agelaius phoeniceus
Age la ius tricolor
Sturnella neglecta
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Molo thus ater
Icterus cucullatus
Icterus galbula
corn mon yellowthroat 37 89 66 50 130
Wilson's warbler 2
black-headed grosbeak 1 10 2 2 -
blue grosbeak 3 1
rufous-sided towhee 1 6 2
brown towhee 6 15 10 4 3
Brewer's sparrow 1
- 3 - -
- - -
- -
- - - -
- - - - vesper sparrow 1
savannah sparrow 11 21 - - -
Belding's savannah sparrow a3 33 26 29 60
song sparrow 121 114 124 iao 223
3
swamp sparrow - - - - -
82
red-winged blackbird 210 94 232 103 98
1 tricolored blackbird 25
west ern me ado wlark 5 8 2 2 11
2 Brewer's blackbird 3
brown-headed cowbird 6 24 10 - -
hooded oriole 1 -
northern oriole 5 1
Lincoln's sparrow - - - -
white-crowned sparrow - - - -
- - -
- - - -
- - -
- - -
‘EXHII
c -- I U-S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7,5) June 1986
Page 53
Table t 3. SeaSOnaI abundancas and habitat utilization of shorebirds at Ejuani
scaled to 500-m segments of shoreline; species abbreviations are in fabie 10 {f
July-August 0
Sand- Mud- Mud- Salt Sand- Mur Species Beach flat flat bank marsh Total Beacfi flat f la
LS 0 16 3 1 0 20 0 4s 1
WS 0 103 2* 0 0 105 0 113 6
S 13 <1 0 0 0 14 11 <1
DUN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
RK 0 8 <1 0 0 9 0 3 c
RT 2 1 2 <l 0 6 1 1
ur DOW 0 I2 46 <1 0 58 0 159 I
G2 WIL 36 I OB 11 5 2 161 13 118
WH 6 6 0 <l 0 12 0 0
MG 4 45 10 3 0 62 2 47
LBC 0 2 2 3 1 8 0 1
WP 0 <1 0 0 0 <l 0 0
NP 0 0 <I 0 0 <I 0 0
GYL 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 2
BNS 0 <1 <1 0 0 1 0 <1
AA 0 <1 <I 0 0 <1 0 1
SPP 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 I
SP 4 4 <I 0 0 8 1 4
K -0 0 -1 0 0 1- 0- 2
88P 2 18 3 0 0 24 1- 26
Total
Total Species 7 18 16 8 2 19 6 17
Indiv. 67 329 83 12 3 494 29 535
-
I.
: mean number of individuals in five tidal habitats; numbers are
nd 1981).
December- January
Salt Sand- Mud- Mud- Salt
marsh Total Beach flat flat' bank marsh Total
0 63 0 *7 1 0 0 7
0 175 0 192 20 0 0 21 I
0 12 9 1 0 0 0 10
G 21 0 56 16 0 0 72
0 3 0 37 1 0 0 38
0 4 <1 <l <1 0 0 1
0 207 0 113 135 3 1 252
10 175 4 132 . 14 4 60 213
0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
0 78 1 46 18 8 5 76
3 8 0 2 2 2 1 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 <l 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4 0 2 1 <I 0 4
0 1 0 <1 <l 0 0 <I
0 2 0 127 Ct 0 0 127
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 -5 1 4 <1 0 0 5
0 5 <l <1 c1 - <I 0 1
<1 33 <1 23 1 2 0 27
q 13 796 15 742 209 19 66 1050
3 18 7 16 15 7 4 16
! i. i
Ob 2-
4-
6-
8. Snowy Plover
-
. Western Sandpiper (8021 10- (5). -
-$ - - - - Greater Yellowl
(54)
A 15'
t
-
0 r::::::::::::j
2-
4.
6- Semipalmated . Black-bellied Plover
(98) 10 (26) -
............................
15
*I I c .. ...... .... ............... -'
-
c 5 0 1 :- ;. .; ' --
Y 5 2-
Q Q) 4.
E (40)
Red Knot a 6- cg a- Least Sandpiper
.- 10-
4
(25)
................ ........ ............................... ................................. .............. ................ ................ ................ ............... ................ ............... ................ ............... ................
Willet
(1 73)
*.
............. ................ ............. ..... ........... :::::::::::::::::::: ..... ........ ........
cl)
-
:Fl 0 -- '::::::a
2-
4.
6-
8- Ruddy Turnstone Dunlin - (53) 10- (40)
........................... ...................................... ..... $*:Tz ::::: :::: z::::::::::::::::::
Long-billed Cur ....................... ....................... (25l..iiii
:::::::x::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .............
....................... .......................
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::x:::::::::::::::::: ...................................... ...................................... ........................... .............. :::::::::::: ............................ .......................... ::::::::::::: ............... ........................... ............. ........................... .........................
............ .............
15-, i
................ ............... ............... ............
z::::::::::: ... ............ ........ ........ ,::::: ::::: ............ ........ :::::
2-
4-
6-
8-
10 _I
\ a - Killdeer Dowitcher - (1 13) (5 21
.... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ... ............................. . - . ............................. ................................ ................................
................................ ................................
::::::::::::::::x:::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
............................. ................................. ... .... I:.:: fl.arb!ed Gc .;.;.:f;;iiiiiiiiiiiiiii( 1 48 .................... .....................
L
r
MItfg~led
Alc A Nt. A AIL B
A Lagoon Am (4 It)
1- Total S% 5% 5%
2 Area above 5 R MLLW 504 235 to4
3. Aru kma 0 and 5 ft
MLLW 175 159 23
4. Area bclorv 0 [t MLLW 21 7 tat 167
392 361 392 B. Cover rypC Evaluated for Miugd-
tion (A3 + A4)
c OffxtRatio' L 138 1.138 Lo62
D. Predicted Habitat Units (B x C)' 446 411 416
Mititrtd Mic
Nt B AIL C Al
5% 5%
235 204
193 148
168 144
-x 1 3572
1.062 am
3a 3%
J
- port of Long Beach EXEIBI .- port Master Plan Amendment No. 6
Page 24
california Coastal Commission
Staff Report am should the Porr's expected program in the
- -. - July 26, 1990
The Commission is not convinced that it should accegt the credits propose for habitat cornpensation (should they eventually become available) withal assurances that the wetland restoration projects which provide these credits will be in-kind, successful, stable, maintained, and repaired (should complications arise in the future) for the life of the landfill
projects. wetland system than was anticipated and, therefore is not the degree of
in-kind compensation as the marine habitat it wa5 designed to reglace.
Monitoring at the Anaheim Bay project site commenced in April 1990, and therefore "success" cannot be determined For some time. While the Port states that restoration of subtidal habitat has been shown to be successful, the Commission is not yet convinced that long-term success ;
stability of marine habitat restoration projects along the southern
California coastline has been adequately demonstrated to the degree thai
it can approve additional restoration projects without strict guideline:
and standards. The Commission believes that because the landfills (and port operations located on them) are essentially guaranteed to be successful, the associated compensation programs (which are required in order for the landfills to go fordard) should receive an equal quarante
of success.
The Port will use a modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to vali the filled habitat areas, and will use the HE? results to calculate the
number of credits necessary to compensate for the lost habitat. The Commission does not agree (and has not agreed in the past) that a HEP i
the best method to generate habitat compensation requirements. The
Commission believes that at a minimum there should be no less than a 1
habitat replacement ratio (acres) due to the uncertainty factor in hab
restoration work, the lag time between habitat loss and compensation
habitat SUCCBSS, and the fact that marine habitat in Los Angeles-Long
Beach Harbor cannot be replaced on an exact in-kind basis in compensat programs due to the physical uniqueness of the water area behind the harbor breakwater. These factors and others are environmental costs
associated with landfills and must be accounted for in the development
adequate habitat compensation programs.
