The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3098; CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; 1982-04-06• ," •:. 1':.. • ':.. . . • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (NEPA/INITIAL STUDY/CEQA) - . TABLE OF CONTENTS. .. Page. I.- TITLE ........................................................1 0 . .• 1.1. . NEED .................................................................... Z. III DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 3 A. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..........................3. '. , .B. . ALTERNATIVES ...............................9 1 No Project 9 2. Rebuild Bridge on Different Alignment .........................9 S 3 Rebuild Bridge as a Two-Lane • . . , , . . Replacement ...........................9. . 5. . Closure, of Carlsbad BOulevard ' • . . . . ', and Bridge ......................10 C. , PROPOSED 'ACTION................... .......10 • . ' •'' .5 • ' IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................15 A.. PHYSICAL SETTING ............................15 ' LAND USE ....................................16 . HYDROLOGY ...................................24 VISUAL QUALITY .............................25 , MARINE ...........................26 TERRESTIAL BIOLOGY ........................29 0 • G.' TRAFFIC AND' PARKING .........................30 NOISE .........................................31 METEOROLOGY/.CLIMATE/AIR.QUALITY ........133' •• . ' .5 • ' J. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................... '. 36 S; 'S V. '. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST ...........38 VI. ., ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION/MITIGATION: MEASURES ... 44 PHYSICAL SETTING ' ...... .44 LAND 'USE .......................................45 HYDROLOGY. ......... .................46 VISUAL 'QUALITY ...............................49 E. MARINE BIOLOGY ............................ . .50 5• . 5 . F. TERRESTIAL BIOLOGY .....................52 TRAFFIC AND.PARKING. .................... 53 NOISE ........................................58 ' ' 1' 'S . . S • . 5 .5 • •' .5 5 .5 • .'.. ' , ' ,'' S TABLE 'OF CONTENTS ': ' (continued) IX TECHNICAL APPENDIX AN ANALYSIS OF HYDROLOGICAL-AND WATER QUALITY. AS RELATED TO THE' CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY WIDENING PROJECT' RESULTS OF A' BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF OUTER AGUA HEDIONDALAGOON.IN RELATION TO ' POTENTIAL' IMPACTS OF PROPOSED BRIDGE , CONSTRUCTION UPON THE RESIDENT,MARINE BIOTA "• ' , ' MEMORANDUM, TERRESTRIAL'BIOLOGY ' AN ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS • '. . ' •' ' , ' . OF TRAFFIC RELATEDTO CONSTRUCTION OF . THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND 'HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS ' AN ANALYSIS OF THE. NOISE IMPACTS RELATIVE • TO THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND STREET ' IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ' : ' • ' ' AN ANALYSIS OF THE -AIR-QUALITY IMPACTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE, AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT EARLY CONSULTATION MEETING MATERIALS . CORRESPONDENCE I.- HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY FOR CARLSBAD ' BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND ROAD WIDENING FROM TAMARACK AVENUE TO CANNON ROAD RISK ASSESSMENT FOR" BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY • IMPROVEMENTS • • . ' ' " ' .'' ' ' • • ' '• ' ' I. • 111 -' J I LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page 1 Regional Location 4 2 Project Location (Carlsbad Boulevard/Bridge Location) 5 3 Aerial View of Proposed Project Site..................................6 4 Land Ownership Adjacent to - Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge - Project 7 5 Proposed Bridge and Street Improvements 11 6 Land Use Designations in the Project Vicinity, 17 7 Recreational Uses of Agua Hedionda Middle and Inner Lagoons 20 8 : Outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Biological Reconnaissance Sites 28 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1 Ground Transportation Noise Impacts 32 2 Oceanside/Carlsbad Air Quality Monitoring Summary 35 3 Existing and Post-Project Parking 56 iv II NEED The existing Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon -was originally completed in 1934, replacing an earlier concrete bridge built in 1915. The present reinforced concrete bridge is classified as structurally deficient since the concrete has greatly deteriorated. The bridge is currently posted for restricted truck weights,. and evaluations by bridge engineers during the field review process indicated that the'structure may have to be closed for safety reasons within two years. In Ib addition, Carlsbad Boulevard is currently carrying traffic volumes of 15,700 ADT, an amount that exceeds the City of Carlsbad-recommended ADT for a two-lane roadway, which also serves large numbers of bicyclists and-joggers, and is used for roadside beach parking. The road ,is especially congested in the-summer month and projections are, for an increase of-6,300 ADT to 22,000 ADT by 1995. The proposed improvement-to four-lanes would ease this congestion and increase public safety. - This Environmental Assessment (EA)-isananalysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and an evaluation of whether or not the proposed project will significantly affect the environment. This report has been prepared in accordance with 'the requirements of the NatiOnal Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEA),and the ' California Environmental Quality Act of 19-70 (Initial Study- CEQA), as amended; to present the relevant and comprehensive - information available on 'the proposed bridge and highway improvement project. 2 . :.. . III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION S • A EXISTING CONDITIONS The proosed'proje.ct is locatedwithin the City of • Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, California (Figure 1). H The project site extends along Carlsbad Boulevard from 300 • feet 'south of Tamarack Avenue for a distance of approximately one and one quarter miles to Cannon Road: (Figures 2 and 3). Carlsbad Boulevard is a four-lane roadway north of Tamarack Avenue and narrows to two-lanes at Chinquapin Avenue; just north of the Agua.Hedionda Lagoon Bridge crossing. S The existing roadway pavement is 40± feet within an • • approximately 100--foot right-of-way. The existing bridge is a two-lane structure, approximately 40: feet wide, which spans the approximately 160 foot long channel of the Agua Hedionda • Lagoon inlet. The inlet provides a passage from the outer lagoon to1 the Pacific Ocean and is lined with rip-rap. Tur- bulent tidal action and strong currents exist at this inlet location. Proximity to the ocean and high salt-laden moisture • , have contributed to the deteriorated condition of the present bridge. The elevation of the existing bridge is 15.1 feet mean sea level (MSL) and 13.3 feet MSL on the south end. • : , The roadway alignment is straight until, just south of the bridge, at which point the road goes into a 5,000-foot radius curve for a thousand feet, and then through a'tàngent. section on to two short, large radius curves, then tangent $ to the Cannon Road intersection. There is an unpaved parking and fishing area south of the bridge and east of. the highway on San Diego 'Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) propert (Figure 4.). . ' • UODOJ IoTa I I 'TJ ~Tjv I I H I. — — — _----- ç HY]B 1VW3dMI I -' - VlSI A V 1flH3 - I Pb - •' 113 1VPIOILVN GN ooio VO1 INIOd - NVS I VS3II I I vi I NOrv3 13 st N3V30 NOISSIV - I 3NId1V I. 8 - - - •- v,ior vi 61 . • f 19 AVNOd • VPVIWAI1 - uvvt 130 - - VNOVd - • NVI,nr 8 1 - : • I - - -,-• 8 8L 311 S OOIONO3S3 ovasluvo VISIA • 6L 91 - I - N01 310143d dIV3 - — — - - -- 1 - A. Nfl03 3011b3418 I -- - - - - • - --I- JUT 'SUIflSUO UIUUId SNOZPIOH I RHLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AMfl PHOPO flhIPJflA •• . NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. F S - / \ IIIII \ -------- _—.----------\ I 1M..1_----ENCINA1I 'I POWER I II <OUTER < PLANTJ 1J If AGUA I 1ff IIEDION U —? c 0001 V - 4I•II . .. I SSA.1) 8L 0 co ... -.-.-.. SDG&E <. ..... SDG&E<.<.. EASEPAENT jLEASED TO':.GRANTED TO STATE rry OF . S ... .' WATER INLET STATE4 OWNED BEACH rCFICOtEAN SDG&EL. SDG&E (NOT LEASED) LEASED TO j CARLSBAD <CITY OF CARLSBADe JBEACH 1 ISTATE PARK Figure 4 - Land Ownership Adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Project V•• .., .• V B. ALTERNATIVES • V. V V V •• 1. NO PROJECT V V V •. V V The no project alternative would result in continued deterioration of the existing bridge Vandthe eventua], closure V of Carlsbad Boulevard to through traffic. It hasbeen deter- V V mined by bridge engineers during the V field review process that V V closure might be required in two years. The loss of Carlsbad V V Boulevard as a major:north-south Street would result 4n vastly V. V increased-traffic congestion on local, east-west streets, such V V as Tamarack Avenue Cannon Road, and would divide V.the VCi.ty V V of Carlsbad between its northern and southern sections, west V of -the Interstate 5 freeway.-,: 2. REBUILD BRIDGE ON DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT V V .• ' . An alternative tcrebuilding. the bridge at the existing V alignment would be to construct the bridge :on a new alignment V V to'the west. Changing alignment, however, would require .. additional right-of-way on San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) V property. Land to the west of the existing bridge is leased V V to the City of Carlsbad and is used as a public beach recrea- tion area. Encroachmentupon this area would not be allowed • . V V unless it could be shown Vthat there was no other feasible -and • prudent means of achieving the project objective V V . 3. REBUILD THE BRIDGE As A TWO-LANE REPLACEMENT , V Carlsbad Boulevard, one-quarter mile north of ,the pro- V V posed project, is presently a four-lane road. The road narrows V to two lanes, creating congestion at the bridge, especially V V V during the summer V months-. • The present two-lane road is above V V V capacity, for a 315.'mile per-hour', roadway with heavy parking VV' • VV V V V V V and bicycling use. V Rebuilding the bridge to its present V V V •.• . . V . . V' . '. .9 . .. capacity would not alleviate any of the existing traffic or circulation problems, but would-only 'correct-,the structural deficiency of the existing bridge. - 4. CLOSURE- OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD. AND- BRIDGE. -. . Another 'alternative is to close Carlsbad Boulevard • at the north and south., entrance' to the:Agu'a Hedionda Lagoon. The bridge would be removed orat least removed from use. - The closed ends of Carlsbad Boulevard would,, in effect, become - cul-de,-sacs and 'additional off--street parking lots at each - -. - . end could be created.- - - •' . , - .. - -•,. - -- . - - • , -.• ' •• - This alternative would increase parking facilities, - - - - • 'but' would severely decrease circulation atd access to the - beach and sever an important link ''between' the north and south portions of the City"of' Carlsbad. west of I-s. As there is ' , - '• • - no other north-south' linkwest of 1-5', all local traffic would need to use the 1-5. freeway. Th-is 'would create additional • - - traffic demands on the east-west collector stree'ts .' -• C. PROPOSED ACTION '. ' . . .• " - - . -' , - The first planning phase of the Bridge and Highway - - • - - - , • - improvement for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and - Cannon Road was completed.in 1979, when tentative pins and ' - application criteria were developed.' 'The pr oposed bridge is. - planned to be 180 feet in length, with the improved. super- - • structure planned -to be of pre-stressed concrete (Figure .5) . The completed bridge is envisioned'to'be' 82 feet in width with four 12-foot 'paved l'an'es, a 4-foot median strip,. - a-6-foot'bike lane-, and 5-footsidewalk in each direction. • - Plans are to construct the, bridge in two phases; ,,first - 10 •-' • - "• " . . e STew po cP7y stWp / . - /az te7 he eoz'7Jdt' O,ev 6v5 a"d -. i. I .y. - v . 11 eoWLne/po T\... t( • TTJL1.T ..: . AGUA /'/ L',(),V11 - - _-- --------------- -------------- • Po S ____ __ • • Figure 5 - Proposed P-oecPl4rminay.. Roadway Plan - Sheet 1 (Source: McDaniel Engineering Co.) - 19 0 rs W.ve,- OY9fl47' e/'. \ 2T / . - . • - I L---- \ - - CARL AD - - - - —----- - -• .- - . - -•• I -- K •. . . oii / ............-. .. .: . :I ]i1 - .. .i.J S II I ti I5 ... . .. . LI:! . I .-. I- . L ......... (1 I LI I - 74 - - Li1ft CARLSBAD k ------------------ - ------ ____ r-- BLVD. p__S - .- - - - - -- -=- __ -10 Possiewpvcd n Figure 5 Proposed Project Preliminary Roadway Plan - Sheet 2 (Source McDaniel Engineering Co ) U, .12 -. . H. lie and qu -x- r_-Con ~rLYww - - LI------ ( \. STAGE - 1 / morqured,c /2' wdrd' .90 161e rL STAGE I PHASED BRIDGE CONS -RUCTION " •• .- : :- .. - •.. I . ;. •.. ;f '0- H I 1/ 8 12'/2 12 8 PARKING ADJOINING Tarn-pocMct 45 N I - /2 /2 6 TURN POCKET RIW TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION.'.'. - . . .•. - - SLOPES ADJOINING . Figure 5 Proposed Project Preliminary .Road way Plan - Sheet 3 (Source McDaue1 Engineering Co ) __ __ Tht-of-wayl with, the j5'iT?i of a ffil'l amoune5flo SJJ(&E property auj acent to te constructing a half-width section of new bridge with two 11- foot 'paved lanes and temporary side barricades west of the existing bridge: Traffi would be routed.-over this section on a temporary basis during demolition of the' existing bridge and construction. of the final half-width section. Highway improvements include widening the present two- lane road from Tamarack Avenue on the north to Cannon Road on the south ThThew roaday ist6be 68 feet wide o'fisi sting of a f'ööt iedian strip, lanes and an8r6 ved bike látireach'direction The pavemenb will vary 'frorri68'feet to 74--feet in 'wi'dth in order to accommodate a turning lane.. w —ac ross froi th esouthern entrance to tH—e SUCME7 j15h'i'tig ara, t'tthe higbwayj, ana.CL trie two entran of'tETid'e, a new TOfootVfdepaved park'i'lane on the west/ ide of the pavementi e'x'tèñif5f 2900 ft south to a point -, - (250fëuthM the— SDG&E tfllilVert would be constructed Approximately 550 feet north of Cannon Road the four lanes would begin a transition and gradually decrease from the 68-foot width to the present two-lane width south of Cannon Road. JArli Tg hwaimfove swi'Tl'Th e m adw fEhiTEE he e x ii ëit ra?ic e thëETiTt'taP owe r PTi' and a small Final design may' not necessitate these encroach— ments, but if it does,' the required ybtaifrom'SDc&E',. (P iThfnet o—seven ftiidth required for a left-turn lane requested by SDC&E. A' new 5-foot retaining wall,will be constructed within the right-of-way-at the base of the west slope adjoining the north parking lot. A. ,. PHYSICAL SETTING The project site is located along Carlsbad Boulevard • (old State Highway 101), within the City of Carlsbad Regionally, the site is approximately 30 miles north of downtown San Diego and 4.5 miles south of the City of Oceanside.,The AT & SF railroad runs parallel to the roadway to the east • of the, roadway segment under. study. Carlsbad Boulevard (S_21) provides the major north/south local link to the coastal community of The City of Carlsbad, west of Interstate 5 I The roadway segment under study consists of .a section bordered '• by Tamarack Avenue to the north and Cannon Road to the south This 1.2 mile long segment of Carlsbad Boulevard is bounded on the-western .sidé by parking..f'acilities for the beach and by I the Pacific Ocean—,At the northern end of the project Ø • Carlsbad Boulevard bridges the outer lagoon of Agua Hedionda Lagoon across a two-lane reinforced concrete bridge built in I' 1 Q11 .Tha -ic '1QcHcd as q.triu'rtir11v d eficient .1.VVI'JT. SLZSJ IJS_Jb ' """ since the reinforced concrete has deteriorated to an unsafe condition and traffic is limited to restricted truck weights as posted V ' , East of this sectionof Carlsbad Boulevard lies the Agua Hedionda Lagoon," a designated 'wildlife resource'conservat:ion area, and further south the San: Diego Gas, and Electric Company's Encina Power Plant Limited off-street parking is available along the eastern side of the roadway, mainly serving the Encina fishing area that is provided and maintained by SDC&E for use by the public The San Diego Gas and Electric Company owns all the land east of the proposed project.