The Portpf Long Beach, as a public agency, should be held to the samc standards as the private sector when providing habitat compensation
programs for Commission review and approval . Recent Cornmission appro!
of a wetland restoration plan on the Hellman Ranch (Mola) in Seal €lea(
(Orange County), and which included subtidal habitat that could be ma available for port mitigation credits, included specific requirements
Commission review of restoration plans, monitoring, maintenance,
.remediation, performance standards to measure success, and funding.
Commission believes that comparable requirements should be met by the in its request for Commission certification of habitat compensation
programs. The Commission can certify port landfills only by finding
project-related environmental impacts will be minimized; this can be achieved best and most effectively by the submittal of detailed habil
The Upper Newport Bay project resulted in a more brackish
A *
BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION
August 11, 1990
Mr. Ri chard Harl acher U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325
Subject: Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project, Final EIR/EIS
Dear Mr. tlarlacher:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the Batiquitos Lagoo Enhancement Project Final EIR/EIS. The Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation continue to support the concept of lagoon enhancement and adequate tidal flushing for sal marsh habitat. As you know, during the past two years the City of Carlsbad ha been engaged in an environmental review of the project. The Foundation has bee deeply involved in this process. The Foundation is pleased to note that th Final EIR/EIS represents a significant improvement over the Draft EIR/EIS.
After long and careful review of the Final EIR/EIS, the Foundation endorse Mitigated A1 ternative B of the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Fin; EIR/EIS, Because this is a pioneering project which will serve as a model fc other wetland enhancement projects, an adequately funded, comprehensii biological monitoring plan is essential to measure success or failure of tt project, and to provide an opportunity to take corrective actions.
The Foundation believes that, while the monitoring plans proposed in the Fina EIR/EIS provide an outline of the efforts required, the plan for monitoring tt long term effects of enhancement project is lacking in substance. Furtherrnorc the Foundation is greatly concerned that sufficient revenues will be availabl to fund a comprehensive long-term biological monitoring plan.
Accordingly, the Foundation strongly recommends that certification of the plz and issuance of an Army Corps of Engineers permit for the proJect be continger upon the following actions:
Comprehensive monitoring pf ans for both the construction phase and ti completed project should be developed prior to beginning constructioi
The California Departinent of Fish and Game should contract out or assi! the responsibilities for the biological monitoring plan to i independent review commission which includes representatives I industry, academia, and the public.
0
0
P.0. Box 3103
Carlsbad, CA 92008
+
Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project, Final EIR/EIS Page
0 The independent review commission should be charged with development a detailed contingency plan which would address courses of action in t event of a project failure.
0 The monitoring plan should include an on-going advisory role f significant public interest groups such as the Foundation, the Coast Conservancy and the scientific community in order to assure objecti evaluation of the project.
A prudent budget should be prepared for the monitoring plan with func set aside in an account for this purpose separate from maintenan1 funds.
Attachment A provides additional information regarding these and other conceri regarding the enhancement project a
In summary, the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation endorses Mitigated Alternative and urges the Carlsbad City Council and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4 require development of a sound, detailed biological monitoring program wi. adequate funding before construction is allowed to begin. Thank you for yo: consideration of Foundation's comments.
Sincerelyz
0
Q&%?Wp%/y Marilyn . Buck
J President
Attachment
cc: City of Carlsbad, Mayor Claude A. Lewis and Council Members Gary E. Wayne, Project Manager, Carl sbad Planning Department California State Costal Conservancy California Department of Fish and Game Port of Los Angeles
P. Am- A
i
BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION
Batiqui tos Lagoon Enhancement ProJect
Final EIR/EIS
Comments
Summary
The Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation is pleased to note that the Final EIR/E represents a significant improvement over the Draft EIR/EIS.
After long and careful review of the Final EIR/EfS, the Foundation endorsc Mitigated Alternative B of the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Fini EIR/EIS. Because this is a pioneering project which will serve as a model fc other wetland enhancement projects, an adequately funded, comprehensi! biological monitoring plan is essential to measure success or failure of tl project, and to provide an opportunity to take corrective actions.
The Foundation believes that, while the monitoring plans proposed in the Fin; EIR/EIS provide an outline of the efforts required, the plans for monitorit construction and the long term effects of the enhancement project are lackii in substance. Furthermore, the Foundation is greatly concerned that sufficiei revenues will be available to fund a comprehensive long term biologic; monitoring plan,
The Foundation, in responding to the Draft EIR/EIS, commented that a biologici monitoring plan should be in place prior to acceptance of the enhancemen project. The discussion of the long term monitoring plan in the Final EIR/EI: continues to be inadequate in three ways: plan design, timing of completion (I plan and identification of adequate funds to perform the monitoring function fa the years as described.
The Foundation strongly recommends that certification of the plan and issuanc of an Army Corps of Engineers permit for the project be contingent upon th development of a sound, detailed biological monitoring program with adequat funding before construction is allowed to begin.
Bonitoring Plan Permit Conditions
Proposed Army Corps of Engineers Permit Conditions cite proposed conditions fa inclusion in the project permit. Item 20 of the proposed conditions cite requirements of the permittee regarding the long term biological monitorin program. The Foundation makes the following recommendations regarding permi conditions.
A. ComD rehensive Monitoring Pla ns
Recommendation: Comprehensive monitoring plans for both the constructio phase and the completed project should be developed prior to beginnin construction.
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation Comments, Final EIR/EIS Page 2
First, the long monitoring plan describes a set of activities that will be conducted, but lacks an experimental design. Because of the sensitive nature of this project, it important to have a carefully documented record of issues, problems and impacts of the project. From the plan contained in the Final EIR/EIS, it is not clear what questions the monitoring plan has been designed to answer. For instance, can the monitoring plan differentiate between success in the individual lagoon basins or only for the project as a whole? Additionally, the plan is still lacking in specific goals and corrective actions that will be implemented if the goals are not achieved.
Secondly, Item 20 of the Proposed Permit Conditions requires the permittee
project construction. Given the proposed construction schedule, there is sufficient time to develop a biological monitoring plan which would specify the procedures to evaluate, monitor, measure and document the enhancement effort. The Foundation bet ieves completion of a detailed biological monitoring plan prior to commencinq construction is not only reasonable, it is necessary in order to meet the project goals.
J.n dewndent Review Comm i ssion
Recommendation: The California Department of Fish and Game should contract out or assign the responsibilities for developing and conducting the biological monitoring program to an independent review commission which includes representatives of industry, academia, and the publ ic.
Recommendatlon: The independent review commission, or permittee or othei responsible entity, should be charged with development of a detailec contingency plan which would address courses of action in the event of i project failure.
Recommendation: The monitoring plan should include an on-going advisorj role for significant publ ic interest groups such as the Foundation, thc Coastal Conservancy and the scientific community in order to assuri objective evaluation of the project.
As discussed above, a sound 'long term monitoring plan is critical to thc post-project evaluation effort. Because, the Cal ifornia Department of Fist and Game has limited resources for activities in the San Diego region, 11 is likely this responsibility will be contracted*out or assigned to anothei agency as allowed by permit conditions. The Foundation is concerned thal this activity may be contracted exclusively wlth groups already performin some component of the enhancement activity. Therefore, the Foundatio recommends that the development and implementation of the biologica monitoring plan be performed by an independent review commission Furthermore, the Foundation strongly urges that the monitoring plan includ an on-going advisory role for significant public interest groups such as th Foundation, the Coastal Conservancy and others in order to assure objectiv evaluation of the project.
to have an approved biological monitoring plan prior to comdetion of
B.
./
e Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation Comments, Final EIR/EIS Page 3
C. Ddeauate Fundinq of Bioloq i cal Mon i tori nu P1 an
Recommendation: A prudent budget should be prepared for the monitoring plan with funds set aside in an account for this purpose separate from maintenance funds.
An amount of-$&%€l (present dollar value to be adjusted for inflation) has been established as a cost for which the permittee shall be responsible tc carry out the 10 year monitoring program. The Foundation is concerned that such an dollar figure may not be a realistic amount to perform the monitoring activities. Furthermore, given the certain need for routine maintenance, the Foundation is concerned that maintenance efforts may erode funding avail ab1 e for monitoring activities.
@sw, uoo .-
ADD IT 70NAL COMMENTS
Model i nq
The importance of obtaining sound modeling data cannot be overemphasized as ii provides the only measure of the potential success of the enhancement desigt alternatives. Because the tidal modeling provides the basis for designing thc project, the Foundation is concerned about the conflicting conclusions reachec by CH& Hill and Scripps Institute of Oceanography pertaining to the size of thc tidal prism required to maintain a continuously open tidal inlet. It is no1 clear if there will be an attempt to develop a data collection program whict would used to verify and refine the computer models used for the plar a1 ternatives.
Sumulative ImPactS
The treatment of the cumulative impacts related to the project appear! incomplete. For example, the East Basin dredge fueling station appears to bt located in the project recently proposed by Odmark and Thelan (Broccato an( Batiquitos Shores). It is not clear if the development plans of Odmark an( Thelan have been considered in the Final EIR/EIS. In addition, the fmpacts haw not been discussed associated with the proposed widening of Interstate 5 no the construction of the parking lot at South Carlsbad State Beach which wil 11 kely preclude dredge sediment stockpile as’dunes in that locatlon.
4
CLUB, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER
San Diego and Impend Counties
3820 Ray Street
San Diego, CA 92104
August 11, 1988
Rick Harlacher, Project Manager
Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Dear Mr. Harlacher:
The Sierra Club appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project EIR/EIS. The Sierra Club
has a deep commitment to the preservation, enhancement and
restoration of wetlands.
The following is a summary of our comments on inadequacies we
have found in the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Final EIR/EIS. A detailed discussion of each topic is attached.
The Final EIR/EIS is not in compliance with CEQA/NEPA on the
following points.
1. A significant redefinition of the project and alternatives occurred between the Draft EIR/EIS and
the Final EIR/EIS. California Public Resources Code
Section 31092.1 requires a recirculation of a Draft
EIR/EIS when significant changes are made to the
project description to allow for adequate public review and comment.
2. The final EIR/EIS presents a significant amount of
new information which was not included in the Draft EIR/EIS and therefore was not available to public
review and comment. California Public Resources Code
Section 21092.1 requires that the Draft EIR/EIS be
recirculated to allow for public review and comment.
3. The lead agencies received comments on its Notice of
Preparation which indicated major disagreements betwee
qualified experts on the technical aspects of the
Batiquitos Project. These disagreements occurred at
the beginning of the CEQA/NEPA process. The lead
to explore, enjoj and protect the natron’s scenic resourci
.r
2.
agencies ignored these differences of opinion in the
Draft EIR/EIS and represented only the scientific
opinion of its consultants on all subjects. It was nc
until the Final EIR/EIS that these differences of
opinion were mentioned and then they were inadequately
discussed. The public was not given information on tF
nature of the differences of expert opinion or their
effect on the conclusions in the Draft EIR/EIS at a
point where the public could comment. CEQA and NEPA
requires a good faith effort at disclosure to provide
the public with the opportunity to conduct an informec
review and make intelligent comments if necessary (14
California Code of Regulations Section 15151). The
lead agencies should have summarized the main points I
disagreement and explained the reasons for accepting
one set of opinions over another.
4. The project description in both the Draft and Final EIR/EIS is incomplete and inadequate to evaluate the
full environmental effects of the project. The use o
the site as mitigation bank for landfills in the Port
of Los Angeles is not fully described yet is the
primary purpose for the project and a major feature o
the project design. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA
which describes the use of Batiquitos Lagoon as a
mitigation bank is not discussed and is an integral
part of the project. This MOA describes the purpose,
assumptions and the institutional mechanisms for the
approval, funding, construction, land acquisition,
long-term operation and maintenance and monitoring as
well as the use of mitigation credits and evaluation
project success, in other words, the entirety of the
implementation portion of the Batiquitos Project.
This is contrary to the objectives required in CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15124;
15121 and case law interpreting these sections and
NEPA.
5. The EIR/EIS defers the formulation of mitigation measures for the project's effects on the plant and
animal life in the lagoon to an as-yet-uncompleted
Department of Fish and Game long term management pla
The project will completely disrupt the lagoon and i
resident and migrant life forms. There is great ris
and very little assurance the project will replace a
currently functioning ecosystem with an equally well
functioning ecosystem and replace lost habitat value
with those of equal value. Yet the project contains contingency plan for the problems which are likely t
occur after construction. The EIR/EIS addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a fut
management plan to be completed by another agency
3.
(California Department of Fish and Game). This agency
is also given the responsibility of dealing with the long term impacts of the project. Reliance on
illusionary mitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the lead agencies to avoid
having to address the feasibility of real mitigation
measures or project alternatives. This is contrary to
the recent rejection of such agency actions under CEQA
in Sundstron v. County of Mendocino, (1st District
1988) 202 California App. 3d 296.
6. The Final EIR/EIS inadequately responds to comments
raised in the Draft EIR/EIS regarding lagoon
sedimentation, retention of habitat values of
migratory and resident birds and endangered species,
definition of minimum tidal prism and analysis of an
intermittent tidal alternative.
The Sierra Club is interested assuring that the resource values
of Batiquitos Lagoon will be preserved and enhanced. Please
contact me if I can be of any assistance in achieving this goal.
Sincerely, p-&& F-- ~c-cA&= %# ‘+J
.,Joan Jgd SOR Chair, Coastal Committee
DETAILED COMMENTS
1. SIGNIFICANT REDEFINITION OF THE PROJECT.
The Draft EIR/EIS identified three alternatives, A, B, C and
the no action alternative. Alternative A is identified as the
proposed project. Alternatives A, B and C are all large dredgin
projects which involve disruption and disturbance of all three
basins of Batiquitos Lagoon. According to the Draft EIR/EIS all
three alternatives would "change the lagoon to a tidal system."
Alternative A is described in the Draft EIR/EIS Section 2.3.1
primarily in relation to its dredging requirement. Cut slopes
are roughly described ("slopes will vary from 10.1 to 50.1"),
approximate acreages are tabulated by contour elevation and
proposed habitat type. The "project description" contains no
detailed discussion of biological characters of the proposed
project, Alternative A. In the following Sections 2 and 3 the
existing environment of the lagoon and the impacts of the
proposed project, Alternative A, are discussed. In all instance
Alternatives B and C are barely mentioned. Mitigation measures
are described for Alternative A in Section 3.4.2.4 and pictured
in Figure 3.4-14 for Alternative A only. There is no
illustration of mitigation measures for any other alternative.
Section 3.4.2.4 Conceptual Long-term Mitigation Plan of the Draf
EIR/EIS describes "optional mitigation measures." These are
listed as - "elimination of the proposed freshwater marsh area,
enhancement of existing east basin wetland, relocation of the
proposed east basin least tern nesting areas and reduction of tl
surface (i.e. habitat) disturbances." Table 3.4-29 lists the
effects on habitat acreages of these "optional mitigation
measures" for Alternative A only. No discussion or tabulation I
the application of these "optional mitigation measures" to the
other alternatives is included in the Draft EIR/EIS.
Those who commented on the Draft EIR/EIS are left with
Alternative A as the proposed project. Alternative A is
described primarily by its engineering characters and proposed
habitat acreages and a set of goals for lagoon enhancement.
These goals are subjective and alternatives are not evaluated f
conformance to these goals. The Draft EIR/EIS also gives a
summary Table ES-1 of the project activities impacts and
mitigation. There is no separation of this analysis by
alternative. It is a summary of the impacts and mitigation
measures for Alternative A, the proposed project, The other
alternatives are not presented in the same detail or their
effects and mitigation measures enumerated in the Draft EIR/EIS
The final EIR/EIS is considerably different than the draft EIR/EIS. The purpose of a Final EIR/EIS is to respond to
comments on the Draft EIR/EIS . However, the final EIR/EIS for
the Batiquitos Lagoon project redefines and significantly
redesigns the proposed project leaving no opportunity for publi
2
review or comment on this new proposed project.