-right-6f-way (Figure 4) On the west, orbeach side, SDG&E owns the approximately 500- foot strip of land,south of the existing bridge, but leases this land to the City of Carls1ad. The next approximately 900 feet of shoreline is owne'd by the State of California and operated by the State Parks and Recreation Department. The next approximate 700 feet of beach is also owned by SDC&E and leased to the City of Carlsbad. The remaining 1600 feet south is owned by SDG&E and currently leased' to the State of California. The Encina; Power Plant utilizes the water of the Agua Hediondaas a cooling medium for the' plant. Waters that have been circulated through their system are ejected back into the ocean via an out-take' channel located just west Of the' plant which runs under Carlsbad Boulevard."and dumps into the ocean. , The ejection of circulat'ed water and occasional dredging activities (two-year intervals) have increased siltation 'effects in the vicinity' of the project site. Adjacent to the proposed project, on the southwest, is. a residential neighborhood with nine homes whose rear yards are separated from the right-of-way by a 6-foot high block wall. B. LAND USE Land uses within, 'and immediately surrounding the pro- ject site, vary from medium-high' residential to recreational land uses. The General' Plan of the City of Carlsbad indicates four' land use designations along the project corridor (Figure 6). At the northern end ,of the project,'.along' the eastern side of Carlsbad Boulevard,, there is a residential area desig- natéd RH'(High Density); TM's-:'.designation allows' for upto, NEWHORIZONS Planning Consultants. Inc.! , III\ LAND. USE DESIGNATIONS_1 RLM RLM LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY 0 4 DU/AC tP ! RH RH MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY 10-20 DU/AC RMH HIGH DENSITY 5 20-30 DU/AC RMH \ U PUBLIC UTILITIES ( Os OPEN SPACE os , ) \ / 0: UED ' X. DUN Os PACIFIC 'g'' 'r r 'U' \ 25 Feet 1000 MhI05\ ' Figure 6 ' Land Use Designations in-the Project-Vicinity 17 p 30 dwelling units per acre Just south of this area, to the outlet jetty, the land area, is designated for recreational land uses. To the west are several beach areas, and to. the east, the Agua Hedionda Outer Lagoon, a popular local fishing area, currently designated as OS-Open Space San Diego Gas and Electric's Encina Power Plant (U-Utility designation) lies to the east of the highway, south of the lagoon Across from the plant, to, the west, the beach continues until approximately 1000 feet north of Cannon Road The land use thereupon shifts to low-medium density residential (4-6 dwelling units per acre) All of the above land uses are designated within the "Special' Treatment Area" of the: General Plan.' The entire 'Agua Hedionda Lagoon, 'Outer, Middle and Inner portions are owned bySDG&E Use of the Outer Lagoons is completely controlled by SDG&E which provides public fishing facilities only and allows no other recreational water use Three 'scientific research and development studies attempting ' to raise striped bass, lobster, and clams, oysters and scallops are the only permitted uses The Outer Lagoon provides the cooling water for the Encina Power Plant, a major source of electrical power for the entire San Diego region. SDG&E maintains strict security around' the plant and feels the public cannot be allowed in ' the Outer Lagoon in order to.maintain a security buffer around the plant Additionally, the water in the channel is very turbulent and SDG&E will not permit use of the water, as that would create a liability on their part should accidents occur. The AT & SF railroad bridge divides the Outer from the Middle Lagoon This bridge is Ballast Deck Timber Trestle on timber piles consisting of fourteen spans approxi- ' mately 14 feet in length for a total bridge length of 189 feet '18, • The bridge is approximately 34 feet above water level, but the vertical openings, between bridge piers are restricted to about 7 or 8 feet above the water due to sway bracing between the piers. It should be noted that immediately to, the 'east of the railroad trestle is an aerial sanitary sewer pipeline crossing consisting of seven spans,'each about 25 feet in length. The pipeline is a 48-inch concrete pipe on steel beams. The height of the bottom of the beams above' the water level is about 24 feet. The bracing on"the. timber railroad trestle effectively precludes navigation' between. the Middle and 'Outer Lagoons. A floating steel', boom separates 'the Outer from the Middle Lagoon 'at water level, physically prohibiting boats from entering' the Outer Lagoon. The water area of the Middle Lagoon is owned by, SDG&E and leased to the City Of Carlsbad for one dollar per year. The YMCA operates, a.camping and aquatic facility on ' land leased from the AT. & SF railroad, (Figure 7). They also lease a floating dock from SDG&E and small non-power boats, such, as kayaks and, rowboats are used for youths' aquatic acti- vities. The "Y" allows other organized groups such as Boy Scouts, Church' grOups or businesses to use the facilities, provided the grOup has adequate insurance and provides their ' ' own lifeguards. , ' The Middle Lagoon is 'separated from the Inner Lagoon by the Interstate 5' Highway Bridge. This br-idge is'' a seven span concrete 'slab bridge with spans •tanging between 26 feet and 32 feet in length.. The clear opening to the water level is approximately 26 feet at midbridge. There are actually two bridges, one for northbound traffic and onesouthbound. The Inner Lagoon water surface 'is' leased by the City of Carlsbad from SDG&E fOr one dollar per year. The 'General Plan and Agua Hedionda Specific Plan' show' a recreation commercial ' ' ' ''19 ' N.) Q NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. // x, x. HARBOR WID L 'YMAJ - LJ / INNER o_ \OUTER , \\AGUA - ® B N COVE RISTOL HEDIONDA . . \\\ L TT7. "1500 'II . \ Figure 7 Recreational Uses of Agua Hedionda Middle and Inner Lagoon 1 -'••;>' '•'' 'c.. . . • 0 . designation on the north shore surrounded by medium and medium' high density residential uses. Private boat, launching faciliti-e;s are available with access via public,streets at Snug Harbor. Whitey's Landing formerlyprovided boat launching, rentals, . 'S • and a picnic area but, it is not currently in operation. Bristol Cove .is a private resident,ialdock which provides facili- ties for s'ailboating, hobie cats, and power boats. The Home- ' owners Association maintains a common boat launch area. No more than eighty-five boats are allowed on the Inner Lagoon at one time and the summerverage is 35-40. The eastern end of the Inner Lagoon is cordoned off and no boats are allowed in this area in order to protect sensitive habitat areas. The City of Carlsbad Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that powerboat usage be banned. under the General Plan from this area. Three serious accidents S have-occurred in the Lagoon which resulted in lawsuits against • 'shown the City of'Carlsbad. Also studies by a consultant have that wave action produced by the power boats is causing severe - ' erosion along the environmentally sensitive shore. No action on this recommendation has been taken. • S The majority , of the property surrounding the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way belongs to San Diego Gas and Electric ' Company. A small areaof beach-front land extending under the • existing bridge, and extending' from the inlet north 'to the • State owned beach,, is under SDG&E ownership and is not leased. South of-the' bridge, an approximately 500-foot section belongs to the, State of California; the residential areas at the S - ' northern and ,southern ends of the project 'are- ptivately owned. The residential' areas at the northern and southern ends of the ' • project site are privately owned. SDG&E leases the remainder of its beach front,'property to -the City of Carlsbad. These 21 S leases are due to expire in August 1981 and there are unconfirmed plans for the acquisition of the properties' by the State of California .(Surfcomber, 1980). A 1. 7 acre site at the corner -0 f Cannon Road and Carlsbad Boulevard is designated Open Space.'The land is owned by SDC&E and leased to the City of Carlsbad which maintains it as a' park. No portion of this' land is included in the proposed project. ' The project site is located within the City of Carlsbad corporate boundaries. It is also within the jurisdic- tion of the State of California Coastal Commission. The' Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, which i,s the Local Coastal' Program for Carlsbad, was certified by the StateCoastal Commission in 1978, 'and although the City of Carlsbad. disagrees with many of the conditions, these do not involve issues related tc. this proposed project The following are relevant sections of the Coastal Act which will be used by the California Coastal Commission in their review of the project Section 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public's right to access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authOrization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand-and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial, vegetation. Section 30223. Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. 22 ' S 'I S. S - I- • ;.. .. •: • Section 30233. (c) In addition to the other pro- visions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries, and wetlands hlLmai fit ain or enhance the functional capacity:of the wet16nd or estuary. Any alteration ofcoastal • . wetlands identifiedby the Depatmënt of Fish-and-Game, including, but not limited to, the 19 coastal wetlands identified inits. . report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California", shall be limited to very minor incidential public facilities, restorative measures, nature tudy, commercial • .. fishing facilitiesinBodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south SánDiegb Bay, if otherwise in. accordance with this division • ••••. . • . .. . •1 The Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, certified as the Local COastal Plan states under, CIRCULATION; B. Policies.. 1. Traffic Conditions: • . • • • "K.. the program for the completion of improvements on Carlsbad Boulevard, in- cluding the replacement of the bridge. • • • Over the lagoon inlet, is recognized as • • . . • r : consistent with this Spcific Plan." • •. • • . • ;.• . S . •. n. 23 I • D. VISUAL QUALITY The project site.covers a corridor along Carlsbad - Boulevard approximately :1.2 miles long. The majority of the • surrounding land area is vacant or used for parking facilities serving eitherthe beach-t-o the west or the Encina fishing area to the east. - - This segment-of CarlsbadBoulevard. varies in elevation from'approximately 35 feet MSL,at the-northern end near Tamarack Avenue, down to an approximate elevation of 11 - feet MSL nearthe Encina Power Plant. Further south, •the -- roadway ascends to-roughly 42 feet MSL in elevation. There is a residential area located at the north- eastern corner of the-project site, above the north end of the -: - lagoon. Several of these properties have a view of the - . roadway, bridge, and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, however, few of the residences can see the bridge itself. The bridge is • barely visible from the AT ,.& SF railroad-tracks 'and from ' locations directly adjacent to the structure. Thebridge f - - - is not a dominant visual landmark in the pr'oject vicinity, I -- - - -- -- but appears as a -continuation of the roadway. Other uses of - - the surrounding properties include the aforementioned. beach - . - parking, parking. for the Encina- fishing area, and the Encina - - Power Plant itself. - • - • -- - - - - - - Vegetation along this segment of Carlsbad Boulevard is sparse. Light growth of ice plant occurs aroundthe bridge abutments and intermittently along the eastern road bank. - Further south, at the entrance to the Encina Power Plant, - the San Diego -Gas and Electric Company has landscaped the • - frontage on the east side -of the, road with ice plant and large • non-native shrubs, including some evergreen varieties. : ' - : - - - , - •-- 25 - -- - • - . - • , - E. MARINE BIOLOGY ' A marine biological reconnaissance survey was conducted in May 1981 in order to determine potential impacts of the pro- posed project on the marine habitat (Appendix B) The results of this survey are summarized below The proposed project crosses the inlet to the outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon, an essentially man-made lagcon having been dredged to a depth of eight feet in 1954, when it was permanently opened to the sea. The Outer' Lagoonprovides 540 million gallons/day (MCD) or water for cooling the adjacent Encina Power Plant The lagoon is kept open by dredging every two years The outer lagoon is fed by a 160-foot wide channel, bordered by rock jetties on either side extending into the ocean The outer lagoon differs from the ratura1 marshlands of the inner lagoon by having introduced rock rip rap border and is not bordered by marshland vegetation The depth of the channel at the bridge is six feet below mean lower low water (MLLW) The shoreline on the west side of the lagoon is devoid of emergent vegetation and is lined with a rip-rap of granite boulders extending one to two' feet below and three to five feet above mean tidal '. level The lagoon is essentially a marine habitac Sediment particle size varies from nearly 100 percent 'sand and, at the western and northern end of the lagoon,' near the proposed construction, where the water circulation is good, to higher silt content at the southern end away from -the construction, site. rl 26 • .' ,, ":''-" :': . According to the field survey, Areas 3,4,5, and 6, near the proposed construction site (Figure 7), were found to have well-developed mollusks and barnacle populations, including the California mussel (Mytilus californicus), turbon snails (Tegula gallina and T. Funebralis) and several species of limpets (Collisella Lottia). Barnacles included the goose- neck (Pollicipes polymerus) and balanoid forms ChtamalusFissus, Tetraclita squamosa and Balanus sp. Thes.e species were observed - on the concrete support pilings, the rock jetty areas and on the rip-rap on the banks.. The rock jetty, west of the bridge, alsoincluded populations of the snail (Littorina scutulata), V the limpet (Coll.isella digitalis). Unlike the inner lagoon , ' habitats; there was a small algae population consisting of three red algae species. : . ' No beds of eelgrass (Zostera marina) were found in • the vicinity of the proposed construction. However, large continuous beds of eelgrass were observed in the shallower, calmer waters near Site 9 at the opposite end of the outer lagOon.. ' ' The ranking of fishes and invertebrates entrained by the Encina Power Plant is used, to indiate,the varieties of. fish fauna in the' lagoon.- ' The most frequently seen species are queenfish, deepbody anchovy, •topsmel-t, grunion, Iand • northern anchovy. Queenfish are the most common nearshre sand bottom fish in. Southern California. .. S -S. • ,H- . ., S . . S • I. • 27 NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc Figure 7 Outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Biological Reconnaissance Sites 28 S : F. TERRESTIAL BIOLOGY The roadway, South of the bridge on Carlsbad Boulevard, is bordered on the east side by a narrow strip of interrupted fringe vegetation. The area consits of common native spe.cies, . . and. there 5 is no evidence of other wildlife populations along • the roadway, other than occasional transient scavenging bir5ds • .,(Red-Winged Blackbird, Horse Finch, Starling). No rare or . endangered species have been identified that would, be impacted by the proposed project. . . . The underside of the bridge is used as a iesting site by-,Rock Doves (Commbn Pigeon). : ........: . S ••• S .5 5.. The.AguaHedionda Lagoon, east of the inlet, experi- ences a high.rate of sedimentation, requiring bi-annual dredging. S The channel of the lagoon takes a sharp bend immediately to . . thè'east of the bridge an.dthe current is abated in that are. Accordingly, most of -any sediment load will be deposited (during an incoming tide) a short distance east of the .bridge. The western portion of the lagoon is visited by many bird species annually, although there is no evidence that either Least Ternsor Brown Pelicans use the western lagoon area for feeding. . Pelicans may land there occasionally to rest • or bathe, but the most-used roost site is the Jetty on the ocean beach (Appendix C) • S I. 29 G. TRAFFIC AND PARKING Carlsbad Boulevard, south of Tamarack Avenue, is a two-lane roadway with approximately 40 feet of pavement, carrying a current traffic volume of 15,700 vehicles per day (Tisdale, 1981). Bordering the roadway on either side are parking spaces providing access' to either the beach, or Agua Hedionda fishing sites. The road is frequented by bicyclists and joggers (Appendix D). Approximately one-quarter mile north of Tamarack :Avenue, the pavement widens to four lanes. The existing bridge accommodates two lanes. The roadway experiences, heavy con- gestion, especially during the summer months when speeds may be as low as 15 mph (Shipley 1981). The current posted speed is 35 mph. A. field econnai'ssance made along Carlsbad Boulevard indicated the presence of approximately, 396 parking spaces in. the project right-of-way, including use of paved spaces and. unpaved shoulder areas. Of these, approxiamteiy 40 spaces' are available at the Encina fishing area, east of the road on SDG&E property. In January 1981, the City of Carlsbad altered the existing paved parking area along the, western side of Cans- bad Boulevard fronting the beach. A new consolidated parking lot was constructed by paving the beach areas between the three former paved' lots, increasing the available parking-spaces by 48. ,The temporary nature of this improvement was recognized at that time and was made public in a local newspaper article'- (Blade Tribune, 1981). The present plans for widening this portion of Carlsbad Boulevard to four lanes' and replacing the present diagonal parking with a parallel arrangement was already.underway and were undergoing the planning approval process. .30 • .5. 5...., .5 . S H. NOISE S The noise environment prevalent along the proposed - project right-of-way is composed of a variety of sources, including: 1) traffic along Carlsbad Boulevard, 2) ocean surf, 3) San Diego Gas and Electric Encina Power Plant, and 4) S normal activities on the beach. and around the periphery of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. About four homes overlook the bridge on the north end of the project and nine homes are adjacent to the road along the southern end of the project: (the complete acoustical analysis report is included as Appendix •E to this report). The existing noise environmept at the various residen- tial receptors,. at the beach, and the park adjacent to Cannon Road, are summarized in Table.l. Data indicate that existing noise levelsexceed those prescribed for -the land use indicated. • . S •S S S S S 1• S S .: S S S S 31 TABLE 1 . . Post No Exterior Exiting Project Project CGstructicn De sig n C].csed ,. Land Use .Lecj . L€. Leq. Leg. - Leg. Wind all North end residential profile 68 69.5 69.5 76-86 62(2). 72(3) A-House 1. North end residenti a]. profile . 59 60.5 60.5., 67-77 62(2) . 72 (3) A-House 2 • . . . North end residential profile 57 58.5 . 58.5 6-75 62(2) 72(3) A-House 3 . . North end residential profile 54 .55 55.5 . 62-72 (2) . '72 3) •. . B-House 1. . -. . . . South end residential profile . 67 . 67.5 68.5 62(2) 72 (3) . C-House 1 . ;. . . • :. • • . . South end residential profile 69 . 69.5 70.5 77-79 E2 (2) 72 (3) D-House 1 . ., . . South end residential profile 64 64.5 65.5 72-74 . 62(2) W2 (3) Beach area - west of current 72 73.5 73.5 8U83 • 67 .. . 67 parking (80 ft.) . . . . . Park at Corner of Cannon & . .74 75 .• 75.5 8284 67 67 Car1sb ad Boulevard (60 ft.) • . . . .. Park playqrond Cannon & 66 67.5 67.5 74-76 . 67 . 67 • . Carlsb ad Boulevard (60 ft.) . . •• . (1) Fran FUPH 7-7-3, T able 1 . ., . . • Asurnes interior 52 Leq + 10 dB for open windou = 62 Leg exterior A.S interior 52 Leg + 20 dB br c1osd window - 7c exterior .. _....•. . • .• .• . o• ,• •.. ' I. METEOROLOGY/CLIMATE/AIR QUALITY The general climate of the project site is largely controlled by the position and strength of the high pressure center near Hawaii and the moderating effects of the nearby ocean. Temperatures are cool in summer and mild in winter. Precipitation averages slightly under 10 inches per year and occurs almost exclusively from late November to early April, except for occassional light drizzles from heavy early morning • stratus clouds during the warmer"months(Appéndix' F). - Winds are almost always onshore, averaging 7-10 mph '.,and' carrying any locally generated air pollutants well away from Carlsbad to inland North County. Offshore winds are weaker (2-4 mph), usually nocturnal, and do allow.fo.r stagnation of'local emissions. While the, normal pattern-of - winds, 'usually gives Carlsbad excellent air quality most of, the !• S. year, the problem'of iiiterba'sin'reciràulation can give the Carlsbad area the worst air quality in the San Diego Air 'Basin. Temperature inversions that inhibit any ve r tical • 'mixing of low-level 'polluted air and cleaner air aloft also need to be" considered. During the warmer months, sinking air in • the ocean high pressure cell is undercut by a shallow layer' • of cool marine air, approximately 1000 feet deep. Mixing • within the marine layer is good, but the marine/subsidence . . inversion interface traps all polluted air exclusively within • the sh allow marine layer. As this layer moves inland-,-.receiving. • ' -• additional pollutants which react photochemiclIy under abundant iS • sunshine, it creates smog (mainly ozone). Ozone levels are 'along generally lOw the ocean, increasing inland, particularly ' in the foothills. • • • • ' :' •' • • •• .1 .