The Final EIR/EIS states on p. S-6 "Section 3.4.2.4 of the Draft EIR/EIS presented a description of mitigation measures that COUL:
(emphasis added) be applied to any of the three alternatives A, :
and C." This paragraph goes on to state these mitigation
measures were not (emphasis added) applied to any alternatives
except Alternative A in the Draft EIR/EIS but are not being
applied to the other alternatives in the Final EIR/EIS.
The Final EIR/EIS includes a 38 page section termed "description
of alternatives." If the Final EIR/EIS complied with CEQA and NEPA such an extensive new project description would not be
necessary. For that matter, the Final EIR/EIS should not need a 55 page section on "Environmental Setting and Analysis of
Environmental Effects of Alternatives." These two discussions
are appropriate to a new Draft EIR/EIS and not a Final EIR/EIS.
This redesign and redefinition of the project description in a
Final EIR/EIS is not in compliance with CEQA and NEPA. The leac
agencies should be recirculating the latest document as a new
Draft EIR/EIS and allowing public comment on the new project not
being proposed for approval,
2. ADDITION OF NEW SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION.
The first and third volumes of the Final EIR/EIS contain a
significant amount of new information which was not included in
the Draft EIR/EIS to allow for a complete evaluation of the
project by the public.
The Final EIR/EIS describes Alternatives A through F, the
no-project alternative and "mitigated Alternatives A, B and C.
The Draft EIR/EIS described Alternative A in detail with
mitigation measures and briefly evaluated Alternatives B and C
and the no project alternative. The Draft EIR/EIS does not
mention Alternatives D, E and F which are described in the Fina EIR/EIS. Neither does the Draft EIR/EIS describe a "mitigated" Alternative B or C. Additionally the project description in th
Final EIR/EIS for "mitigated" Alternative A does not correspond
to the Alternative A with "optional mitigation measures"
described in the Draft EIR/EIS. One obvious and notable difference is the location and size of proposed Californa Least
Tern Nesting Sites between the Draft EIR/EIS and Final EIR/EIS
versions of Alternative A. The Final EIR/EIS presents at
least 5 new alternatives and one questionably different
alternative. These new alternatives are significant new
information not previously reviewed by the public in the Draft EIR/EIS.
Besides a new set of alternatives, the Final EIR/EIS contains i
ew evaluation of the environmental impacts of these
3
alternatives. Section 3 of Volume 1 contains several analysis and an entirely different set of enhancement objectives from
those contained in the Draft EIR/EIS, Section 3 also contains
analysis titled "Effects Associated with Project Failure." Thi analysis contains entirely new information not included in the
Draft EIR/EIS and never reviewed by the public. Section 3 also
includes an analysis entitled "Cumulative Effects", "Relationsh
to other Lagoon Management Efforts", "Littoral Sand Transport"
and "Replacement of West Carlsbad Blvd Bridge." These analyses
contain new information not included in the Draft EIR/EIS or
reviewed by the public. This analysis of the bridge (p 3-55) i
the Final EIR/EIS states "The purpose of this section is to
provide an analysis of the potential environmental impacts
associated with bridge replacement." That is the purpose of a
Draft, not a Final EIR/EIS.
Volume I11 of Final EIR/EIS contains nine appendices of technic
information discussion, Appendix A contains a long term lagoon
monitoring plan. This plan was not contained in the Draft EIR/EIS and constitutes new information for the public. Many o!
the other appendices intermix new information with a discusson (
the many differences of opinion between equally qualified experl
on the technical issues surrounding the Batiquitos Project. Th:
type of information should be included in the Draft EIR/EIS whei
the public can review and comment.
The Final EIR/EIS includes new information, analysis and
alternatives not mentioned in the Draft EIR/EI/S. This Final
EIR/EIS should be recirculated as a new Draft EIR/EIS to afford
the public a review and comment period.
3. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS AMONG EXPERTS.
Much of Volume I11 of the Final EIR/EIS contains appendices whic
discuss the disagreement among experts regarding many issues on
the Batiquitos project. Under CEQA and NEPA the lead agency in
the Draft EIR/EIS must let the public know of these
disagreements, discuss their basis and merit and evaluate why tf
project design follows one follows one rather than another exper
judgement. The Draft EIR/EIS contains none of this information
despite the numerous comments on the Notice of Preparation whicf
pointed these "expected disagreements" out to the lead agencies.
The Draft EIR/EIS misled the public by the omission of this
material and does not allow for full disclosure of all the issue
in the project.
Again, it is obvious the Final EIR/EIS should recirculated as a
new Draft EIR/EIS for public review and comment.
4
4. INCOMPLETE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS.
Both the Draft EIR/EIS and the Final EIR/EIS incompletely describe the purpose of the Batiquitos project. The project sit
is intended to provide a major mitigation bank for landfills in
the Port of Los Angeles, The compensation proposed for the
filling of deep-water tidal habitat in the port is the creation
of shallow water tidal habitat at Batiquitos Lagoon. Both the
Draft and the final EIR/EIS allude to the Memorandum of Agreemei (MOA) signed by numerous federal, state and local agencies prioi
to the commencement of CEQA and NEPA which sets forth the
institutional mechanisms to create a mitigation bank at
Batiquitos Lagoon.
Both the Draft and Final EIR/EIS profess to evaluate a
"Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project." The project descriptic
in the Draft EIR/EIS (p 1-5) states the nehancement goals
originally formulated through the State Coastal Conservancy's
enhancement plan. "The overall goal is to enhance the lagoon
environment for wildlife habitat," However, this goal is
distorted by the unstated and overriding goal of creating a Por
mitigation bank at Batiquitos Lagoon. This mitigation goal is
incorporated into the project by elimination of all alternative,
no matter how vavorable to the enhancement of the lagoon
environment for wildlife habitat, which do not create an adequa
tidal area to fulfill the Porty's mitigation needs. This
alternative selection criterion is stated on p. 2.2 of the Draf EIR/EIS. "The following types of alternatives ere considered b
are not evaluated in detail in this EIR/EIS:
Alternative enhancement concepts at Batiquitos Lagoon that
are unrelated to the MOA."
The project description for the EIR/EIS should include the text of the MOA and evaluate this aspect of the project. The MOA is
not generally available to the public nor is its importance to
the project will explained in either the Draft or Ffinal EIR/EI
Without the clear intention of creating a Port minigation proje
being stated in the prject description, the analysis and choice
of alternatives in the Draft and Final EIR/EIS delude the publi
into thinking that "enhancement of the lagoon environment" is t
overriding goal.
Another significant effect of not including the full text and
provision of the MOA in the project description is to not make
the details of funding and responsibility for the implementatio of the project a part of the EIR/EIS and public review. The MO
not only establishes the purpose of the Batiquitos Mitigation Project, it sets forth what the Port will fund, how the
construction will be carried out, how the Port will receive
credit, what aspects of the mitigation project are evaluated to test the project's success, potential mitigation credits and wh
activities the maintenance accout can be used for by the
5
long-term management agency.
These provisions are an integral portion of the overall
Batiquitos Project yet they were intentionally not included in
any level of detail for public review. Section 1-3.1 of the
Draft EIR/EIS is a generalized but intentionally vague account 1
the MOA,
A number of those that commented on the Draft EIR/EIS questione
the obvious omission of the MOA provisions from the Project
description of the Batiquitos Draft EIR/EIS. For example,
comments 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9 all concern the
mitigation bank and the MOA. The proposed Port credits and som
of the implementation mechanisms are discussed as responses to
these comments, but neither the Draft or the Final EIR/EIS
adquately describe the provisions of the MOA as part of the
project description.
Another, perhaps more revealing comment is from one of the
signatories to the MOA, the California Department of Fish and
Game. Comment 14-6 states the following as a criteria for a
I1 new design alternative."
11 1. the "trade off ratio" for the newly derived
alternative must generate sufficient full mitigation
credits as a function of project cost to be deemed
acceptable by the Port of Los Angeles."
The Final EIR/EIS responds to this comment by noting that a
discussion of Port mitigation credits isn't appropriate. If th
is a criterion for the design of the Batiquitos Project how can
discussion of the project's mitigation credits be inappropriate
A sampling of additional questions regarding MOA and Port
mitigation are found in comments 14-9, 21-9,21-16, 21-17,
21-40, 21-64, 21-66, 21-72, 21-73, 21-83, 24-1, 26-1, 26-9,
26-37, 26-38, 26-39, 26, 40, 26-41, 26-42, 26-46, 26-48, 26-49,
26-50, 26-66, 26-163, 26-164, 26-166, 30-4, 30-11, 31-5, 32-2,
32-4, 32-7, 32-10, 32-33, 41-21, 41-22, 41-23, 41-28, 42-29 and
many others in the Final EIR/EIS.
5. THE FINAL EIR/EIS DEFERS MITIGATION MEASURES TO A FUTURE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
The Draft EIR/EIS recognizes that the enhancement project may n
function as planned in the time period specified. On p. 4-3,
Volune 2, the Draft EIR/EIS identifies the following as an
Irreversible and Irretrievable Impact:
Following construction, there will be a period of SEVERAL
years when lagoon wildlife habitats will be less producti
and MIGHT NOT provide suitable nesting, resting, and
feeding habitats for a wide diversity of wildlife."
11
6
The final EIR/EIS (P. 5-21 recognizes the "conversion of
non-tidal flats to other habitat type not suitable for avian
species" as a significant impact, The Final EIR/EIS also lists
"Disruption of substrate inhabited by benthic species during
dredging" as a locally significant and short term impact. The mitigation for conversion of non-tidal flats is to design the
dredging contours to a particular slope, No mitigation is
recommended for the disruption of the benthic habitat,
Additionally,the Final EIR/EIS includes a new section entitled
"Effects associated with Project Failure." This section brief1
discusses the effects of the failure of the predicted outcomes
the Batiquitos project.
The failure analysis includes certain admissions - "A relative1
slow rate of development of a complex benthic fauna could affec the carrying capacity of the intertidal flats for feeding shore
birds. Some of the subtidal colonizers could include exotic
species...this bivalve is known to form dense mats on the
sediment surface and has the potential to compete with
colonization by other benthic invertebrates."
If the EIR/EIS predictions regarding the future recolonization
and habitat value of the new tidal habitat do not prove true th
how is the long-term loss of the non-tidal habitat for wildlife
mitigated? The Final EIR/EIS acknowledges a failure or even a
lack of success for a long period of time could ensue, but offe
no mitigation measures.
The only mitigation identified is for the conversion of habitat
type is a change in dredge contours to create flatter slopes.
The mitigation impled in several other places in the document,
but not proposed is the need for a contingency or long-term
management plan to outline the steps proposed should the projec
fail. The Draft EIR/EIS discusses the need for monitoring and
maintenance plans in Section 3.4.2.5.1. Moreover, the Draft EIR/EIS defers responsibility for development of monitoring pla
to the California Department of Fish and Game, The Draft EIR/E
claims that this management plan will address "measures to be
taken in the event of catastrophic or cumulative observed damag
to the habitats. The plan will also identify responsible parti
and include REMEDIAL MITIGATION MEASURES required to ensure
that
the projects habitat values are met and remain as anticipated a
the time of construction supervision," (Emphasis added). These
activities are mitigation measures for the impacts of the proje
conversion of habitat types and failure of the predictions in t EIR/EIS. These mitigation measures should be included in the
Final EIR/EIS and not deferred to a future time by another
agency.
This management plan has not been prepared not is it included i
the Final EIR/EIS . In fact, the Califoria Department of Fish
7
and Game in their comment letter on the Draft EIR/EIS (comment
14-9) requests an operation and maintenance schedule be prepare
The final EIR/EIS response to this comment is that California
Department of Fish and Game need to develop management and lago
maintenance options.
The lead agencies must identify all the significant impacts of
the project and identlfy mitigation measures to reduce the effe
of these impacts to an insignificant level. The reduction of
significant impact by mitigation cannot be deferred to a futrue
planning effort by another agency.
6. FINAL EIR/EIS RESPONDS INADEQUATELY TO COMMENTS RAISED IN THE DRAFT EIR/EIS REGARDING SEDIMENTATION, BIOLOGICAL ISSU AND TIDAL PRISM
The final EIR/EIS inadequately addresses many of the comments
regarding the sedimentation studies. In response to criticism
and questions on the technical merits of the "Sediment Load Study!' completed by CH2M Hill for the lead agency, the Final EIR/EIS criticizes the Coastal Conservancy's watershed sediment
Control Plan. The effect of this response to comments is to avoid the criticism of the Draft EIR/EIS by criticizing another
study. Tjhe comments regarding the faulty and incorrect
assumptions regarding sedimentation into the lagoon are numerou (3-18, 13-11, 13-12, 13-18, 13-19, 13-21, 11-32, 13-34, 13-36,
13-44, 13-46, 13-47, 13-50, 13-53, 13-116, 13-125, 21-23, 21-14
21-25, 29-6, 31-1).
The appendix C review of sediment issues fails to address the
primary sedimentation issue. The Batiquitos Project is a
mitigation bank for the filling of deepwater in the Port of Los
Angeles. Under the MOA the Port provides approximately $200,00(
a year avedrage funding to the Department of Fish and Game to
maintain the dredged contours, i.e. the mitigation habitat, Onc
constructed and inspected immediately after The construction,
the Port's obligations are removed and a State agency takes ove:
lagoon management with a very limited fund which must be used tl
maintain the new lagoon depths for at least 60 years. The
Batiquitos Lagoon watershed is rapidly being developed with
little or no concern for erosion control. As paved surfaces
increase so do peak flows and so does the erosion of natural
stream bed alluvium, typically composed of heavier sediments.
The ultimate effect of a flood under future watershed conditionr
would easily be to transport tons of heavy sediment into the
lagoon which the Department of Fish and Game must pay to remove
to maintain the Port's mitigation bank. The purpose of the
sediment basins is to catch heavy sediment from smaller storms
and thus remove a portion of the heavy sediment which will
accumulate and not be flushed out by tidal action. The amount (
heavy sediment in borings from the lagoon quoted in Appendix C
reflects the percentage of the total sediment and deposition
8
which has already occured in the lagoon under past and current
watershed conditions. This percentage does not accurately
reflect future changed in whatershed processes which paving and
build-out will drastically alter.
Neither the Draft or Final EIR/EIS adequately address this
impact or formulate any mitigation measures. If the originally
proposed sediment basins are not adquate mitigation what is? b
is the solution proposed by the consultants on p. C-6 of the
Final EIR/EIS not addresses as a mitigation measure? The lead
agency, the City of Carlsbad, controls development on over 50%
the watershed area, The Final EIR/EIS states in appendix C, p.
C-5, that implementation of erosion control measures in the
watershed is byond the control of the Port of Los Angeles (whic is not the lead agency and whose jurisdictional powers are not
issue) and the City of Carlsbad, But it is not beyond the Citj
jurisdiction to impose erosion control measures over 50% of the
watershed. This feasible sediment control mitigation measure i
ignored by the Final EIR/EIS.
Instead of completing a thorough and reasonable analysis and
identification of impacts of sedimentation and formulating
reasonable mitigation measures, the Draft and Final EIR/EIS off
an inadequate analysis which leads to erroneous conclusions in
order to allow the lead agency to offer no mitigation measures.