-. •- - . ... • '• •• ' :33 Radiation inversions are another important consideration particularly in light of roadway projects. These form at night when the air near the ground cools, while air aloft remains warm. This shallow inversion may be several hundred feet deep. Coupled with light winds, these inversions trap pollutants near surface sources, e.g. freeways or large parking lots., and form highly localized pollution "hot spots." These two inversion types are the strongest and most persistent in the two characteristic air pollution "seasons". Summer is usually a period of elevated levels of photochemical air pollution and winter is a period of localized hot spots, especially in coastal environments. In order to assess the significance of' the air quality impact of the proposed bridge and roadway' project, that impact, together with ambient baseline levels; must be compared to am- bient air quality standards' (AAQS). These standards are -the. levels of air quality considered, safe to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect' sensitive receptors such as asthmatics, the elderly, 'young chi'tdren, people weak with other illnesses,and'those engaged in'heavy work. or exercise requiring deep breathing. The Clean Air. Act Amendments of 1977 specify standards for severe pollution species with an attainment deadline of 1982. California has its own standards., quite diverse from the National A'AQS. The closest monitoring station to the project site is located in Oceanside-at 100. South Cleveland. Data from this station suggest that levels of ozone and particulates generally associated with regional pollution and long distance, exceed AAQS with considerable regularity (Table, 2). Indicators of local pollution, especially carbon monoxide as a sign of heavy nearby vehicular activity, are absent. . 34 TABLE 2 OCEASIDE/ãALS•BAD AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY • (days standardsexceeded) 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 OZONE (03) I HR0 .8 °pm 43 69 87 71 -- 1 HR>0 13 ppm 19 50 61 51 45 • 1 HR 0- 12 ppm . . -- . . 22 .20 22 1 HR0 20 ppm 0 7 2 5 7 1 HR0.35 ppm 0 0 0 : 1 . 3 Max 1-HR Corc. (ppm) 0.19 0.29 0.25 0.35 0.36 CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) . .• •. S . S.. • 1 HR35 ppm . . 3 0. 0 0 • . 0 • 8 HR 9 ppm . • .. . 0 0 . 0 0 •• .0 • : Max 1-HR Conc. (ppm) .10 • • 10 8 9 . lO Max 8-HR Conc..(ppm) . H-. • 3.8 3.5 4.0 • . NITROGENDIOXIDE • ••• . . •• S • 1 HR> 0 25 ppm 1 4 2 2 0 Max 1-HR Conc. (ppm) • • 0.31 0.33 0.36 .0 .32 0.21 0.21 SULFUR DIOXIDE • S.. • .5 . S. • 1 H R 0 . 50 ppm • y . • 0 0 .0 • 0 24 HRS0 05 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max.1-HRConc.(ppm) .. 0.03 0.06 0.00 • 0.03 0.04 Max24-HR Conc. (ppm) -- -- -- 0.011 0.018 • . : .• 5 . PARTICULATES 24HR100u/m3 .• . • . 25% H20% 21% .40% • 33% 1 . S Annua1.60 ug/m3 • . yes yes yes yes yes 1 • Max 24-HR Conc. ug./rn?., • 172 . 146 173 • 219 . 180 A nnual ,Avg. ug/m •. . . .83 82 : 8 88 .85 35 A field archaeological reconnaissance survey was.. conducted on May 14, 1981 on the proposed project site Prior to the field survey, a records and literature search was conducted The National Register of Historic places (U.S. Government 1976), the California Inventory of Historic Resources, (State of California 1976) and the -California Historical Landmarks Directory (State of California, 1979) were consulted with negative results The archaeological record searches indicated that one site (SDI-210/SDM--W-l27A) is located near the southerly end of the study area. The exact placement. is difficult to determine, as San Diego State's records show the site to be under the 'Encina. Power Plant, and the Museum of Man's records do not show any areal boundaries, thus making the exact location uncertain According to crie tie'.Lci notes at time or aiscovery, the site consists of buried evidence of camping over a large- area ,,t..11 .-.4-'4-....-.1 c1Le WILLI LILL LJL1LeL1LLLLJLI UL JLI11Li IWIJ LU,LLULL components are represented at this site Paleo-Indian (San Dieguito) and Early Archaic (La Jollan) These cultural deposits may have a depth of approximately one meter. Virtually all of the study area has sustained substantial amounts of disturbance from road construction,' recreational. use, rain gutters, land- scaping of shoulders, paved and unpaved parking areas, and transmission power lines The project area was intensively.-examined by means of a series of linear transects, spaced approximately ten meters apart The field survey included the complete right- of-way, plus all of the easterly one-half of the sandbar across Agua Hedionda, except a small fenced portion, immediately north of the power plant. No surface evidence of the previously S 3& S . S recorded site was discovered. . Because the site area in question had been described in the .record searches as being subsurface, additional test trenchi'ng was performed to look for. possible artifactural material..' ' . 'rhreebackhoe trenches were excavated in the southern ' portion of the study area measuring approximately one meter in depth and with a length equal to approximately three meters and &. width of'50 centimeters. The soil removed was visually examined for artifactual material and following excavation, S the side wall's were scraped. .The test trenching failed to identify any new 'archaeological sites or evidence of previously recorded site. The results of the trenching were essentially •• . . 'negative and no prehistoric remains were encountered. Since no evidence of site SDi-210/SDM-W-127A could be located during the- survey or test trenching, it can be concluded ; that the subject cultural resource is , 'not located in the study area. Additionally, the extensive previous disturbance in the area would probably hav destroyed 'any cultural resources present. 5 ' S A bridge evaluation was completed and was found satis- factory the. State. of California Business and Transportation ,by Agency, Division of TranspOrtation Planning on June 5, 1981. • No evidence of fede'ralY or state historic' resources were found for the proposed site. ,The bridge has been determined to' have no significance from a historical, architectural or engineering prospective. ', S • : . . . . S ' . . . . 5 . 5 . 37 I. I. V ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST The foll owing checklist, adapted from State EIR Guidelines, was completed on the basis of the information • contained in this Environmental Assessment/Initial Study This master checklist indicates whether or not a project- related envii-.onmental effect is' àr could be significant 'H ........,, (*)' (yes Y.. orno An' astér :isk indicates thatthe item. is • discussed further in the section following the checklist If yes, is it Yes Significant" or No , No, Yes,, or.* PHYSICAL'- Will the proposal either directly.or. . .. - indirectly: . . .. . • 1 change the topography or ground surface relief feature? No 2. Destroy,'cover, or modify any unique geologic or . physical No 3 Result in unstable earth surfaces or exposure of • : ' . people,., or property to. geologic, hazards? . ' * No Result' in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation (whether by watenr or wind)' No* Resilt in..the increased use 6f fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner" No - . 6. Result..' in an in'cr'ease in the. rate of use, of,. any natural resource" No 7 Result in the substantial depletion of any • nonrenewable natural resource' No 8 Violate any published Federal, State, or local standards pertaining to solid waste or litter control? -' '•. '.. - ' * , - '.No . 9. Modify the channel of a river-or stream or the - - bed of the ocean' or any bay, inlet or lake? - , - Yes . - No* • - • . - , .* See following section: Environmental Evaluation/Mitigation Measures • 38 I . :. ,.. If yes, is it Yes Significant? or No No, Yes, or * PHYSICAL.-'Will the proposal either directly or indirectly (continued) . . 10. Encroach upon a floodplain or result in or be . affected by floodwaters or tidal waves' Yes No* 11 Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater, or public water No supply? . ,• - 12. - Result in the use of water in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? No 13. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? No * 14.. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, . State, or localwäter quality standards? - - No 15 Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any climatic co.nditions7 No Result in an increase in air pollutant.emissions, -adverse effects on or deterioratIon-of ambient air quality' No Result in the creation of objectionable odors? No 18. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, . or local air standards-or control plans? - • No 19. Result in-an increase in noise 1vels or • vibrati6n for adjoining areas? Yes No* 20 Violate or be inconsistent with Federal design - noise levels or State or local noise standards? Ys No* 21. Produce new light, glare, or shadows?. -, . .. No -- BIOLOGICAL - Will the proposal result in (either •. . - -. directly or indirectly): - . - • 22. Change in the diversity of species or number of - any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, • grass, microflora,and aquatic plants)? - • : • No * * See following section Environmental Evaluation/Mitigation Measures - - • 39 - - - - - - If yes, is it • Yes Significant? or No No, Yes, or * BIOLOGICAL. - Will the proposal. result in (either, directly or indirectly): (continued) ReductiOn of the numbers of or encroachment upOn the critical habitat of any unique', rare or endangered species or plants? No Introduction of new species of plants into • : , an area, or result in:a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? . No ' Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop or commercial timber stand? . No 26. . Removalor deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? . . . , ' No , * 27. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, . . land' animals including reptiles, fish and' . shellfish,.benthic organisms insects or .rnicrofauna)? ' •''•''"." ' ' ' . No * 28. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ' No f ' 29. Introduction of new species of animals into ' an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ' No SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC - Will the proposal directly • or indirectly.: 30 ' , Cause disruption of orderly planned development? No 31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted . • community plans, policies, or goals, the ' ' . '.Governor's Urban'Strategy or the President's National Urban Policy (if NEPA project)? • •• No 32. Affect the location, distribution', density, • ' . . • ; • • or growth rate of the human population of an area? • ', • :, . ' No • *-See following section: ' Environmental Eva'luation/Mi'tiga.tionMeasures. 40 I if yes, is it - Yes significant? SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC.- Will the proposal directly zJr No No, Yes, or * or indirectly (continued) 33. Affect life-styles, or neighborhood character or stability' No 34 Affect minority or other specific interest groups? No Divide or disrupt an established community? No Affect existing housing, require the displace- ment of people or create a demand for additional housing No 37 Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or farms' No Affect property values or the local tax base? No Affect any community facilities (including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)? No Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services? No Have-substantial impact on existing trans- portation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or • goods? No * • Affect vehicular movements or generate • additional traffic' No Affect or be affected by existing parking • facilities or result in demand for new parking' Yes No* Involve a substantial risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident 'or upset conditions? • • No 45. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? • • No Measures * See following section Environmental Evaluation/Mitigation 41 fyes,.is it Yes significant? or No No, Yes, or ' SOCIAL AND' ECONOMIC - Will the.proposal. directly or indirectly (cocitinued) . 46. " Affect public' health, expose people to potential ' • . health hazards, or create a real or potential health hazard? ' ' No . Affect any significant ar'chaeologi'cal or '• historià site, structure, object or building? No , Affect natural landmarks or man-made resources? ' '' '. ' ' No Affect any scenic resources or result: in the, obstruction of any scenic, vista or view open to the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to . public view? , ' ' ' No. , Result in substantial impacts associated with ' construction activities (e.g.,. noise, dust, ' temperary.drai.nage, traffic: detours and - ' ' ' ' temporary access, etc.)'? ' * No MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ' , :' . 51. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population, to drop below self- ' ' . • ' sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a • plant or animal community, reduce the: ' number or restrict .the range of a rare endangered plant or animal or eliminate' ' important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?' ' ' 'No 52, Does the project have the potential to ' ',' •' achieve short-term, to the, disadvantage • of long-term, environmental goals? ' (A short-term impact on the environment is • ' one which occurs in a relatively brief, , • ' ' ' • ' . ' definitive period of' time while' long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) No * See following section Environmental Evaluation/Mitigation Measures 42 If yes, is it Yes. significant? or No No, Yes, or * MANDATORY FINDINGS OF. SIGNIFICANCE (continued) 'Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively. . considerable? Cumulatively considerable . . means .that the incremental effects of an individual project are' considerable when, . viewed in connection with the effects of . . . . . past projects, the effects of other current . projects, and the effects of probable future . . projects. 'It includes the effects of other projects which interact with this project and, . together, are considerable. . No Does the project have' environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human' beings, either directly or indirectly? . . ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' No ' * See following section: Environmental Evaluation/Mitigation-Measures ' • 43 B. LAND USE Project impact S ... The proposed construction.-of the bridge and improve- ment of Carlsbad Boulevard to four lanes is not expected to impact the existing land uses in the project. vicinity. The recreational areas will still be accessible for use by the general public and the utility areas (SDG&E) and residences would not be affected. . . S - • -• -S Mitigation Measures Since no land. use impacts are expected,.no mitigation measures are required .5. . , •: ' - 5,_• 5,. 'S • 'V. • 5, 5 . '• '.: , S 5 ' S -' ' • S '••.; *' •. S ,: '. 45 . C. HYDROLOGY Project Impact The impact of. the project upon the lagoon and the ocean will be limited to the land within the road right-of- way between. Tamarack on the north to Cannon Road on the south. Drainage from the present road and bridge is directed from the north and southtowards the lagoon area. However, runoff on .1 . the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard is directed towards. the . . beach and the ocean, whereas runoff on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard is directed toward Agua Hedionda Lagoon. i., Types of pollutants normally associated with runoff in the San Diego region include sediment, minerals (salinity), . heavy metals, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous compounds), pesticides, biodegradeable substances (biochemical oxygen j• • - demand - BOD), micro-organism: (bacteria and other pathogens), and floatable material (oil and trash). Of these, sediments are the only group requiring con- sideration for potential impact from the proposed bridge and • road improvemnts. • . Current plans call for widening the surfaced. road width for a distance Of approximately 700 feet north •of and 5,400. •feet south of'the proposed bridge improvements. Road widening and improvements will consist of paving over existing asphaltic concrete (A.C.) paving, where acceptable, and placement of new A.C. where the road will be widened. • Grading Operations are expected to consist of preparing the narrow strip of sub- I • base soil materials adjacent to the existing road and • placement of base materials prior to paving. . 46 At the time of ground preparation; the' new1y- prepared strip will, be exposed and could 'be. subject to erosion; It was noted during site inspections, however, that the existing road border consists of soils, which are exposed and 'un- protected' from'erosion. Proposed roadway, construction' should not increase the potential for erosion damage above that which' already exists and the completed improvements-:will reduce. the potential. , Site inspections revealed the potential' for on- struction or post-construction erosion and sedimentation - . damage to be low due' to the.characteristics of. the existing exposed soils and the configuration of ground surface bordering the road.. Soil materials on both sides'o'f the'road consist . primarily of clean, fi'ne'to medium grained -sands. -. . ., These materialrequire high velocity and/or turbuIen - conditions in order to remain in suspension. Such conditions already. exist in the channel beneath the-bridge., The sediment plume generated by the channel ends, abruptly as the water ' calms' on entering the outer-lagoon., thus demonstrating the' inability of local sediments to stay in suspension for - - - significant distances within the lagoon envirónmet. The existing road is separated from-the lagoon to the. east by a broad bench and from the ocean to the .west, by a relatively wide beach. The bench and beach both consist - primarily of' highly-permeable, fine to medium grained-sands. These materials act as .a filter for runoff water from exi,s.t-ing' roadway-areas by allowing most of the water to percolate through" them prior to reaching the ocean or lagoon. - 0 .- 47 . 0 In order to decrease the potential for lagoon sedimen- .