The long-term effect of this inadequate EIR/EIS could easily be
that the Department of Fish and Game will absorb the cost of
maintaining the Los Angeles Port District's mitigation bank.
The Final EIR/EIS inadequately addresses the comments raised
regarding the impact and mitigations for the loss of non-tidal mudflats on the bird species which use the lagoon. The Final EIR/EIS recognizes that conversion of non-tidal habitat to tida
habitat is a significant impact. The only mitigation offered i
to chance the dredge contours so that the new intertidal areas
will mimic natural area. The Final EIR/EIS does not adequately
address the question if any of the alternatives can support the
same number and species of migratoruy and resident birds as the
current non-tidal habitat. Without resolving this issue the
Final EIR/EIS fails to show that any of the mitigated
alternatives have reduced this significant impact to a level of
insignificance.
Similiarily the Final EIR/EIS inadequatly addresses the comment
raised regarding impacts on the California Least Tern. The
success of mitigation sites is very low. Impacts to the
Belding's Savannah Sparrow and the Snowy Plover are significant
but are not adequately described nor is mitigation adequate.
The final EIR/EIS inadequately addresses the comment raised
regarding the need for dredging such a large tidal prism in the
lagoon. Appensix A does little to establish that the minimum
tidal prism quoted in the Draft EIR/EIS is indeed the minimum.
9
The Final EIR/EIS does not adequately define why an intermitteni
alternative which has less environmental impacts is not a viablf
lagoon enhancement alternative.
I
- CL@*k-&-& OF i COMMEF UNITED STATES
i'c Administri
Southwest Region
300 S. Ferry Street Terminal Island, California 9073
August 13, 1990 F/SWR13 : RSH
r-'
/Lr$:C'LI- 3. y
Mayor Claude A. Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. (Elm Ave.) Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
The National Harine Fisheries Service has had considerable
involvement in the development of alternatives for the Batiqui
Lagoon Enhancement project.
implementation of Mitigated Alternative B. alternative represents the best compromise between the conflicting interests of the various groups who have an interc
in the restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon.
Coastal tidally influenced wetland and lagoon systems are
relatively rare habitat areas in southern California.
Historically, most of these systems have been drastically altt or eliminated as a result of human activities. Alternative B offers an opportunity to restore this lagoon sy:
such that it will closely resemble the historic configuration
prior to impacts associated with deposition of large amounts (
sediment in the Lagoon.
From a natural resource perspective, this alternative is expec
to not only preserve existing values but enhance those values
well. The restoration of a fully tidal system will also re-
introduce a permanent marine fishery component which has been
absent for many years.
The unique values of this type of marine system, particularly
nursery areas for a wide variety of fish species, has been we
documented.
Fishery Center in La Jolla, for example, indicates that this
of habitat is essential to the early life stages of the California halibut, a species of considerable commercial and
recreational value.
Recently, there has been considerable interest in this projec
from residents who live near the Lagoon. They have expressed
their desire, from an aesthetic point of view, for the
implementation of Mitigated Alternative A.
aesthetic differences between Mitigated Alternative A and
Mitigated Alterative B are relatively minor given that the configuration of the west and central basins would remain the same under both of these alternatives. However, from a
Our Agency supports the adoption
We believe this
Mitigated
Recent research conducted by our own Southwest
We believe the
ie
v
r
biological standpoint, Mitigated Alternative B is expected to b superior to the other alternatives currently being considered.
In summary, we believe Mitigated Alternative B offers the best
opportunity to meet the needs of the City of Carlsbad and at th same time enhance the natural resource values of the region.
Sincerely,
EL LLuWdb E.C. F lerton Regiona 3 Director
L.VIL”U VL ‘L.IYLA6-L-I i VL L &I.-- I . _______ ___ - ~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE 1s HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of Carlsbad and the Army Corps of Engine€ (COE) have prepared a combined Final Environmental [mpact Report (EIR)/Environment
Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protectic
Ordinance (Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), the National Environmeni
Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding t’
issuance of a Special Use Pennit by Carlsbad and a COE permit to construct Batiquit
Lagoon Enhancement Project. The Project is located in southwest Carlsbad, bounded
Pacific Ocean/La Costa Avenue/El Camino ReaVand the north shore of the lagoon. Cor
of Engineers (COE) Public Notice No. 88-217-PB was issued for this project on SeptemE
10, 1988. The Draft EWEIS was published April30,1989 and the comment period clos
on July 14, 1989. The Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Draft EWEIS and Fir
EWEIS is on file with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, City Clerk‘s Offii
Carlsbad City Library, La Costa Branch Library and the Enchitas Library. Copies of t
Draft EIWEIS and Final EIR/EIS are available for sale at the City of Carlsbad Planni
Cepalltment, 2375 Las Palmas Dki~, Carkbad, CA 92009.
The deadline for comments regarding the issuance of a COE permit for the project E
comments regarding the Final EIS is August 13, 1990. Written comments on the EIS E
federal permit action can be submitted in writing to Mr. Richard Harlacher, U.S. Ar
Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, P.O. Box 2711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325.
There will be a public hearing before the Carlsbad Planning Commission on July 18, 1s
to take testimony regarding the project and the Final EIR. The meeting will take place
the Carlsbad City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avent
Carlsbad, CA at 6:OO p.m. If you wish to make testimony, please attend this heari
Testimony will also be received at a second public hearing before the Carlsbad City COUI
to consider certification of the environmental document and consider approving the projt
This hearing will occur approximately three weeks following Planning Commission hear
and will be publicly noticed.
If you challenge the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project and/or Environrner
Documentation in cow, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or some(
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written corresponde:
delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
1 h’
CASE NO: EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9
APPLICANT:
PUBLISH DATE: CARLSBAD JOURNAL -
PORT OF LOS ANGELES/CITY OF CARLSBAD
JULY 5, 1990
JULY 5, 1990
JULY 5, 1990
BLADE CITIZEN, LA COSTAN -
SAN DIEGO UNION -
SAN DIEGO EDITION,
JULY 5, 1990
JULY 5, 1990
LOS ANGELES TIMES -
BLADE CITIZEN -
Ah
City of Carisba
0 0 r
.
FROM FAX #: (619) 434-1987 TO FAX #: (d/y ) 0797-L08/
DATE SENT: &/$& TIME SENT: /'-'X&
NUMBER OF PAGES SENT (INCLUDING THIS PAGE) a
TO: LL
DEPT: /
COMPANY: 'Ld. b
FROM:
CONTACT P&NE # (619)
d, LJ 0
DEPT: c-.& u d/L,;
dJ-d- &~d
INSTRUCTIONS :
1-1 Ad/ dxz g/&-
%YL
v
d & 7Bj' v QW
.A&V &&/
1- P-1 9-k7d
ANY PROBLEMS WITH RECEIVING THIS FAX CALL: (619) 434-2803
e a
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Carlsbad and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have prepared a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance (Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) , the National Environmental Pol icy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding issuance of a Special Use Permit by Carlsbad and a COE permit to construct Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. The Project is located in southwest Carlsbad, bounded by Pacific Ocean/La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real/and the north shore of the lagoon. Corps of Engineers (COE) Public Notice No. 88-217-PB was issued for this project on September 10, 1988. The Draft EIR/EIS was published April 30, 1989 and the comment period closed on July 14, 1989. The Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Draft EPR/EIS and Final EIR/EIS is on file with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, City Clerk’s Office, Carlsbad City Library, La Costa Branch Library and the Encinitas Library. Copies of the Draft EIR/EIS are available for sale at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009.
The deadline for comments regarding the issuance of a COE permit for the projecl and comments regarding the Final EIS is August 13, 1990. Written comments or the EIR and federal permit action can be submitted in writing to Mr. Richarc Harlacher, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, P.O. Box 2711, Lo: Angel es , CA 90053-2325.
There will be a public hearing before the Carlsbad City Council on August 14 1990 to take testimony regarding the project and the Final EIR. The meeting wil take place in the Carlsbad City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Driv (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, CA at 6:OO P.M.