• tation, construction of road improvements, grading operations and paving work should be completed during a specified period of time of not greater than four weeks and should not be under- taken during the heavy winter storm period.. . • Upon completion of grading operations for road improve- ments and bridge abutments all newly created cut and fill slopes and disturbed areas will be hydro-seeded and irrigated to establish protective growth •• •• •• • 48 I ' '. ' D. VISUAL QUALITY Project Impact . The proposed. construction of a new bridge and widening of Carlsbad Boulevard is not expected to adversely affect 'the visual quality of the vicinity, but will. enhance the visual appearance of the entrance to the lagoon. The proposed design will place special emphasis upon aesthetics, surface treatment, finishes, and materials. Existing ,debris and" - construction remnants" from earlier works will be removed. The existing bridge is supported by three rows of rein- 'forced concrete piling's. The proposed new bridge will'clear- span ,the channel, eliminating these visual obstructions from - the channel. The proposed new parking facilities are 'not expected to significantly alter the existing visual quality, either from the roadway 'or ot,her surrounding. locations. An'additi'onal benefit to be deriv'ed from the proposed project will be the provision of ,four lanes of traffic along this corridor. Although, Carlsbad Boulevard has yet to. be designated as a Scenic Highway, it has been proposed as such. The views available-along its length are attractive. With the separation of traffic 'lanes, on-lookers will be provided, the option of traveling.at a 'slower speed, without disrupting traffic. The-existing 35 miles per hour speed limit will be maintained, helping preserve the opportunity to enjoy the existing -vistas. Mitigation Measures - - - ,The' proposed design of the new bridge and-associated - road 'improvements will be compatible with the existing visual quality of the project -vicinity. Landscaping of manufactured slopes (associated with the new bridge) will mitigate potential 'erosion and visual impacts. No -additional mitigation measures are necessary at this time. - -' 49'' '- Project- Impacts The two most important existing biological impacts 1.1 upon the lagoon are the existing entrainment of sea water by the Encina Power Plant and the current dredging of the lagoon every two years The proposed construction is expected to have only a minor to insignificant impact on any biolo- gical resources in the area. The existing high rate of water circulation past the site prevents sedimentation and turbidity in this portion of the lagoon The preadaption of the indigenous flora and fauna to existing high-suspended par- ticulate loads in the lagoon is evident in the project vicirity. A minor disturbance of indigenous bird and fish faunas, no more than 200 yards from the construction site, is to be expected during construction ..There fill are no plans to place any material into the channel and the channel itself will not be modified. The bridge abutments on either side of the inlet channel will be set back 20-feet and the area underneath the span will be filled in with rock rip rap similar to that which presently surrounds the lagoon The channel is not bordered by emergent or marsh vegetation and thus there would be no impact to a wetland area as defind in Executive Order 119900. There will be some slight modification of the existing channel flow hydrodynamics as a result of the removal of the existing pilings These pilings exert a slight wave dampening effect in the channel When removed, there will be a slightly greater exposure to coastal wave and surge action This may slightly affect the biotiá composition for no more than 100 yards and is not deemed harmful to any highly valued resource • species • 50 I During the period of bridge construction temporary support pilings may be placed in the channel. These would create a minor alteration of the sand bottom community within ± 30 yards of the bridge and. the construction equipment. could potentially create a temporary minor alteration of the local flow pattern. This slight, alteration would not be harmful to any biologically significant species.. As temporary pilings for bridge construction will probably be necesary a State of California, Resources Agency, Department. of Fisi and Game Section, .1601 permit Notification of Removal of Materials- and/or Alteration ofLake, River, or Streambed Bottom or Margin will be required The City of Carlsbad will coordinate with the Department of Fish and Game to obtain thenecessary permit and provide the necessary information The proposed project is within the Base Food Plain as defined by Federal Highway standards, that is the, flood f or tide having a 1-percent chanceof being. exceeded in any 'the given year. Carlsbad Boulevard, from the northernedge of Agua Hedionda Lagoon channel to the southern 'termiius of the Outer Lagoon.'was identified as a Special Flood Hazard :Area • ' on the Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazatd Boundary Map No. H-03 of May 31, 1974. ' However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency in August of 1981, rescinded thismap and ,the-entire project area is now reclassified asZon.C, orin .the 500'year flood,' based-on evidence that there is not signifi- cant risk of flooding. 'associated with the. proposedproject.site. Although there is, no field evidence of Leàs.t Tern presence, they have been known to use the ocean rock jetty in the area; There could be a possible impact to Least. Tern feeding areas off-site if construction were to occur during the summer ,months . 51' Mitigation Measures ' No significant marine biological resources will be impacted. The only related impact is' the possible effect on Least Tern feeding areas off-site. This will be mitigated by limiting the construction to the months of October to Mrch to avoid any possible interference TERRESTIAL BIOLOGY ' Project 'I'thpact The vegetation that would be distrubed as a result .1 .:Of the proposed improvements-are non-native, ornamental species and co.uld'be revegetated quickly; It 'is anticipated that :the. proposed road work will have no effect on either the native beach or lagoon communities that border the road, as.t1ie existing, roadway 'is sufficiently broad to'. accommo- date' construction activities, without introducing any spoil or debris into the lagoon. . While there was no field evidence of Least'Terñ feeding on-site, concern has been expressed over , • ', possibie'constructiôn' impacts on.feeding areas in the 'adjacent areas Mitigatioln'Measures ' . • ' ' In light of the minimal amount of introduced vege- tat ion that will' be lost as a result of the proposed project, I . no mitigation measures are considered necessary for vegetation Because of the possibility of impact upon Least Tern feeding areas, construction should be limited to the months from October to March. This.will mitigate any possible impact to' the Least Tern. ' . ' '' ' . • . • ' 52 4 . C. TRAFFIC.ANDPARKING . .- Project Impacts , -: The potential impacts. of .the'própose construction of thbridgeand street impovement of Carlsbad Boulevard can be divided into both short7 and long-term impacts.. Construction of the bridge will be two-staged, with ahalf-width sectionof the new bridge constructed parallel to, and west of, the existing bridge with two li-foot travel lanes This will service the traffic during construction of the other half-width section. IA temporary,.. inc±ementàl increase in congestion is expected along this corridor during bridge construction, especially if construction were to occur, in the .peak.range period of July...and.-August. V• Implementation of the proposed project (widening of Carlsbad Boulevard) in the absence of planned or feasible mitigation measures would also result in diminished beach- relatedparking-,vailabi1ity (public, parking in the exis'ting street right-of-way) These potential impacts will be mitigated via the .measures .described below. : Mitigation Measures - V 'V V - - •V % •'V V V . •V VVV . A.certai-n incremental increase .in.congestion and inconvenience is to be expected during the three or five months estimated for bridge construction, however the road improvements will be much quicker rof the road ovementSi an tffpated beZomp e-Eed hree tfbf iflweè'kT . V... V • 51 V V •, V V • V. V • t I •'.' F In order to lessen impacts to the environment, I. construction,sho.uld be limited to the off-season months, with no construction during the July'/August peak beach season 1at e nfo ox ima t e ly si'd ofTh proposed of -way road via th e e n --a t_ e ~i"h n Of bbth-of 7~ro Alternative One improve and e x pand! par Fing area atte is currently owrfedànd—p-r4—', • sbeachr e läëdTommun iTh31s e r v - - -The .ithproved utilization-of the prOperty for parking pur- poses will' provide additional beAch-related parking spaces: and still retain enough area to be used for recreational, • .-- fishing. The creation of, a 116-space lot would increase existing available parkirg by ápprdximately 76 spaces (Table .3). Implementation ,of this measure will nécessitatera - .. . contradtualarrangement with SDG&E for increasédkparking, • although SDG&E currently allows public parking in this area.. the development df'this area 'as an improved parking 'lot will increase pedestrian'crossing of fours lanes of traffic to obtain access to'-- the -each-. A safe method of pro- viding-.this access will be necessary. Access is recommended along a pedestrian walkway under the bridge r a pedestrian overcrossing abdve the roadway Any walkway would need to be .dthsigned within the-right-of way, with no-encroachment upon the beach ar-ea. . - . .. • 54 Alternative Two ' This a1ternaive would provide 'additiona beach parking on the west side of the roadway just south of the warm water jetty on land which is, presently owned by SDG&E, leased to the State of California and Operated by.the.Depártment of Parks and Recréàtion. The lease is due, to expire, in August , 1981 and the State of.Calif.ornia is reportedly negotiating ' ' ' for acquisition of this property. The Cit'.y of Carlsbad should consider entering into a co-operative agreement with the State of California to provide ' parking improvements on this property. No extension of right- of-way would be 'ne'cessary for such, an agreement. ' ' ' Development.óf this alternative,, coupled with' the 10- • foot parking strip as shown. on, the- proposed project map, would' completely mitigate all' loss of parking ftom'the proposed . street-widening. ' ' " ' ' • H • ' ' ' . •,' • ' Actual engineering ,and design for parking on this • ' • SDC&E or State of California owned property' is. not included • ' in this proposed bridge replacement and street widening project. Rather, it is proposed as-an additional 'project. , Alternative Three In the' absence,of a cooperative arrangement with the , State' ,of,California, Department of Parks 'and Recreation, a third alternative is' available 'which mitigates any loss of '. S parking and is completely within the right-of-way. Additional parking spaces will be made available by restriping the • existing Carlsbad State Beach parking lot, north of the proposed bridge replacement. Using 1.9 feet by 9 feet per parking space, it will be possible to increase the capacity of this existing lot from its current 121 spaces to 165. This P. would also include four 19-foot by 11-foot handicapped spaces. . These measures can be implemented with the approval of the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The 10.-foot parking • :lane proposed On the west side of the roadway can be extended, beginning approximately 725 feet south ofthe planned strip • shown on the proposed widening plans, and continuing for • roughly 800 feet: south to just north of the existing homes. This would add an additional 38 parking spaces, resulting in a net increase of 7 parking spaces over the existing parking presently available. . • . '.5 . • ...•. .. . TABLE EXISTING AND POST-PROJECT PARKING I • • • EXISTING PARKING . . -: • . Spaces: • • Location West Parking Lot North Parking Lot 63 . Western Roadside f . . 40 Encina Fishing Area • . •20. • . Eastern Roadside • • . .. :. • . 396 • • S S • L S S • S • S . J •'•' Lw ., ' • • I • , 56' 555 I S. EXISTING AND POST-PROJECT PARKING POST-PROJECT PARKING - Alternative One - Spaces : - Location 146 - lU foot Parking Strip-."' 11 North Pling J2ot 116• : EIcmnäFish'ing Lo 20 - Easterri Roa'dside 397 POST-PROJECT PARKING -"Alternative Three Spaces • '• Location 5 • 140 10 foot Parking Strip - 165 • North-Parking Lot(restriping) * 40 Encina Fishing Lot • 20 Eastern Roadside S. •.. 38 • Addition of 10 foot parking lane. 403 •• • * ,• • S • - ' ' ** • The incorporation of Alternative 'One, Alternative Two, or Alternative Three' 1nto the project will result in the • S maintenance or enhancme.nt of existing'pub'1ic parking on-site or 'inthe'project vicinity. The overall project will '• aid and contribute 'to increased public beach access and no • S additional mitigation measures are deemed appropriate at S this time.. • •• * •• , 57 * 5 H. NOISE Project Impacts Implementation of the proposed project will raise the existing noise levels ona short-term basis, due to L. . construction activities.. Oier' the long-term the. project will increase nois.è by 0.5 to 1.5 decibels, however, this increase will be caused by the increases in traffic that would occur within the area over time, whether or not the project is implemented.; Since the anticipated growth in traffic activity will raise noiseo. levels, whether or not the project is implemented, the only short-term noise.impacts • 2 will be due to construction activities'.' Mitigation Measures . . . Temporary increased noise levels from construction. . activities are sufficient to warrant the use of several. mitigation measures in an effort to reduce this disturbance. The detailed analysis provided in Appendix E represents the 0 worst case, therefore, a combination of mitigation measures will aid in reducing the impact to acceptable levels. Major construction operations will be conducted during the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. (weekdays). Where feasible, the contractor will utilize noise-attenuating equipment. Implementation of these restrictions, through provisions in the construction contract, will sufficiently reduce con- struction noise to an insignificant level. 0 0•• • • 0 •• 0• •• 0 0 • 0 • • 0 • 58 • 0 • I. METEOROLOGY/CLIMATE/AIR QUALITY Project Impacts Roadway, projects.may actually generate an air quality benefit. The improved roadway tends to better accommodate ' traffic demand, moving it more directly with an efficient driving speed. Any negative impacts associated with the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge and Highway 'improvemenis tend to -be of a very local nature. During construction, fugi,-' tive dust from preparing the roadbed will be carried to nearby receptors, especially .the,r.esidentiáI development east 'of. the roadway, between Tamarack Avenue and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. These same receptors will also be exposed to the vehicular emissions resulting from the possible traffic growth along Carlsbad. Boulevard. While the dust emissions are temporary, the gaseous pollutarit'impacts of the traffic growth, will exist throughout the life of the project.' The EPA predicts an emission rate of 80 'pounds of fugitive dust, per day', per acre, of disturbed land during construction activities. This rate can be reduced by, 'about'one-'half through regular watering,, as required'by SDAPCD Rule 50. At 40 pounds,, per acre, per day, the 10' acres-or so of roadbed. surface disturbed during construction activities may create approximately 400 pounds' (0.2 tons). • -' • This compares to 200-300 tons/day emitted throughout the basin. On a regional scale, the effect of this-dust is minimal. , -Locally,. it will drift eastward away from the ' • ' heavily' used beach area, causing more of a soiling nuisance •' . '(increasing the need to wash cars or dust furniture), than a health hazard. • • • '• ' ' • - ' .,• 59 Other construction emissions will result from combus- tion emissions from ea•rthmovi'ng equipment, etc. These are expected. to be minimal, and not expected to modify the . generally low-ambient pollution levels A positive impact of the proposed projec.t'is the likely: reduction of. possible, emissions emanating from projected traffic increases The improvements are designed to accommo- date the anticipated traffic growth at a design speed of 35 mph. Without 'such improvements, it is likely that congestion will continue along'.-this corridor, reduçiñg'the average speeds on the roadway. This decrease can be associated with' an increase in emissions By maintaining the 35 mph speed, the project is. an:imporat•positv,e aspect of air quality': .'. • planning.. •.' , : •"' . . •• '• Studies testing this possible increase of localized • pollution levels were conducted using the CALINE 3 Caltrans Roadway Dispersion Model (Appendix F). Result's indicate possible decreases in,.-CO levels in the project Site vicinity. • Mitigation Measures The project-related contribution of emissions to '• regional air quality, degradation is negligible, representing • only a minor incremental addition Interim construction "activity on-site will increase particulate' level's and heavy •' • . equipment emissions over the short-term only. The following measures will serve t.o'reduce the extent'of air quality ' degradation due to implementation of the proposed project • 60 . 1. . Countywide Measures. . . . Air qualit.y management in SanDiego County is the responsibility of the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CEO). These organizations have combined their efforts in a task force called the.Air Quality Planning Team. In 1976., the Sari Diego Air Quality Planning Team published revised Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) for theSanDiego Air Basin. The adopted (revised) .RAQS are integral to the air quality management plan for San Diego county. Project-Level Measures The construction activities will cause temporary short-term impacts which would include: • (1) exhaust emissions from vehicles and machinery used in the construction work and in transportation of personnel and materials, and (2) •• S dust raised. by vehicles and by wind blowing on loosened soils. • • . The most significant of these temporary impacts is S the potential for -dust. pollution. However, dust generation can be mitigated by good construction operating practices which should be required of the construction contractor, including watering during earth-moving operations, repeated : S watering of exposed soils, and paving ofroadways. • . 61 i• : 4' I. J.. CULTURAL RESOURCES Project Impacts •. .•• • •• .' * Although the exact location of site SDI-.210/W-127A has not been ascertained, the results of the field reconnais- sance and teat trenching suggest one, or both, of two alterr • natives (1) this cultural resource is not located within • the study area; or(2) previous grading for Carlsbad.BoUlévard in 1915 has destroyed this In any case, there is no evidence of cultural resources within the study area Because of this, I.:. no project related impacts: are: expected. • * • • Mitigation Measures • • • No mitigation measures 'are considered necessary I. • • 62 The following, agencies and organizations were in- vited to' attend an"Early Consulttion Meeting" held in the City of Carlsbad, April 1, 1981 CALTRANS California Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 California Department of Parks and Recre?tion Eleventh Coast Guard District Office Federal Highway Administration San Diego Coast Regional Commission San Diego Gas and Electric Company . . State Clearinghouse . U.S.. Army Corps of,Engineers U.S. Fish'and Wildlife Service A Preliminary EarlyConsultation Report was mailed to each invitee. This report, the agenda, attendance record, and summary of concerns found in Appendix H. Additional consultation was undertaken with the California Coastal Commission, San Diego District and the United States Coast Guard Land Corps of. Engineers. Each of these agencies have reviewed a draft copy of the Environmental Assessment. A description of the project proposed mitigation measures and preliminary engineering drawings were sent to the United States Department of the Interior,. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States I VIII ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PERSONNEL This report was prepared by NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc., 1850 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, California 92101. The following individuals were principally respon- sible for preparing the environrnental significance analysis or significant background material. S.. 0• Margaret L. Coate.s B.A. Urban Studie.s Two years experience in environmental studies Edward W. Dilginis .. S M. A. Geography . . . Eight years experience in transportation planning. Six years experience in preparing environmental impact.. assessments . . Hans D. Giroux . .. . . . .5 Ph.D.. Candidate, Meteorology Nine years experience, in meteorology and air quality analysis Joseph R. 'Jehi, Jr. PhD, Zoology . . Ten years, CUrator of Birds and Mammals, Natural History Museum Four years; Assistant Director, Hubbs/Sea World Research Center . Craig R. Lorenz M.C.P. City Planning . Seven years experience in preparing planning studies and environmental impactstatements/reports Terence D. Parr Ph.D, Candidate, University of California, San. Diego, Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Eleven years experience in marine'biological studies H. Keith Polan . . . . • B. A. Anthropology Four years experience in archaeological studi.es Carole ,S. Tanner, P.E. . . B.S.. Mechanical Engineering Graduate Studies, Acoustics . • Sixteen years experience in acoustical studies Betsy A. Weisman M.A. Political Science ..Three years experience in urban planning . . Two years experience in preparing environmental studies. . . . • 65 . IX.. REFERENCES Barry, T.M. andRegan, 'J.A., 1978' FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction.-'Models, Federal Highway Administration. Blade-Tribune, 1981, "More Beach Parking Due," January 13. City of Carlsbad, 1975,Genera1 Plan,, Circulation Elethent. Elliott,. Mike, 1981, Associate Transportation Planner, San Diego -Association-6f, Government., telephone conversation, . . March. Fait, William V., 1981, Area Manager, State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, telephone conversation, . June. Horna, Marion, 1981, General Plant Manager, San Diego Gas and • . Electric Encinà Power Plant, telephone conversation, May 18. McDaniel., Art, 1981, Principal, McDaniel Engineering Company. • Richmonds;,Ted, 1981., Senior Property Management Representative, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, telepone conver- sation, June, • Shipley, Michael, 1981, Officer, Carlsbad Police Department, telephone conversation, May 12 . . . . Thompson, Dennis, 1981; Transportation Planner, San Diego: Association of Governments, telephone coiiversation, May. . . . . Tisdale, Steve, 1'981.,.*Engineering Technician II, City of • Carlsbad, telephone conversation,. May 12. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminis- . tration, 1976, Federal-Aid Highway PrOgrams Manual, • • "Analysis of Traffic Noise Impacts and Abatement Measures," May 14. . . . • . . . • • .• •, .. .. . . •, . •••. . : • 66 : • • AN ANALYSIS OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY AS RELATED TO.THE CARLSBAD . V I : BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND V. HIGHWAY WIDENING PROJECT V. • . • . . V •• V V VVV V .V V V N. V Prepared for V ... City of, Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue . .V V :, V .• V V . Carlsbad, California V V V f. V V••• ,:. V V • V •: V • V: V V V V V V V Performed by V • V NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. • V. V - V V • 1850 Fifth Avenue V V San Diego, California. 82101 . • V V V VI V V V V•, V. V V V • HYDROLOGY: The eastern 'half of the proposed project discharges to the Agua. Hedionda.Lagoon. The, western half of the' right 1 of way discharges into the Pacific Ocean'. Agua Hedionda Lagoon consist.s of 250 acres of open. water', inland of which 'lies approximately 200 'acres of salt marsh, mudflats and saltfl.ats. The lagoon occupies the, seaward end of the Agua Hedionda drainage basin,, which covers about 28 square miles., Extensive manmade :modifications have been made to the lagoon, notably, the dredging to a depth of .8 to 12'feet and permanent opening to the ocean-,in 1954 to provide cooling' water to the Encina Power Plant located on the southwest shore. In order to maintain the cooling water flow, the outer lagoon is dredged every two years to remove . ," ' silts and .beach, sand...(SDG&E 19.81). ..As..a. consequence, of this dredging activity,, the ecological conditions of the, lagoon are. now essentially bay-like. . Despite these man made modi- fications the lagoon has reverted to a semi-natural condition and supports extensive fish and: shellfish, populations. Agua Hedionda Lagoon is kept permanently' open to the ocean by means' of the two.rock jetties bounding the entrance • channel. 'The dredging, of the channel is part, of the two year maintenance program. " ' . • ' .' ' Use of the'lag.00n as a source of. cooling water for the power "plant as well as tidal variations results in considerable tidal flushing 'of the lagoon.... As a consequence,' the chemical quality: of the lagoon is .-similar in nature to that of seawater. Some irrigation effluent and drainage 40 , '' ' ' A-i • . , , '' I water flows into, the lagoon from adjacent uplands. The significant tidal flushing keeps eutrophication problems to a minimum During especially high tides and under windy conditions, the existing roadway has been inundated with salt water . Significant siltation has occurred in the eastern- most end'öf the lagoon since the dredging in 1954. However; the proposed project is not expected to impact this area due to the distances involved In that regard, the proposed project will impact only the outer lagoon adjacent to the bridge and Carlsbad Boulevard PROJECT IMPACT For the purposes of this analysis the impact of the project upon the lagoon and the ocean is limited to the land within the road rightof-wSy from Tamarack on the. north' to Cannon Road on the south Drainage from the road and bridge is directed from the north and south towards the lagoon area However, runoff .* 'on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard is. directed towards the beach and the ocean, whereas runoff on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard is directed toward Agua Hedionda Lagoon Types of pollutants normally associated with runoff in the San Diego region include sediment, minerals (salinity), heavy metals, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous compounds), pesticides, biodegradeable substances (biochemical oxygen demand - BaD) micro-organism (bacteria and other pathogens) and floatable material (cii and trash) A-2 Of these,. sediments arethe only group requiring fl consideration for potential impact from the proposed bridge and road improvements . . Current plans call for widening the surfaced road width for a distance of approximately 700 feet north of and 5,400 feet south of the proposed, bridge improvements. Road widening and improvements will consist of paving over existing A.C. where acceptable and'-.placement of new A.C. where the road will be widened.. Grading operations will consist of preparing the narrow strip of sub-base soil materials adjacent to the existing road and, placement of base materials prior to paving if so required by the City of Carlsbad At the time of ground preparation, the newly prepared strip will be exposed and could be subject to erosion. It was noted during site inspections however, that the existing road. border,,. consists of; soils which are exposed,,.and unprotected from erosion. Proposed roadway construction should not increase the potential for erosiondamage.above that which already exists and the completed improvements will reduce the potential. Site inspections revealed the potential for construction or. post-construction erosion and sedimentation damage to be low, due to the characteristics of the existing exposed soils and the configuration of groun.d surface bordering the road.. Soil materials on -both sides of the road consist primarily of'clean fine to medium grainedsands. These materials.require high velocity and/or turbulent conditions in 'order to remain in suspension. Such conditions exist in the channel beneath the bridge. The sediment plume generated by the channel ends':abruptly as the water calms on entering the' outer lagoon, thus demonstrating the inability of local sediments to stay in suspension for, si-gnificant distances within the lagoonal. environment. . A-3 - The existing road is separated from the lagoon to the east by a broad bench and from the ocean to the west by a relatively wide beach The bench and beach both consist primarily of highly permeable fine to medium sands These materials act as a filter for runoff water from existing road- way areas by allowing most of the water to percolate through them prior to reaching the ocean or lagoon It should be noted that road construction involving preparation. of exposed soils is anticipated to require approx- 1. imately two weeks Occurence of runoff during that period will depend on rainfall oècuring only .during that period. The potential for impact is therefore of a temporary nature Due to the clean, granular nature of the on-site soil materials and the physical characteristics of areas bordering the road and bridge improvements, the potential impact of sediment on the lagoon is minimal. Proposed con- struction work should not increase the. potential significantly and the completed work will-serve to reduce the-potential.. Hydrology Due to the -existing roadway border conditions consisting of exposed sandy soils, and a minimum of protective plant- . • growth, planned construction should not increase surface runoff and sedimentation potential above that which currently exists S The soil types exposed along the length of the pro- posed -improvements are primarily clean sands. Due to the soil - types and the permeable nature of the soils and beaches separating the lagoon and ocean from direct runoff, the current potential for sedimentation is low . A-4 S ' - PREFACE At the request 'of Mr. Ed Dilginis and through the coordinative efforts of Ms. Betsy Weisman of New Horizons Planning Consultants, • biological reconnaissances of the outer portion of the Agua Hedibnda Lagoon (Carlsbad, San Diego County, California) were conducted on May 15 and 22, 198111 in the environs of a proposed bridge overpass con- struction site au Highway 101 (Figure 2). A general description, of the .iñarine biota, supplemented with in- formation from other studies from this area is provided with an assess- ment of potential biological impact's resulting from. the overpass con- struction I DESCRIPTION OF AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON • ;' General oceanographic features of Agua Hedionda Lagoon have been described by USD..'(1972).' Several unpublished reports existin connec- ' tion with studies funded by theSan Diego Gas and Electric (SDG E) .: Company which utilizes '540 million gallons/day (mgd) of water from ' ' ' the outer-lagoon-for the cooling of Its generators. .Agua Hedionda Lagoon is situated within the city limit of Carlsbad, as shown in ' • Figure 1 The lagoon, which is owned by SDG E, is essentially man- made, having been extensively dredged throughout 1954, to a depth of approx:unately eight feet It is divided from west to east by a rail- road trestle and Interstate's into three major sections.' The lagoon was permanent'ly'opened tothesea in August, 19541, by SDG & E to pro-. vide cooling water for the large Encina Power Plant. It has been kept • B-i t I I ..II :••! •'•••' • Mt. \' 'Army JC A. t \ %# ' I' II • - .' \- •% - " 'r h . -' - \ •'. — • • A' •\• t \ ••.• I •• •••• VII I • j /j:.; Vt q \ t •Il i',t ,t' o\ :tc \ N. \ vies \ N \ \\ \ \ \B \ 91 - 1 \ ' Proposed site, cotction A )\\ \ 'Q lb \\• r c ; :..:\ /Q / N Tariks --- \\ , • \ \ \\A V Figure 1 Agua Hedionda Lagoon and surrounding area \\ \ \ \ At Frr\4. \ \e \\ I - - I 0 47 - 17"2'3" 6S 11650000 FEET 1 467 20' I69 I ' ElCiN,T,rs '3M? (NCIN/T/.S) . . • S s.a22eWtcfJ. and pUtI t d by the Geological Survey . cr.AI c o.inn' 0 - 0 S S S * S Il Sc , •)LS 3G9j , 10000 FEET 6S I continuously open since that time by dredging Just inside the entrance at approximately two-year intervals Outer Lagoon (Figures 2 and 3) Outer Agua Hedioiiida Lagoon is the subject of this report It is approximately 900 yards long north to south and has a maximum width of approximately, 340 yards At the northwestern corner, two rock Jetties border a 45-yard wide channel connecting the lagoon with-the -sea-with. depths of approximately 6 feet at mean lower lo i'ater (HLLW) It is over this channel that the new bridge construction has been proposed The generalized bathymetry of the outer lagoon is shown in Figure 3 Th cina Power Plant cooling water intake facility is.' located at the southwestern edge with maximum depths of 11 feet at MLLW The Power Plant thermal outfall crosses the beach between t.o rock jetties at the southern end of the lagoon Floating steel booms have been in- stalled by SDG & E at the entrance of the channel between the outer and middle lagoon sections and across the lower third of the outer lagoon to prevent public access for safety reasons Although the boating public is excluded from the lagoon, SDG E E has installed - parking areas and has made part of the western shore available for fishing from shore The shoreline, with the exception of the south- east and southerly portion, is devoid of emergent, or shoreline, vege- tation and is lined with a riprap of large granite boulders, typically extending one to two feet below and three to five feet above mean tidal level Water temperatures range from about 14250 C during the year, while B-4 0 ILZZ - L \&\\\ C$ gJA OLOG LV EL A UCOIONOA PF 0 0 CHaD4occ 89 /\I . JL Figure 3 Depth contours sare f et1at va in Points indicated by are where depth readings were taken I It SO CIII 0• N Iz 5'T217.' % salinities typically vary between 30-34 parts per thousand as a func- tion of evaporation and runoff. Thus, the lagoon is essentially a marine habitat with little fresh water incursion Sediments are varied in their composition, primarily as a function of circulation features Within the lagoon Near the lagoon entrance (construction site), sedi- ments are well sorted and skewed toward a coarser distribution of par- ticle sizes These sediments are nearly 100 sand (particles greater than 63 microns) due to the good water circulation through this area Other areas in the lagoon, e.g.,-at the south end, are ypified by a higher silt-clay content (particles less than 63 microns) Sediment particle size is an important environmental feature in relation to questions of sediment suspension and turbidity An important feature of this lagoon is its continuously maintain- ed connection with the ocean which guarantees circulation and flushing and a continuous provision of larval forms of marine life. The biota of the lagoon have not been adequately described in published reports Generally speaking, as with all tidally flushed coastal lagoons, it is a productive habitat as a result of regular mix" ing and flushing of organic material and nutrients from the inner reaches of the bay. There is relatively little primary macrophytic production in the outer lagoon itself, since it is bordered by rock riprap and is not bordered by marsh vegetation Consequently, a di- versity of bird habitats does not exist in the outer lagoon as it does in the marshy inner lagoon areas Waters..in the lagoon are rich, as attested to by the high levels of visible suspended organic material S B-6 • Within the lagoon, visibility in the water cohmui on our site visits was only 1.5 to 2.5 feet, indicating high suspended loads of particulate matter. •• Beds of eelgrass (Zostera.marina) are well-developed near site 9 and sparsely developed near sites 1 and 8 (Figure 2). A precise survey of Zostera beds was conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers; : information from this report was not available. However, the large continuous beds of Zostera are visible in shallow water at low tide, and these were confined to the vicinity of the shoreline• near.. site 9 (Figure 2), during our reconnaissance surveys. The shallowness of these beds is probably an important factor, allowing adequate light penetration in the turbid conditicns existing in the lagoon. • gical: impacts upon The two single most important existing bioloCP this lagoon are judged to be,: :(l) entrainment of sea water by the En- cina Power Plant, and (2) dredging of the lagoon every two years. • The ranking of fishes and invertebrates entrained by the Fflcina Power Plant (unpublished data) indicate, the diverse nature of the fish fauna in the lagoon. The most frequently entrained species are queen- fish, deep-body anchovy, top'srneit, grunion, and northern anchovy. CP Queenfish are the most common nearshore sand bottom fish in southern • California. '. •• • • II PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIUTIES Information on proposed construction activities was derived from • New Horizons Planning Consultants and from discussions with Mr. Jim • Hall of McDaiuels Engineering (San Diego) • B-7 Briefly, the City of Carlsbad proposes to construct .'a four-lane bridge on Carlsbad Boulevard over 'Agua Hedionda Lagoon to replace the structurally: deficient current two-lane bridge. The proposed ' bridge would be 180 feet in length and 78 feet in width, comprised of four, 12-foot-traffic lanes, plus five-foOt sidewalks and five-foot bicycle paths in each direction. According to Mi. Hall of McDaniels Engineering, the existing road (Highway 101) will be raised four feet and the abutments on either side of 'the present inlet channel will be' setback 20 feet.,This area underneath the new span bridge will be filled in with large rock riprap similar to that which presently sur- rounds the lagoon. There is no plan to place any material in the than-' nel'. During the period of bridge construction, planned for fall 'and winter of 1981-82, construction support pilings may temporarily be S placed in the channel; these would create only minor sediment displace- ment. The present four cement.-piling supports which 'support the'exis- ting bridge will be removed III. BIOLOGICAL RECONMAI'SANCE - Methodology • ' '' ' ' ' On May is; 1981, Terence' Parr and Dr. Douglas Diener surveyed the "shoreline' of the outer AguaHedionda Lagoon between sites 1 and 9 ' (Figure 2). Thesearea backet the proposed construction site. This ' survey prdcedure was.,repeated 'on May 221-1.981 by Terence Parr and Jay Shrake; 'Descriptive notes of the biota on the riprap were taken, fishermen were interviewed, water clarity was recorded and sihallow subtidâl sediments were examined. Tide levels ranged between 0.7 and , 5 B-8 S •'',•' 3. 