If you challenge the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project and/or Environmenta Documentation in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raise by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice or i written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office a or prior to the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Port of Los Angeles/City of Carlsbad
r BATIQUITOS LAGOON EIR 86-51
ENHANCEMENT PROJECT SUP 9
n
NOTICE OF AVAILABZLITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMEW
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of Carlsbad and the Army Corps of Engineer:
(COE) have prepared a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Envkonmenta
Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protectior
Ordinance (Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), the National Environments
Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding th
issuance of a Special Use Pennit by Carlsbad and a COE permit to construct Batiquito
Lagoon Enhancement Project. The Project is located in southwest Carlsbad, bounded b
Pacific Ocean/La Costa Avenue/El Camino Redland the north shore of the lagoon. Corp
of Engineers (COE) Public Notice No. 88-217-PB was issued for this project on Septembc
10,1988. The Draft EIR/EIS was published April 30,1989 and the comment period close
on July 14, 1989. The Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Draft EIWEIS and Fh
EIR/EIS is on file with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, City Clerk’s Offict
Carlsbad City Library, La Costa Branch Library and the Enchitas Library. Copies of tk
Draft EIWEIS and Final EWEIS are available for sale at the City of Carlsbad Plannir
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009.
The deadline for comments regarding the issuance of a COE permit for the project ar
comments regarding the Final EIS is August 13, 1990. Written comments on the EIS ar
federal permit action can be submitted in writing to Mr. Richard Harlacher, U.S. h
Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, P.O. Box 2711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325.
There will be a public hearing before the Carlsbad w &n-on
to take testimony regarding the project and the Final EIR. The meeting will take place
the Carlsbad City Council C d Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenuc
Carlsbad, CA at 6:OO p.m. testimony, - - * xpproving the projei
-proximately three weeks following Planning Cammissiarahearii
-.Mic&~no ticed.
If you challenge the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project and/or Environmen
Documentation in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someo
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written corresponder
delivered to the City of Carlsbad,at. or prior to the public hearing.
1:
“a 19! G~ ed&fll-:L/
/*
- we-ww __
ef2p flAk0 $pLL
CASE NO: EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9
APPLICANT: PORT OF LOS ANGELES/CITY OF CARLSBAD
Mi5 1990
JULY 5 1990
.i PUBLISH DATE: CARLSBAD JOURNAL - 94b-o gp2 \
i BLADE CITIZEN, LA COSTAN -
SAN DIEGO UNION - JW 5, 1990 J p9* e’ SAN DIEGO EDITION,
L LOS ANGELES TIMES - JUL
BLADE CITIZEN - JLJ g&990
I
PAPER
CARLSBAD
JOURNAL
BLADE CITIZEN
LA COSTAN
SAN DIEGO
UNION*
BLADE CITIZEN
TIMES+
DATE TO PUBLISH CONTACT TELEPHONE
PAPER DATE PERSON NUMBER FAX
FRIDAY, THURSDAY PAM 729-2345 436-6
JUNE 29 JULY 5
FRIDAY, THURSDAY SUSAN LOY 433-7333 439-8
JUNE 29 JULY 5 KATHY VIERS
WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY JIM TEDESCO 293-662 1 297-6
JUNE 27 JULY 5 STACY 297-6
FRIDAY, THURSDAY SUSAN LOY/ 433 - 73 33 439-F
FRIDAY, THURSDAY AMY 544-6076 5444
JUNE 29 JULY 5 KATNY VIERS
JUNE 29 JULY 5
Carllbad Decreed A legal Newspaper by the Superlor Johmal Court of Sun Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
North Coast Publishers, Inc corporate offlces P 0 Box 878, Enclnltas, CA 92024
(61 9) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid,
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled rr
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circu
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and
newspaper is published for the dissemination of locat news and intelligence of a general charactc
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of 1
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular inter
the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one ye
preceding the date of publication of the
hereinafter referred to, and that the nc
which the annexed is a printed copy, hc
published in each regular and entire issue
newspaper and not in any supplement the
., 4A I
i -*Tz,c
fi the following dates, to-wit
AUGUST 9
n:
I<
c. li
\
1s <B
.I?
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
correct. Executed at Carlsbad, THE 9TH County of San Dieg
California on
I
Clerk of
#202-2M-12/87
- ~cE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTISTATEMENT
REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ir ETR 86-51SUP 90-9
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of Carlsbad and the Amy Corps of Engineers (COE)
have prepared a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (ElR)/Efivironmental Impact Statement
@IS) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance (Chapter 19.04 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding the issuance of a Special Use Permit by Carlsbad and
a COE permit to construct Batiquitos LagoonEnhancement Project. The Project is located in southwest
Carlsbad, bounded by Pacific Ocean/La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real and the north shore of the
lagoon. Corps of Engineers (COE) Public Notice No. 88-217-PB was issued for this project on
September 10,1988. The DraftEIWIS was published April 30,1989 and the comment period closed
on July 14,1989. The Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Draft EIR/EIS is on file with the City
of Carlsbad Planning Department, City Clerk’s Office, Carlsbad City Library,La CostaBranchLibrary
and the Encinitas Library. Copies of the Draft EIR/EIS are available for sale at the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009.
The deadline for comments regarding the issuance of a CQE permit for the project and comments
regarding the Final EIS is August 13, 1990. Written comments on the EIR and federal permit aetion
can be submitted in writing to Mr. Richard Harlacher, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory
Branch, P.O. Box 271 1, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325.
There will be a public hearing before the Carlsbad City Council on August 14,1990 to take testimony
regarding the project and the Final E1R. The meeting will take place at the Carlsbad City Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, CA at 6:OO p.m.
If you challenge the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project and/or Environmental Documentation
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City
Clerk’s Office at or prior to the public hearing.
A
CJ 5349; Aug 9,1990
ILABILITY OFSINAL ENVIRCNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Carlsbad and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have prepared a
combined Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance (Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding issuance of a
Special Use Permit by Carlsbad and a COE permit to construct Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. The
.Project is located in southwest Carlsbad, bounded by PaaficOcearVLa Costa'AvenuelEl Camino Realland the north
shore of the lagoon. Corps of Engineers (COE) Public Notice No. 88-21 7-PB was issued for this project on
Septemb 10,1988. The Draft ElWElR was published April 30,1989 and the czommont p@rid closed On July 14,
1989. TI. yatiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Draft EIWEIS and Final ElWElS is on file with tile City of
Carlsba inning Department, City Clerk's Office, CarlsbadCity Library, La Costa Prmch Library and the Endnitas
Librar ~s of the Draft ElWElS are available for sale at the Cty of Carlsbad Planning DeparPndnt. 2075 Las
Carlsbad, CA 92009.
The dea ? for comments regarding the issuance of a COE permit for the project and comments regarding the
Final El August 13, 1990. Written comments on the EIR and federal permit action can be submitted in writing to
Mr. Rich 3 Harlacher, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, P.O. Box 2711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-
There WI~ B a public hearing before the Carlsbad City
Council c August 14,1990 to take testimony regarding
the projs *I and the Final EIR. The meeting will take
place in the Carlsbad City Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad,
If you challenge the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement
Project and/or Environmental Documentation in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues raised
by you or someone else at the public hearing described
in this notice OT in written correspondence delivered to
the Ci of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
APPLICANT: Port or Los AngeledCity of Carlsbad
-9 w W
k ckde
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
County of San Diego )
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) e
)ss.