5, feet above MLLW during, the course of the surveys. A list of the rock substrate biota is presented',in Table 1. Results of the recon- naissance surveys fo]71ow. - Site This area is adjacent to a dirt parking lot. From this area north to the bridge, several fishermen were present. Two fishermen interviewed mentioned corbina and halibut as being the most sought- after sport, fish from this site The rock riprap was characterized by 'a high percelitage cover of the..acorn barnacle, Chthamalus fissus. The upper rock levels were inhabited by the snail, Littorina scutulata. Grapsid crabs were common- (Pachygrapsus, crassipes). Other less fre- quently observed species were serpulid polychaete worms, the' barnacles, • Tetraclita sguaznosa and Balanus sp , the rock oyster, (Ostrea lurida) and the gastropods, Serpulorbis squamigenis 'and Acanthina spirata. The site was characterized as a cairn water, protected area.' No wave ' swash, activity was evident in this habitat. Water visibility ranged from l'.,S - 2.5 feet. Sediment consistency was that of well-sorted sand. Site, 2 This area was' similar to Site 1-in most respects. However, there was the 'inclusion of a few 'species which more typify the well-circula- ted waters of sites 3,-6 near the proposed bridge. These were the • brown alga, Sargassum' muticurn (a species introduced from Japan), hermit crabs (Pagurus sp.), green anemones (Anthopleura elegantissiina) - ' and the file limpet, Collisella limatula. B-9 I Table 1 Marine biota associated with rock riprap habitat at eight sites in Outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon Sites 1 2 3 4 5 4 . 6 7 8 ALGAE Sargassum muticum X X X X Corallina vancouveriensis x x Laurencia sp I X X Gigartina. sp. . . ,.. .. X.. S ANIMALS COELENTERATES Anthopleura elegantissima X X S MOLLUSCS; GASTROPODS . . ,. . Acanthina spirata X X X X Collisella conus . . . X . Collisella digitalis .........X x . .. . Collisella limatula X X X X X Collisella scabra X X X x Collisella ochracea X X X X Littorina scutulata X X Lottia gigantea X X X Tegula gallina . X . .xe X . X Tegula funebralis X X X MOLLUSCS - BIVALVES Chama arcana x Ostrea lurida. . . . . . . . . x: Mytilus calif onnensis x X' . x SeptiferThifurcatus x x Protothaca stazninea ' .. . . . X X x X1. MOLLUSCS - CHITONS Mopalia mucosa X Nuttalina fluxa x x x POLYCHAETES Serpulidae X X X X X X X X Phragmatopoma califoriva X X X X S B-1O Table 1 (Contd.) • ..: . . * - '_.I,• -- - Sites 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • ANIMALS . * ECOPROCS Watersipora cucullata X X X X CRUSTACEAN — BARNACLES - -. .chthainalus fissus ; x -: x x x x Tetraclita sguainosa ... X -X X. - X . X - X X X Ba1anus Sp.: X - I X - X . - -. .X. X . X X Pollicipes polymerus X X X X • .- I CRIJSTACEA - CRABS Pachygrapsus crassipes X X X X X X X • X Petrolisthés cabrilloi I X X - - . - X X Pagurus sp.-. - - :- . . . -- - . . - . . x -. X - . Ic. ....... : FISHES . - . . . - - - Gire1lanigica _ .- 2 • - . .. -. X • ... - I .. . . . - - -• - T1 - 1 • • • - O • B-li :. ••• •• ,• S S Site : This area, adjacent to the inlet channel, ,receives-good wave swash circulation. Wave surge on the rocks was observed to dissipate within • 150 yards of the bridge overpass. Mollusc and barnacle populations * are well-developed in this area Molluscs included the California : mussel (Mytilus californiensus), the turban snails (Tegula gallina and T. funebralis) and several species of limpets (Collisella, Lottia, Table 1) It is an area with excellent water circulation, as typified by these species.. Barnales included the goosenec1, Pollicipes polymerus, and balànoid forms,5 Chtharnalus fissus, Tetraclita sguamósa and Balanus sp. Most of the above biota and those listed in Table iwere also ob- served living on the concrete support pilings of the existing bridge. Bottom sediments below the riprap were coarse and well-sorted. The brown alga,. Sargassiim muticuin, was observed in the tidal channel. Sites 4 and 5 •. 0 These rock jetty areas, located seaward of the existing bridge, had similar faunal compositions, typified by species tolerant of open coast wave surge conditions. Wave swash of six feet was typical dur- ing our reconnaissance surveys. There is a well-developed spray zone fauna characterized by the snail, Litforina scutulata, the limpet, Colliselia digitalis, and the small acorn barnacle, Qithanalus fissus. • Unlike the inner lagoon stations where algae wereabsent from the rip- rap, there was a small algal population on the jetty rocks consisting • of the three red algal species, Corallina vancouveriensis, Gigartina sp., and Laurencia sp. • At the tidal level, below, the: spray zone, the S .0 0 , * • S B-12 S 'the. major fauna were 'mussels (Mytilus californiensus) and gooseneck 0 barnacle (Pollicipes polymerus). The crab, Pachygrapsus'crassipes, was prevalent,, scurrying, among. the rocks. Site 0 '0 • The fauna of this area, on the north side of.the inlet channel. ins id the bridge, were similar to site 3 across the channel. How- ever, the mussel and gooseneck barnacle populations were not as 0' well-developed. Visibility was five feet on May 15 and two feet on May 22. Site 7'' . ' . ' . " ' ' ' " •"- ' This area, well removed from the inlet channel, had a more typi- cal, calm water bay fauna.. The riprap was characterized by, dense: populations of 'the' acorn barnacle, Chthainalus fissus ..and fewer 'numbers 'of barnacles,'Têtraclita ~uosa'and"BaIanu"sp..Her'i't'crabs'(Pagurus sp.) and the' 'grapsid crab (Pachygrapsus' crassipes), were present in low, nunthers 'and with a high proportion of juvenile recruits The dominant • , , . .. crustacean in this area wa:s the' porcelain crab., Petrolisthes cabrilloi, which resided underneath small' rocks.' . Water visibility in this area was about two-feet. Sediments were . " , ' . 0 0 . siltier than those encountered at sites 1 through 6. There was virtu- ally no wave swash" in this area. . Site 8 This area, on the eastern shore,' was characterized by calm, tur- bidwatérand an extensive vertical extension of rock riprap. . The fauna was .similar' to the other bay stations, particularly site 7. 0 ' However, a well-developed littleneck clam population was found living B-13 I • at low tide level in the gravel-filled interstices between the large blocks of riprap The biota of this site are listed in Table 3 Site 9 This area was not extensively examined. We noted this area for its well-developed eelgrass beds located approximately 50.m offshore The rock biota was similar to site 1 (Chthamalus cover) IV GENERAL StJvvIARY Outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon is an artificially created and main- tained shallow coastal lagoon with a typical fauna for its geographic location and prevailing physical/chemical conditions It differs from natural marshlands of inner lagoon areas by having an introduced rock riprap border and an absence of sloping marshland vegetation Conse- quently, marsh bird populations are not well-developed Undoubtedly, the Encina Power Plant, with its intake volume of 540 mgd and periodic dredging activity, imposes the major man-induced perturbation upon the system High suspended loads of particulate matter characterize the lagoon due to the close proximity of the bottom to the surface and from flushing of material from productive inner lagoon areas Very few -bird.species (California gull, pigeons) were observed in this area, though this may vary between seasons as a function of coastal bird migration patterns V IMPACT ASSESSMENT FRavI PROPOSED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION If the proposed construction is performed as planned, biological impacts will be either temporary or minor in scope This is primarily. B-14 due to- thehigh rate ofwatercirculation past the site, ndthe pre- adaption of.the fauna to fairly high suspended particulate loads Potential impacts from the development are listed below. 1 Temporary (a) Disturbance of indigenous bird and fish faunas at the inunediate construction site, probably within no more than 200 yards ) Potential ateratibn of the sand bottom community within' 30 yards. of the bridge if pilings are insert- • ed and construction equipment alters the local flaw pattern 2 Permanent • • Loss of the hard substrate biota on the present sup- port pilings which are to be removed Loss of habitat for any fish species which may reside near the above support pilings Alteration of channel flow hydrodynamics as a result of piling removal These flat pilings induce a slight wave dampening effect in the channel. lVhen removed, a slightly greater exposure to coastal wave and surge action will be experienced by the rock biotas Just in- • side the bridge.:,This effect may light1y alter the biotic composition of the rock and sand biota for pro- bably no more than 100 yards This effect would not be deleterious in terms of any valued resource species • B-15 0 RESULTS OF 'A BIOLOGICAL. RECONNAISSANCE OF CUTER AGUA FIOA LAGOON IN RELATION TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION UPON THE RESIDENT MARINE BIOTA by Terence D Parr Benthos,. Inc. 5 5 2583 Via Merano . Del Mar, CA • May 26, 1981 • . . 5 .5 5, : ' V ,• : ., '• V V V. V • TO: New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc V V 1859 Fifth Ave. San Diego, Ca. 92101 V V V FROM: Joseph R. Jehi, Jr. V V V V V SUBJECT: Bridge and Highway improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard V V V This memorandum suininarizs my-findings regarding pos.sible V V environmental impacts of the proposed bridge and highway improvements V for. Carlsbad. Boulevard, as outlined in your Preliminary Early V V V Consultation Report. I visited the area specifically with reference to this project V . ' on 16.May 1981, and have visited the site frequently for many V many years. V V V I'... The major concern expressed in a letter (24-,April, 19$I) from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the City of Carlsbad deals with I. wildlife values in the western part of Agua 1-fedionda Lagoon that: V might be adversely affected by increased siltation or turbidity V during the proposed cOnstruction. 'Thereis also specific concern V V V for the. California Least Tern and California Brown Pelican, which V V V V receive special protection under the Endangered Species Act. . . . My comments on the road and, bridge improvements follow. ' V V V Comments on Eidangered Species are appended. The roadway.Improvernents to the roadway. will probably. I 'necessitate the removal of a narrow and interrupted, fringe Of , , vegetation, mostly consisting of common native species'. They . V V will revègetate the site quickly, if desired. I found no evidence of other widlife populations along the roadày except for occasional transient scavenging birds (Red-winged Blackbird, House Finch, Starling).: In my. opinion the proposed' road work will 'have 'no effect' on either the beach:of lagoon conununities:thatborder'the'road,' as the existing roadway is sufficiently broad to accomodate: con-' V V struction activities,, without .introducing any spoil or debris into V V the lagoon. . ' : ', ' ' V • , V ' • :. ' . V.'.. , V. V.. • .: V '• V . V , V V V :. V , , .. V The bridge. :Replacement of the existing bridge seems the major subject of concern. .The pilings are used by many species of invertebrates (rno'stly starfi'h and mussels) and the underside of the bridge provides. 'nesting sites for agroup of Rock Doves (CothmorL Pigeon). " Removal..of the'existing . bridge will cause, temporary dislocation-of these species, but repopulation will take place '(even by the pigeon," . unfortunately) as soon as the new bridge is completed.. There is currently a high rate of-natural sedimentation in, the lagoon, which must be dredged annually. It seems 'unlikly that the*iount 'of material disturbed by construction activities will add significantly to that total, or that, the volume of 'sediment transported will michexceed-thatdeposited or transported by normal tidal action or winter storms. The channel of the lagoon takes a sharp bend immediately to the east of the bridge' and the current is abated in that area. Accordingly, most of the sediment load,-will be deposited' (during an incoming ti'de).a very short, distance from the'bridge. Should this cause. 'a problem the contractor can deal with it easily. Half of the increased sediment load will be transported seaward, du±ing the outgoing tides, and, will be deposited' on local beaches, replenishing the sand that is eroded annually. Wildlife. Although the western portion of the lagoon is visited by many bird species annually, I know of no evidence' that either, Least Tern 'or Brown Pelicans use the area for'feeding. Pelicans may land there occasionally to rest or bathe, but the most-used-roost site is the jetty on theocean boache jetty is fent.ed and the' birds that use it are fully accustomed to human activity. In summary, '.1 find no evidence that the proposed project will have any deleterious effects,, direct or indirect, on local wildlife populations at AguaHedionda Lagoon. And I,can envision no substantive reason. to restrict the construction-activities to any particular time of year.. C-2 California Least Tern. This species nests in the eastern portion of the lagoon in an area remote from the proposed construction. Populations there in the last fiv& years have varied from no nesting pairs (1976) to a maximum, of 23 (1979),with an average of 12-15 pairs (Reports of Least Tern Recovery Team).. The Fish and Wildlife,Service asserts that the tern uses "the western protion 'Of the lagoon for feeding on small fishes." There is no evidence in the reports of the Recovery Team regarding feeding areas, and in my experience the western portion of the lagoon is used only infrequently and is not a major feeding site . The FWS has conditionedadredging permit to prohibit dredging from April-September "sothat excessive turbidity is not produced during the months.. .whenterns are present." The tacitassurnption is that turbidity adyersely affects tern nesting success, though it is not stated in what way (e.g., by interfering with visibility, by affecting fishspecies and the survival of their eggs or larvae?). In any event, the terrs have not done well in the lagoon in recent years despit prohibitions and protection, and it is clear that tl'e major factor affecting their poor reproductive success is human intrusion into the colony, most frequently in the form of ORV activity. California Brown Pelican.Although the Fish and Wildlife Service contends that the pelican feeds in tl'e western portion of the lagoon, I know of no evidence fo that. Despite its status as Endangered, the species is now common to abundant in California. In a recent study (Condor 83: 1-15, 1981), Briggs et al. showed that pelicans concentrate near nesting colonies during the breeding season (usually laté'December-JUne). but disperse ide1y in autumn. Mainland beaches are seldom used by adults in this region; immatures occur therewith greater frequency. :while it may seem paradoxical that the'FWS has authorized 'dredging during some months when' young pelicans are mostly likely to be present in the lagoon, the action is justified because.there is no evidence that pelicans use the lagoon to any significant extent at any. season. C-3 .•. 0• AN ANALYSIS OF. THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE • AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS Prepared for: City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California • S Performed by NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. • 1850 Fifth: Avenue • • ,San Diego, California 82101 •• 1 •• •• • ••• 0 •• S . .• • INTRODUCTION . The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the potential. environmental effects of traffic from the proposed construction of the bridge and Highway improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road. The proposed project is located within the City. of • Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego (Figure 1 and 2). In general the site extends along Carlsbad Boulevard from 300 feet south of Tamarack Aenué' for a'distance of approximately 1.2 miles south. to Cannon Road; f EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. Carlsbad Boulevard, according to the City. of .. Carlsbad's Circulation Element within the General Plan, is designated as a major arterial.' As. such, its design .width would be.82 feet curb to curb within an 102 foot right-of-way. Major arterials are generally designed for minimal access . and limited on-street parking. • Traffic volumes in excess of • • 20,000 vehicles per day generally necessitate construction 'of, a major arterial with.four lanes,, with or without parking (Carlsbad Circulation Element, 1975). • . , •: S • S • Currently, Carlsbad Boulevard is a two-lane roaday H. • with approximately 40 feet of'pavement. Approximately on- quarter mile north 'of Tamarack Avenue, the pavement widens to-Jour lanes.. The existing bridge, which was built in 1934 is 41 feet 10 inches frcmôutside edge to. outside edge. It has been classified as structurally deficient and in need of replacemet. S • , . . ', . . ' . .. I.. D-1 • . . . S S • •,• , . S • .. S, ,, NEW HORIZONS PIJnn4n2 Consu1tnts. Inc. OCEANSIDE\C VISTA CABLSBAC PROJECT 7 JULIAN ESCONDIDO AAMONA DEL MAM I I L. CUYAWACA \- _-' \'. •.t.. I ri \ . MAR NIPA LA JOLLA -....... ALPINE MISSION BEACH EL CAJON LA MESA SAN POINT LOMA DIEGO - NAil )NAL . :.. .- CITY N? CHULA VISTA IMPERIAL BEACH -. - -- - - - - V• 0 0 Figure 1.: . Regidnal Location D-2 tn-fly VYflflrPflt?fl fly I, - -_ L1LbW' A-AX.LLV00 £ £LIL1iLL ,5A1U.L J.LIL. \:". T s F \ \ - - (/55/ \\ ,, (/\(/ \ - rL AGUNA\r \ / 82 \\\ / Kelly High Sch Academy % - * ° -= / - — -•-•'-•"\ %\\ .\.. .,fl _c .. VL ark A . ... " C >7 \?ç S h A RLSBAU \/5 , . — Pine A \ \7 FO Sch \ .aUe Jr High ,ch* r - --t-' \ase-\...s\- -c' 0>77 Field ' 'A ft \e4 V Sch\- - — Jefferson ,ch - — - •,\ ':J/ ? •• i so- </LDGATIO \_ C lea? eservoir - • - • - - 3 Substa ter - - l8flkS .100 S_s / 27 71, Farr - -• s..-Ir - - L Figure 2 •. Carlsbad Boulevard/Bridge Location (Bridge No. 57-C-133) (Portion of U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey 7.5' Quadrangle) 0 D-3 I Along either side of Carlsbad Boulevard there are various areas available for parking. A survey of this section. revealed that approximately 396 spaces are currently available including parking on unpaved shoulder areas The posted speed limit along this segment of Carlsbad Boulevard is 35 mph During peak summer hours travel may be.as slow as 15 mph and during the evenings as high as 45 mph (Shipley, 1981) Traffic volumes for this roadway are available frDm the City of Carlsbad, SANDAG, and Caltrans Table 1 below illustrates both the variation between sources and the. vària- H . tions in seasonal use It is likely that the discrepency in the Caltrans figures is due to restrictions incorporated into the forecasting model, that suggests that the typical driver chooses the route that costs the least time, while logical human behavior is often less consistent This res- triction, . . triction tends to improperly-load the north/south freeway traffic in this area and underestimate other north/south routes such as Carlsbad Boulevard TABLE 1 . . . . . Current 1995 2000 Source - Date - ADT ADT ADT City of Carlsbad' 8/23/79 15,321 NA NA 8/11/80 15,724 NA NA 12/15/80 9,626 NA NA • • 3/10/81 12,065 NA NA SANDAG2 . • • • 1980 • 15,300 - . 22,000 • 25000 1981 15,700 Ca1tran3 • ___ --- . 12,000 13,700 •••.