Susan Loy being duly sworn, says she is the
Legal Advertising Representative of the . BLade-Citizen, a
semi-weekly newspaper . of
the City of Oceanside, published in the City of Solana Beach
and Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and thz
the notice, of which the annexed is a true copy, was published
c
general circulation, printed in -
1 times in said newspaper commencing on the
W 1st day of August, A.D., 1990 - namely on
Q dates:
August 1, 1990
Proof of Publication of:
Noti ce of Pub1 i c hearing
d
s
I declare under penalty of perjury,
Executed this 1st day of
Auqus t 19 90 , in the County ot San Diego, Stste of
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Califorzfia. !’ //I
< A”// ,/ ir/ L” &#gkJ /--$J”‘-7
: -‘ \Cd
I
<%e A‘
._ ‘\
;6 Legd A vertising Rep-sentative
v
.. PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(201 5.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
Blade-Citizen (&>
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily in the City of Oceanside and qualified for the City of Oceanside and the North County Judicial district with substantial circulation in Bonsall, Fallbrook, Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff, Vista and Carlsbad, County
a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the date of June 30,1989, case number 171349; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said
following dates, to-wit:
August 1, 1990
foregoing is true and correct.
of Sari Diego, and which newspaper has been adjudged
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
Dated at Oceanside,California, this 1 day of August, 1990 g-? .
/$!:k4ur-*-f, L& [>/
--- ----------- - ---------- ---3 _-------- - ---------- P s ig nat de\\. 'i'
i
BLADE-CITIZEN
Legal Advertising
1722 South Hill Street
P.O. Box 90
Oceanside, CA 92054
(61 9) 433-7333
w
This space is for the County Clerk's Filin! ... I 4
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing
-------------------------------------------.
---- - --- --- ----- ------ - ----- ------------- --.
Paste Clipping of Notice SECURELY
In This Space.
.I
OOL. s' " -3.3 ,wn
2, A! bllr
1
1
1
I+
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARiNG
EIR 86-5/SUP 909
NdTlCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Carlsbad and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have prepared a
combined Final Environmental Impact Report (E1R)IEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance (Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), the Nationa
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding issuance of a
Special Use Permit by Carlsbad and a COE permit to construct Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. The
Project is located in southwest Carlsbad, bounded by Paufic Ocean/La Costa AvenueEl Camino ReaVand the norl
shoh of the lagoon. Corps of Engineers (COE) Public Notice No. 88-21 7-PB was issued for &is project on
September 10,1988. The Draft ElWElR was published April 30, 1989 and the cqmment period closed on July 14,
1989. The Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Draft EIFUEIS and Final ElWElS is on file with the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department, City Clerk’s Office, Carlsbad City Library, La Costa Branch Library and the Encinita
Library. Copies of the Draft EIWEIS are available for sale at the City of Carlsbad Planning DI- *writ, 2075 Las
Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009.
The deadline for comments regarding the issuance of a COE permit for the project and a 3 regarding the Final EIS is August 13,1990. Written comments on the EIR and federal permit action cat lmitted in writing to Mr. Richard Harlacher, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory &an&, P.O. Box 2Tf i Angeles, CA 90053-
There will be a public hearing before the Carlsbad City
Council on August 14,1990 to take testimony regarding
the project and the Final EIR. The meeting will take
place in the Carlsbad City Council Chambers, 1200
If you challenge the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement
Project and/or Environmental Documentation in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at or prior to the
APPLICAM: Port or Los Angeles/City of Carlsbad
LEGAL 29761 AUGUST 1,1990 +
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following date, to-wit : 3/1(17216)
g. z 52 3
:i i-+ r
:Q i .$ j
ju :* j , $
iu :
!
0; 0- ait' m L
YOTI ICE OF AYBI[L+BBILITY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT r
1 REVISE D NOTICE OF PU BIJC HEARING 6
EIR 86-5/SUP 90-9 nl
b
Y NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of Carlsbad and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
(ElS) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance (Chapter 19.04 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding the issuance of a Special Use Permit by Carlsbad and
a COE permit to construct Batiquitos LagoonEnhancement Project. The Project is located in southwest
Carlsbad, bounded by Pacific Ocean/La Costa AvenueEl Camino Real and the north shore of the
lagoon. Corps of Engineers (COE) Public Notice No. 88-217-PB was issued for this project on
September 10,1988. The Draft EIWTS was published April 30,1989 and the comment period closed
on July 14,1989. The Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Draft EIR/EJS is on file with the City
ofCarlsbadPlanning Department, City Clerk's Office, Carlsbad City Library,LaCosta BranchLibrary
and the Encinitas Library. Copies of the Draft EWIS are available for sale at the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009.
The deadline for comments regarding the issuance of a COE permit for the project and comments
regarding the Final EIS is August 13, 1990. Written comments on the EIR and federal permit action
Branch, P.O. Box 2711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325.
There will be a public hearing before the Carlsbad City Council on August 14, 1990 to take testimony
regarding the project and the Final E1R. The meeting will take place at the Carlsbad City Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, CA at 6:OO p.m.
If you challenge the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project and/or Environmental Documentation
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City
Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing.
APPLICANT: PORT OF LOS AKCELESiCITY OF CXRLSBAD
have prepared a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (ElR)/Environmental Impact Statement 1'
i can be submitted in writing to Mr. Richard Harlacher, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory t
CJ 5349; Aug 9, 1990
Jot Final
she said. “But I haven’t anything yet.”
IWS has steadfastly main- that, even though the city ajority equity in the fire- the independent fire district
to establish its own ground )r the sale because it holds
?.
lWs has a1so publicly main- that there is ‘Ian ‘pen es- on the sa1e* even though instructions have not yet gned by his board of direc-
wrow agent in San Diego, ;ked to remain anonymous, ednesday that, even though faS technically received by
? district, along with a cash
’ eScrow does not forma11y ntil instructions ar,e signed
1 sides stating the terms Of ?. row is not opened until both ign the papers,” she said. an say it exists, and maybe it !n assigned an escrow num- i a file has been prepared, hnically, it isn’t opened until les sign the papers.” tnd a title insurance compa- cutive cautioned, however,
2 mere acceptance of the bid
? receipt of the cash deposit trust account could give grounds for the buyer to i that the fire district make
’I its promise to sell the site, escrow hasn’t opened. bal contracts have validi-
3 escrow agent noted. “If the pire Protection District has tepresentation to the buyer 3u can buy it from me,’ the will have legal recourse to .he fire district or the city.” lellan said another special unci1 meeting will be called
’I as the city attorney has ?d his findings and listed open to the city.
Youth
jury is expected to hear the the police interview today,
he trial continues.
-
LOS ANGELFS TIMES
; T FN NIRN N
IMPACT REPORT/ST ATEMENT
JVOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Carlsbad and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have prepared a combined Final Environmental Impact Re-
port (E1R)Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance (Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding issuance of a Special Use Permit by Carlsbad and a COE permit to construct Batiquitos Lagoon Enhance-
ment Project. The Project is located in southwest Carlsbad, bounded by Pacific Ocean/La Costa AvenueEl Camino Real/and the north shore of the lagoon. Corps of Engineers (COE) Public Notice No. 88-217-PB was issued for this pro- ject on September 10, 1988. The Draft EIR/EIS was published April 30.1989 and the comment period closed on July 14, 1989. The Batiquitos Lagoon En- hancement Project Draft EIR/EIS and Final EIREIS is on file with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, City Clerk‘s Office, Carlsbad City Library, La Costa Branch Library and the Encinitas Library. Copies of the Draft EIR/EIS are available for sale at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009. The deadline for comments regarding the issuance of a COE permit for the project and comments regarding the Final EIS is August 13, 1990. Written com- ments on the EIR and federal permit action can be submitted in writing to Mr. Richard Halacher. U.S. by corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, P.0. Box 271 1. hs hgeles. CA 90053-2325. There will be a public hearing before the Carlsbad City Council on August
14, 1990 to take testimony regarding the project and the Final Eir. The meeting will take place in the Carlsbad City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, CA at 6:00 P.M. If you challenge the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project and/or Environ- mental Documentation in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerks Office at or prior to the public hearing. APPLICANT: Port of Los AngelesICity of Carlsbad
t BATlQUlTOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
City of Carlsbad EIR 86-57 SUP 90-9 L