• • . Tisdale, 1981 • • - • • • 0 Thompson, 1981 3) Sage,1981 0 - 0 • . • 0 0 • S 0 D-4 0 0 • Based-.on' analysis of available City of Carlsbad • traffic count printouts and on-site observation, it was determined that the primary peak periods along this corridor are between 10:30 - 11:30' a.m; and 2:00 -3:00 p.m. While volumes do, in fact, vary according to the, season, peak hour • apparently remains constant throughout the year. However, another slight peak occurs around 4 p.m. when the SDG&E employees leave work'. ''he Encina Power Plant employs ' approximately 140 people. Therefore, on any given' day,, at least . 280 vehicles trips along Carlsbad Boulevard can-be attri- buted to. these employees.'.' ' As is common. to .most beach, area.',circulation systems,, congestion appears tobé the worst condition prevalent on Carlsbad Boulevard. Parking, ' since:the roadway was restr'iped, delineating the.parking areas, has been 'less ofa problem than before Previously, rear-end accidents were common, involving cars attempting'to back into spaces along the 'two-lane road (Shipley 1981). A: field survey' made' along Carlsbad Boulevard ' from the bridge south to Cannon Road'reealèd approximately T'6 available parking spaces Many of these spaces include off-street parking on the west 'side of the roadway. Along the eastern side of Carlsbad Boulevard there is little, ,' ' in theway of-formal parking" space's, however, vehicles do parallel.park'aiong the shoulder in a few places. In addi- tion, some parking ,is available (approximately 40, to 48 spaces) at the Enema fishing area fronting the'Agua Hedionda • , Lagoon. This site represents" the possible location of a • : '' proposed' new-parking- lot with a capacity of., 116 vehicles in 9-foo,t ,wide spaces. An agreement would 'need.to b'e'reached • . ' ' ' ' '.' ' between San Diego Gas and Electric Company.,' which owns the site, and the city of Carlsbad. IMPACTS The pot'enti'alimpacts of the proposed 6on.struction of' the bridge and improvement of Carlsbad Boulevard should be considered in terms of''both'shorc and long-term effects. The short-term impacts to traffic will vary according, to the construction method selected. It is anticipated 'that the long-term -effect of the proposed project is to improve traffic circulation. in the project area, and to provide safer circulation for bicyclists, 'pedestrians'and joggers. •, During construction of the bridge, it i. expected that a temporary bridge would be constructed parallel to and west of the existing bridge. .This would be enclosed by temporary barricades on either side' and allow for two 11-foot' , traffic lanes plus a pedestrian walkway (Figure 3). This diversion of traffic would allow for construction of the new bridge 'to' proceed-with little impact. The' reduction of travel width while the bridge is under construction can',bè expected to result in an incremental increase in' congestion along this corridor, especially at peak traffic hours and during the summer months, if construction took place in the summer. - . 2 The proposed widening of Carlsbad Boulevard, to f'our lanes will eliminate the existing west-side- 'parking lot and' will' also' eliminate 'much of the shoulder currently used ' ' for parking. These will' be' replaced with an eight-foot parking strip for approximately 3245 feet with an approximate, capacity, for 162 cars; 'Thèp'otential impact is a reductianof beach . ' 'park ing spaces by approximately 34 percent or roughly 71 space's.' D-6 ' • S. •0 0, • NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc.. I I • . _!?:.. 0 1.1:1 I ! •I .11 I 0j I ...•i • lilt iii I 1 It I lrd I I III I IIli I 1111 I I II II I /I ;: i H • 00 -\ 'H "I I I' If- 777 • . .0. - -- mr.,.,.,..-.,,,.n ............... • rM1I •nAfl IlnI II pagAnn Figure 3 Proposed Project Preliminary Roadway Plan Sheet 1 NEW HORIZONS Planning.Consu1tants1 Inc. .uI) I Il Ii -- ( it 1 ti I I I IIII \ - ev (II) - pIIII,,th,,l,v - Figure 3 - - Proposed Project Preliminary Roadway Plan - - -- -. Sheet 2 - - Amok • • • •: • • • • S: H .. •. NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. . I:. : • :. ../i,i7., —— •,••• ,;.. / GIAGE 'I II, - .,. - 1A. lI IJ !lI fit t1h i IJ lJ'ziIthJkd - •: . ......II. . - PHASED MIDGE COPISTR(ICIION W. S IS I I \II L) jz- - .. • • • • PAflKIU AUJOHMIQ • L4Z7 - - - . • SLOE AUJOUWIfl - '• - IuIuI POCKII • I (I (CAL I(OM)WAY c iion TYPICAL flOADWAY ',I(IIO(I (flELIMINAIlY IlOAD WAY PLAN CA[ILSUAD ((OUt EVAIU) Figure 3 Proposed Project Preliminary Roadway Plan • Sheet 3 A certain. incremental increase in congestion and inconvenience is to be expected during the three or five months estimated for bridge construction, however the road improvements will be much quicker. Actual construction of the road improvements is anticipated, to be. completed in three to four weeks. . . . In order to lessen impacts to the environment, construction can be limited to the off-season months, with no construction -during the July/August. peak beach season. The project design incorporates the provision of a ten-foot wide parking strip, accommodating approximately 140 vehicles, along., the western side of the proposed right- of-way road expansion Additional parking will be provided via the implementation of either one or both of the following alternative measures. . Alternative One This alternative would improve and expand the presently 'unpaved, partially utilized parking area at the Encina fishing area; This area is currently owned and . privately maintained by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company as a beach-related community service to the general public The improved utilization of the property for parking purposes will provide additional beach-related parking . spaces, and still retain enough area to be. used for recrea- tional fishing. The creation of a 116-space lot would .:increase existing available parking by..approximately 76 spaces (Table 2) Implementation of this measure will necessitate a contractual arrangement with SDG&E for increased parking,' D-10 • ': . '•' although SDG&E currently allows public parking in. this area. The development of this area as an improved parking lot will increase pedestrian crossing of four lanes of traffic to obtain access 'to the beach. A safe method of providing this access will be necessary. Access is recommended along a pedestrian walkway, under the bridge or a pedestrian overcrossing above the roadway. Alternative Two This alternative would provide additional beach parking on the west sjd.e of. the roadway just south of the,'-warm. • water jetty on land which is.presently.owned by SDG&E, leased to the State of California and operated by the Department of Parks and Recreation. "The lease is due to expire in. August 1981 and the State of California is reportedly negotiating • for aèquisition of this property: The City'of Carlsbad should consider entering into a co-operative agreement with the State 'of California to provide • : parking improvements on this property. No extension of 'right of-way would be necessary for such an 'agreement. .Development of this alternative, coupled with the 10- - foot parking strip as s.hown:on the, proposed project map, would completely mitigate all loss of parking from the proposed street-widening. •, •• ' ' ' • Actual engineering and"de,sign' for parking on this • • ' SDG&E or Stäte,of California owned property is not in':luded , • in this proposed bridge replacement' and street widening. project Rather, it is proposed as an additional project • • '. •' • ,. • D-11 • • I 0 Alternative Three In the absence of a cooperative arrangement. on Alternative One or Alternative Two, a thid mitigation is possible completely within the right-of way Additional parking spaces will be made available by restriping the existing Carlsbad State Beach parking lot, north of the proposed bridge replacement Using 19 feet by 9 feet per prking space, it will be possible to increase the capacity of) this existing lot from its current 121 spaces to 165 This would also include four 19-foot by 11-foot handicapped spaces.. These measures can be implemented with the approval of the State Department of Parks and Recreation The 10-foot parking lane proposed on the west side of the roadway can be extended, beginning approximately 725 feet south of the planned strip shown on the proposed widening plans, and continuing for roughly 800 feet south to just north of the existing homes This would add an additional 38 parking places, resulting in a net increase of -7 parking spaces over the existing parking presently available. - / TABLE 2 EXISTING AND POST-PROJECT PARKING - EXISTING PARKING Spaces - • Location. 152 West Parking Lot I 121 • North Parking Lot • - -. • 63 Western. Roadside - 40 • Encina- Fishing Area 20 • Eastern Roadside • • 'I • 396 I D-12 • EXISTING AND POST-PROJECT PARKING POST-PROJECT PARKING • Spaces " Location • • r--. .- * .1.40' •, t1LJoJaxki.ng—S-t-r--i-p -r-t-h—P-r--k-i-g---Lo-t o,nieP BY 1 ° 20 E OSPROJECTPA(ING Alternative Three - •• _ Location • 140 - 10 foot Parking Strip •• 165 - North Parking Lot (Réstriped) I 40 Encina Fishing Lot 20 Eastern Roadside 38 Addition of 10 foot parking lane :;: r,''' • • - - - The incorporation óf.Alternative One, Alternative H Two,. ox AlternativeThree into 'result the project will in the maintenance or enhancement of existing public parki ng • on-site or in the project vicinity. The overall.project. Will aid' and: éontributé to •increase public 'beach access and no f. additional mitigation' measures are deemed appropriate at this. time. •' •, " ' - I • • k - - - & • D-13 • '-•-,'•' • .•_•i '--•- '•. - - ____J -,•..&&_• I - • - - - -- -- - ' • '' " '. '., ' "' 'S S. 'AN ANALYSIS OF THE NOISE IMPACTS 'RELATIVE TO THE CARLSBAD ' S BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT • Prepared for 'City of Carlsbad .1200 Elm Avenue': S Carlsbad, California .. • ' S ', S S S Prepared by NEW 'HORIZONS Planning COnsultants, Inc. • S S 5• ,. 1850 Fifth Avenue 5 5 S S • ' S 55 San Diego, California • 8210.1 • S S S S ' • S S • S 1981 April 5 •.• S 5 5 5 5;55 ' ' ' ' EXISTING NOISE Noise from the proposed project will consist of that emanating from the traffic on-the-section of roadway described , in Section III. In addition,, construction noise associated with the present bridge demolition and construction of the replacement bridge will be experienced The proposed widening of the present two lane roadway with a four lane roadway will • also result in additional construction noise as well a. move the noise source somewbat closer to the receptors due to the road widening Land use adjacent to the noise generatorshas. been discussed in Section V. B.. of the EA text. For the .thost part, adjacent activities are. recreational in nature and are asso- ciated with fishing activities on water east of Carlsbad Boulevard or surfing, s'1nming or beach related activities on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard. There are five re- sidences overlooking the northern end of the project and residences adjacent to the project site on the southern end; • .These receptors, as well as all other receptors are currently • subjected to noise levels which represent the combination of traffic noise from Carlsbad Boulevard, surf noise from the ' ocean front, noise emanating, from operations associated with the San Diego Gas and Electric Encina' Power Plant and f normal beach and lagoon activity nOise. W. Existing noise levels were measured on February 13, 1981 at the locations along Carlsbad Boulevard as shown in Figure 1. Duringthe measurement period, a count of trucks and -automobiles was made, to be incorporated into the analysis -- . S • , • E-1 •( • 'S S ' . ••. , : S LL £LILLLL1, '..ULIUil.. calLb, IL1(. - \ TIS __ ____ \• 1125 Res\ /' - S Q~ ct k 5 \ 7CAUNA N brarY)( , \ ,,\ ly Agam 40 Sch Mgn-I ARLSBAD e JrH gh ch: Ak C/ ) - \p / \ m \O / \' \ \ c - \\ \ / ' - ,12 Cb St P /\'\ k<\ %SCh t el \\\ eterson 2'69 I A. II o 40 .- tt 4 \p \. O22Qq V. .7 \ 7 eservoir Substa Tanks I 1. Noiè- I1easurementLocáiori (Portion of U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey 7.5' Quadrangle) E-2 7 Measurements were made using a General Rad•i.o 1945 Community Noise Analyzer equipped with a one-inch microphone. The instrument was calibrated before and after the measure- ment session andfound to be within tolerance. . Traffic volumes on Carlsbad Boulevard are under the direct influence of seasonal variations resulting from beach activity. Discussions with the. City of Carlsbad (Tisdale,. 1981) indicated that summertimeAverage Daily Traffic (ADT) • is on the order of 1570.0 whereas. wintertime ADT is .around 9500. Since themeasurements were made during the winter period, the values were adjusted to reflect noise from the expected summertime peak hour traffic volume of 1490 vehicles • per 'hours, including five percent trucks. The results, indicate that at a distance Of 50 feet the hourly equivalent sound level (Leq) is 75 and' the L10 is 77 dB(A). . The. extrapolation of these levels to residences, in particular, must account '• • for the topgraphical features-as well as-existing block walls. Computation of these corrections used the methodology contained in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (Report No. FHWA-RD-77-108). ,The results are given on Table 1 which shows the existing hourly Leq at the face of each of each impacted dwelling. IMPACT The present day noise levels are compared with the exterior noise design levels contained in FHPM 7-7-3 for the. activity categories E and B. Note that in order to I). . compare the residential noise levels, the interior Leq of 52 was increased by 10 decibels to 'account for the noise • reduction attributable to an open window. Existing noise levels range higher and lower than the exterior design, O ' levels as shown in Table2: ......................... E-3 . . ' TABLE 1 Post No Exterior Existing Project Project Construction Design Closed Land Use Leg. Leg. . Leg. Leg. Leg. Window. North end residential profile 68 69.5 69.5 76-86 62(2) . 72(3) S A-House 10 •00 . 0 . 0 0 0 North end residenti al- prof ile 0 59 60.5 60.5 67-77 62(2) 72 (3) A-House 2 North end residential profile 57 58.5 58.5 65-75 62(2) 1.72(3) A-House 3 : •• 0 Nor th,end residential profile 54 0 55•55 55.5 62-72 62(2) 72(3) . tT1 B-House 1 0 South end residential profile 67 67.5 0 68.5. 75-77 0 62(2) 72(3) C-House 1 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 •. 0 South end residential profile 0 69 0 69.5 . 70.5 0 0 7779 0 (2)' 0 0 72(3) :. •..• 0 • 0 D-House 01 0 0 -. 0 0 0 . .. • 0 South end residential profile 64 64.5 65.5 • 7274 62 (2) • 72 3) • •. 0• 0, E-House 1 Beach area - west of current. • 72 73.5 n.5 : 80-83 67 0 - 0 67. 0 • • parking (80 ft Park at Corner of Cannon & 74 /5 5 75 5 82-84 67 67 Carlsbad Boulevard (60 ft Park playground Cannon & . • 66 • . • 67.5 • . 67.5 • 74-76 • . 67 . . .67 • . .... •: • Carlsbad Boulevard (60 ft Frcm FHPM 7-7-3, Table 1 Assumes interior 52 Leq+ 10 dB for open window = 62 Leg exterior* 0 • : • • •• • (3) Aies interior 52 Leg + 20 dB for closed window = exterior 0Ø• . • .;• . 0.0.. .0...:, Activity Category House Existing Leg Open Window Leg SdB E A-i 68 62 A-2 59 62 A-3.. 57. 62 -5 B-i 54 - 62 -8 C~l 67 62 +5 D-i 69 62 +7 E-i 64 62 +2 B Beach 72 67 +5 Park (60ft) 74 67 +7 Park(210ft) 66 67 -i .5 Sc There are three. alternative actions which require: noise impact analysis The first of these, the no project alternative will, from a noise point of view essentially maintain the status quo..*,Future year (1995) traffic volume is expected tobe22000 ADT (Agency Meeting 1979) This translates to an increase of l..-,5,, decibels in the hourly, equivalent sound leiel Such small increase is, essentially undetectable Therefore, it is concluded that the no project alternative will result in a small but non-significant change *in thenoise levels affecting House A-1, C-1, D1 on the Beach and Park area (60 -fe'et). - The proposed action will result in a widening of the existing roadway, particularly on'thel west side of the right-of-way. IihajëfTf tof iiihTeioTl'oser. 1t-a-t -he e eST ongthisiiEh e r n_endfJi..pr a- c tThee x pan $ iftbeTro:adf r • e s. Alt-hoigh—the—no1iT1717 enc f set s.t Iii ir ease5 ________ bc ome s—s 1rgy MI ree f f i7ë_abi t—1—d ec-i-bl—a iEff) — source moves doer to the barrier thno rs e-1'eVëTf =rr esfd'ëffc e Another alternative is a differ ent alignment,' -of-way has been previously established however, the right This coupled with he adjacent land uses essentially negate the viability of any other alternative alignment. For the most part, any alignment within the present right-of-way will have the same noise impact Rl:acemeñt of the ex4sting 2 lane bridge with a .. new 4-lane bridge will result in no significant change in 'that noise level except due to theconstruction process.: . ., • S •, E-6. .•.• . -5- : . The existing noise evels,the post-project noise levels, the no project and the design nois.e levels from FHPM 7-7-3 are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. It is clear that at certain residences and the beach and park area, the existing noise levels are above the exterior design noise levels in FHWA 7-7-3., The added noise due to the project will raise these levels an additional 1_5 decibels However, widening the road along the southern end of the ,project will result in a net increase, in noise of 0.5 decibels. Such an increase, is not a major impact, since an increase of. at least 3 decibels is geerally accepted as the threshold of I.... percept'ability. . •• . Construction noise during the project will consist of that from bridge demolition, construction and roadway surfacing The exact compostiion of construction equipment is presently unclear, however, the range of possible equipment I• • goes from a pile driver (101 dB A) at 50 feet) to a roller (74 dB (A) :at 50 feet). Data given in reference USEPA NTID 300'.1, 1971) indicates the possible list of equipment, : •. . . ., • ,.• . . ... TABLE 2 • . .•,•. . . CONSTRUCTION NOISE •' . Construction Phase . , Hourly Leg at 50 'ft. Clearing ' . , 84 •' Excavation 84 Foundation . •. • 85 (93)(1) • Erection,83 Finishing , •. '.• 85 •.. (l) . Assumes use of 'pile driver 50dI of the time: • . .•• . '. ,• ,,• , '. E-7". . ... L1U LLIe, LdLLU1JS iOU PUOL1C works construction Utilizing these values and the associated times of operation it is estimated that the construction noise will be that shown in Table 2 The impact of construction noise at the various receptors varies For example, for those residences near the bridge, construction noise will range from 76 dB(A) for the closest home to 65 dB(A) for the farthest home If a pile driver for foundation construction, the noise levels will be between 86 and 75 dB(A) Noise further to the south will be limited to road surfacing activities which will be about 85 dB(A) at 50 feet Expected noise levels at the residences on the southern end of the project will range from 722 dB(A) to 79 dB(A) Although these levels are in excess of the design values as shown in Table 1, they, represent a temporary significant impact. '- 1MITIGATION For the most part, the noise impact of the proposed project is only marginally greater (0.5 decibels) than the noise impact from the no project alternative This is such a-small increase that the project noise impact is non- - significant. The construction noise impact maybe substantial, 'hOwever, on the order of 8 to 18 decibels depending upon the receptor and its location from the particular. work site. Since the construction noise impact results from the use of a range of equipment, the noise levels of any particular - piece of equipment selected by the contractor will be the final- determinant. The data used to estimate the construction E-8 . • noise impactwas. published ten. years ago as part of an effort to implement a regulatory program for quieting equipment. In addition in the same time frame the Occupational Safety and Health Act set forth construction worker noise exposure levels. S As a consequence these two efforts have combined to reduce somewhat the noise from construction activities by virtue of equipment improvements. The pile driving operation is the noisiest .event and may bemitig.ated by-using a vibrating driver rather than the impact type. This will reduce the level by about lO.decibels'. Further reduction of the impact upon the effected residences may be achieved through the restriction of noisy ' activities to the normal waking hours and a prohibition of noisy operations prior to 7 a m in the morning and after 7 p.m.. in the evening.. Although such scheduling restrictions : . . will not reduce the noise level, the action will prevent the ' occurrence of an.impactdurin a.time of day when the • greatest annoyance would occur. ::. . . . It is expected that bridge construction will require 4 to 6 months for completion and' the subsequent' road widening will occur over a several month time period' with exposure to residences on the order of, 2-3 weeks. The temporary nature of the construction activity, the use of a quiet pile dri ver and the proper scheduling of noisy events all combine to yield a temporary noise impact on the order of 8 decibels. Although this level will be perceptible, the intermittent nature of construction noise coupled' with the mitigation measures outlined are felt to result in an unavoid- • able but non-significant impact. ... .. E-9' .'•'•i'.. V V V V V •V V ••V S V V V V • AN ANALYSIS OF THE AIR H V QUALITY IMPACTS RELATED TO V V THE PROPOSED CARLSBAD BOULEVARD V BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT V V • V V • V • V V V • Prepared for: • V • V V V City of Carlsbad V 1200 Elm Avenue • V: V • V V V V V V V Carlsbad, California •• V • VV V V V VV V V V V V Prepared by: • V NEW .HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. V 1850 Fifth Avenue V V V V V V V V San Diego, California 92101 V V V V V V April 1981 • VV ••• V •V METEOROLOGY/CLIMATE The general climate of the project Site, as with all of Southern California, is largely controlled by the position and strength of the high pressure center near Hawaii and the moderating effects of the nearby ocean. Temperatures are cool in summer and mild. in wintr with very small daily and seasonal oscillations.. Hot (above 900F) or cold (below freezing) extremes are rare and do not occur at all in many years. Precipitation averages slightly under 10 inches per year and occurs almost exclusively from latel November to early April except for occasional light drizzles, from heavy early morning stratus clouds during the warmer months Winds are almost always onshore, especially during the summer. In winter, as the land becomes cooler than the ocean, the sea breeze reverses, but during the daytime, winds are still onshore, on most days even during the cooler rronths The wind rose in Figure 1 from the nearby Palomar Airport shows the dominance of onshore flow and a secondary-land breeze maximum quite well The onshore winds are brisk (averaging 7-10mph) and carry any locally generated air pollutants well away from Carlsbad to inland North County. The offshor.ewinds, on the other hand,'are weaker (2-4 mph) 'and often become completely- calm.. These:light, usually nocturnal, winds do allow for stagnation of local emissions. The onshore, winds are generally unpolluted, except wl3en.théy are part of an air trajectory ' offshore from the Los Angeles Basin and then onshore across North County. While the normal pattern of winds usually gives V V Carlsbad .excellent air quality,-the problem of interbasin recirculation on a few days a year can give the Carlsbad area the worst air quality in the San Diego Air Basin F-1 • . • NEW HORIZONS Planning. Consultants, Inc LOCATION Palomar Airport NW :7 X \ ç N X-— \__- v / X ,'.. •..I.' Lw \/ /•: . .. .... Calms = 7.96% gurel Wind Direction Frequency Distribution (Wind Rose) for Palomar Airport (1972-73) F-2 A discussion of •the relationship between meteorology and air quality also needs to consider the question of temper- ature inversions that inhibit any'vertical mixing of low level polluted air and cleaner air aloft. During the warmer, onshore wind months, warm, thinking air in the ocean high pressure cell is, undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine • air perhaps 1000 feet deep. 'Mixing within the marine layer is good, but the marine/subsidence inversion interface traps all polluted air exclusively within the' shallow marine' layer. As the layer moves inland and each surface source adds more pollution from below without any dilution'from above and the pollutants react photocheEnically under abundant sunshine, it • creates the well-known photochemical smog (mainlyozone). • ' Ozone. levels along the ocean', except during the occasional s recirculation phenomenon, are low and increase in moving inland, especially in the foothills where 'the semi-horizontal inversion., intercepts' the iipatd.Slopitig:'terai n. ':. A. second inversion type, important in considering roadway projects, forms at night when winds are.calm. "Air near the ground cools by contact' while the air aloft remains warm This forms shallow radiation inversions that are several hundred feet deep. Coup-led -with light winds, these inversions trap pollutants near surface"sources suhas'freeways or large parking lots and'form highly localized pollution."ht spots." While all seasons experience both characteristic inversion' ' types, they are strongest and most persistent in two charac- teristic air pollution "seasons." Summer' is "usually a period i. of elevated regional levels of photochemical air pollution, especially at inland sites', •and winter is a period' of localized hot spots, especially in county coastal. environments. ' AIR QUALITY In' order to assess the significance of the air quality impact of the proposed bridge and roadway project, that impact, together with ambient baseline levels, must be canpared to ambient air quality Standards (AAQS). These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the publiá health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect that segment of the population most sensitive to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the, elderly, young children, people al- ready •weak with other illness, and those engaged in heavy work or exercise requiring deep 'breathing. Healthy adults can tolerate periodic' exposures to somewhat higher concentra- tions'before adverse .effects are noted. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 'has 'promulgated standards for seven pollution species. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, specify an attainment dead- line of. 1982 with a possible extension to 1987 if reasonable further progress toward attainment is demonstrated by 1982. :' developing national AAQS, states retained the option to set their own standards for otberspecies or exposure times. ,.Because-California has unique air quality problems and had state. standar.ds.,in existence before national AAQS were developed' th&re is considerable diversity between state and national AAQS. Those standards currently in effect are shown in Table (1) The monitoring location nearest the project site by which todetermine compliance with these standards is in: Oceanside at 100 South Cleveland., Measurements at this station are made by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and' are 'generally assumed representative of North County Coastal environs, including the project site4 F-4 Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards - National Standards . -- Concentration Method Primary Secondary Method Oxidant 1 hour 0.10 ppm .. 1200 ug/m3) Ultraviolet - Photometry - - Ozone 1 hour - - 240 ug/m3 (0.12 ppm) Same as Primary Standard Chemlumriescent Method - Carbon Monoxide 12 hour -- 10 ppm (11 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive Infrared Spectroscopy - - ______________ Same as Primary Standards Non-Dispersive Infrared, . Spectrcscopy our - 10 mg/m3 (9 ppm) 1 hour . 40 ppm (46 mg/m3) 40 mg/rn3 (35 ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide • Annual Average - Saltzman Method 100 ug/m3 (0.05 ppm) Same as Primary Gas Phase Chemilumunescence 1 hour 0.25 ppm - Standards (470 ug/m3) Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average - 80 ug/m3 (0.03 ppm) - 24 hour 0.05 ppm 1131 ug/m3) 365 ug/m3 (0.14 ppm) . - . Conductimetric Method Paraosaruillne Method . . 3hóur - - 1300ug/ni' (0.5 ppm) lhgur 0.5 ppm (1310 ug/m3) Suspended. Annual Geometric 60 ug/rn .. 75 ug/m3 60 ug/m3 Particulate Matter Mean .... High Volume. Sampling, , ______________ ______________ High Volume Sampling 24.hour 100ug/rn3 .' 260 ug/m3 . .150 ug/m3 Sulfates 24 hour - . 25 ug/m3 No.61 AIHL Method . Lead • '' 30 day , Average 1.5.ug/m3 No. 54 - AIHL Method Calendar Quarter - . - - . 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 Atomic Absorption . Hydrogen Sulfide' .1 hour , 003 ppm (42 ug/m3) lydroxide, Stracta Cadmium ' .Metnod Hydrocarbons ' (Corrected for Methane) 3 hour (6-9 a.m.) . , - . - 160 ug/m3 . (0.24 ppm) - Same as Primary Standards Flame Ionization Detection Usuruq Gas Chrornatcugraoruy Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethene) ' 24 hour 0.010 ppm (26 ug/m3) Gas Chromatog- raphy (ARB staff report _78-8-3) Ethylene 8 hour, 0.1 ppm 1 hour '0.5 ppm . . Visibility Reducing Particles - 1 observation ' , ' In sufficient amount to - reduce the prevaihng visibility to less than 10 miles when the relative humidity is.less than 70%-- AOOIl('fll ç: (ThlI V IN T14F I .KE TAHOE AIR BASIN: - Carbon Monoxide, 8 hour 6 ppm NDIR (7 mg/m) Visibility 1 observation In sufficient amount to Reducing , reduce the prevailing visibility Particles ' . • to less than 30 miles when the relative humidity is less than 70% F-5 TABLE 2 OCEANSIDE/CARLSBAD AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY (days standards exceeded) 1975 . 1976 1977 1978 1979 OZONE (03). •. . .. 1 HR 70..08 ppm . 43 . 6.9 . 87 71: . 1 HR 70.10 ppm I . : 19 50 61 .' 51 45 H . 1 HR7012 pm,.. . -- . -- 22 20 .22 1.HR7 0.20 ppm 0 7 2 5 7 1 HR 70.35 ppm : ' 0 0. 0; Ii 3 Max 1-HR Conc. (ppm) , 0.19 0.29 0.25 . 0.35 0.36 CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) . .. . . . .... 1 HR 735 ppm 0 0 0 . : 0 0. 8HR79 ppm- 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-HR Conc. (ppm) . : • 10 10 8 9 10 . . Max 8-HR Conc. (ppm) -- . . -- . 3.8 3.5 • 4.0 NITROGEN DIOXIDE .. . . • . , . 1' HR> 0.25 ppm . 1 , .4 2 . 2 0 Max 17HR Conc. (ppm) 0.31 .0.33 0.36 0.32 0.21 • . . . '.. • 0.21 SULFUR -DIOXIDE .• • • • . . •• • 1 HR?0.50 ppm • 0 .0. 0 ,0 ,. • 0 • 24 HRS0.05 ppm' • 0 0 . 0. 0 • 0 H Max 1HR Conc. (ppm) 1 0.03 0.06. 000' 0.03 0.04 • Max2 4-HR Conc. (ppm) ' . -- . -- . - 0.011: . (0.018 .1 PARTICULATES • • : . 24 H17 100. mg/rn3' • :25% . 20,% • • 21% . 40 •• ' 33% . Annual 60 'mg/rn3... ' • . yes yes yes yes ' yes Max .24-HR Cônc. (mg/rn3) '. 172 146 . 173 ' 219 . 180. . ' Annual Avg. (mg/rn3)' • 83 82 82. :88 85 ' F-6 0 S . Monitoring data from the last 5 years -of published data are summarized in Table 2: These suggest that levels of ozone and particulates, generally associated with regional pollution and long distances from asource to a. receptor, exceed AAQS • with considerable regularity. Indicators of local pollution, especially carbon monoxide as a sign. of heavy ne.arby.vehicular activity, are absent. These low CO levels will form the baseline upon which project-related traffic impacts will be superimposed such that there is little probable potential. for the formation of any local CO "hot spots." While the relatively low levels of primary vehicular pollutants is encouraging, the very high ozone levels associated with the intrusion of air into the San Diego Air Basin from the South Coast Air Basin are equally discouraging. 1978 and 1979 experienced the first second stage smog alerts in the entire basin.in a decade with the high levels confined to the Coastal strip frornOceansidè to SolanaBeach, with the pollution sources in the basin emitting more than enough pollutants to cause the standards to be violated by themselves. It is doubly discouraging when the air entering the basin is already 100 percent or more in excess of the standard before • any local contribution is added to the polluted air mass. Based on the trend in the data in Table 2, there • is little likelihood that the, ozone. standard will be reached by 1987 unless there are drastic measures taken to reduce • both .the levels of air pollution entering the basin and the .• •• levels emitted within the basin. The APCD and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG, formerly CPO) prepared an air quality management plan (AQMP) under the acronym RAQS (Regional Air Quality Strategies) that contained a timetable and list of emission reduction tactics to, achieve the standards F-7 and list of emission reduction tactics to achieve the standards as: required. The basic RAQS concept was that the basin could have a planned level of growth 'and still meet all, standards as long as certain input 'assumptions were realized. Included ' in the RAQS tactics and their underlying analyses were assump- tions that the legislature would enact a mandatory vehicle ' inspection program, that new emission standards would. be pro- mulgated for both stationary andi non-roadway mobile sources, ' that new technology would be developed for certain sources, that current emissions were well defined, that air quality ' models accurately predict the necessary level 'of emissions, reductions to achieve standards and that the level of growth used to develop RAQS (the Series IVb Projections') are an accurate forecast of true basin growth levels.. Unfortunately, there are problems with almost every' one of these assumptions. Only three' years after adoption : ,the of the AQMP, a serious shortfall in needed reducti ons i' apparent. considering how much trouble SANDACand the APCD had in findirig'good emission reductions that had 'a tolerable economic and social impact, it is highly doubtful that the basin can reach standards by the 1987 deadline. Unless ' Congress revises the deadline in attainment through the current 'revisions to the Clean Air Actunder debate or there are major changes in technology and the -political climate in the country, San Diego will continue to experience unhealthful levels of air quality. • ' ' On a. positive side the proposed project is well ' consistent with the 1978 RAQS, especially Tactic. T-14 (Traffic • ' Flow-Improvement).- The discu'ssion of Tactic T-14, called a , "maintenance" tactic that will at least letemission levels ' ' not become worse because of increasing congestion and decreasing traffic speeds, predicts a decrease of 1 mph in average ' ' " " .,• ' • F-8 ' ' traffic speed by 1985 and 2 mph by 1995 unless traffic flow improvements such as the proposed project are indeed implemented. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Roadway projects, contrary to most other developments that involve large increases in regional driving patterns with associated air pollution increases, may actuallylgeñerate an air. quality benefit. By accommodating traffic demand .and moving it in the most direct distance with an efficient driving speed, roadway improvements are an effective means of miti- gating the impact of the traffic growth of a region Any negative impacts associated with the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge and Highway Improvements tend to be of avery local nature. During construction, fugitive dust from preparing the roadbed will be carried to nearby receptors, especially the residential development east of the, roadway between Tamarack Avenue and Agua Hedionda LagOon. These same receptors will also be ex- posed to the vehicular emissions from the possible traffic growth along Carlsbad Boulevard. While the dust emissions are • temporary, gaseous pollutant impacts of the traffic growth • will exist throughout the life of.the project.. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS '. . • • The EPA predicts an emission rate of 80 pounds of fugitive dust per day per acre disturbed during construction activities. This rate can,.,be reduced by about 'one-half through regular watering as. required by SDAPCD Ru1.e,50. At 40 pounds per acre.per.'day, the 10ac'r.es or so of roadbed su.face'dis- turbed during, construction activities may reach 400 pounds (0.2 tons). This'cômpares to 200-300 tons/day, emitted' throughout the basin. On a regional scale, the effects of this dust , emission are small Locally, this dust will drift eastward with the prevailing winds Because such dust is of a large 40 diameter particle and composed of mainly inert silicates, such particles are easily filtered by the human breathing pas- sage. Since these large particles have, an appreciable settling, velocity, they settle out rapidly on horizontal surface.s such as cars, foliage, furniture, etc Rather than causing an adverse health impact, these dusts will cause more of a soiling nuisance that will increase the need to wash cars or dust furniture Other construction -emissions-will result from combustion emissions from earthmoving equipment, cement trucks or construction employee travel These emissions are much I less than those from existing travel on Carlsbad Boulevard and are not expected to modify the. generally low ambient pollution levels. There,may' be a few instances of diesel exhaust odor at downwind receptor sites, but as with the fugitive dust emissions, this will cause more of a nuisance. than any unhealthful air quality.- VEHICULAR EMISSIONS IMPACTS The basic aim of the project is to accommodate the increased traffic demand along the coast from a current, summer peak of 15,700 to a projected 22,000 vehicles per day at a design speed of 35 miles per hour. Without the project, the.averáge.sp.eed may drop considerably as congestion increases further. To illustrate the effect of vehicle speed on emissions, Table 3 summarizes the speed/emissions relationship between • 25 mph and 35 mph. A decrease in mean speed of 5 mph increases CO and hydrocarbons by 10 percent A further decrease of average speed by 10 mphbecause of congestion may increase CO and hydrocarbons by 25,percent over the 35 mph design speed. S F-10 ': . • S • . . '' While NO decreases slightly with decreasing speed, the impor- tant pollutant to control to. alleviate-the, regional ozone - problem is hydrocarbons'. By:maintaining the 35' mph speed, -: the project, in its consistency with the AQMP/RAQS plan,' is an. important positive aspect of air quality planning in the face of some otherwise discouraging signs. While the- project'may generate a very 'small regional benefit, there is a potential that the increased traffic will cause increased localized pollution levels. To test this - possibility, 'current and future traffic levels and minimum' atomospheric dispersion condition's were used to initialize the CALINE 3.Caltrans Roadway Dispersion Mod-el. 'Emissions f data were derived from EMFAC6C, an ARB'and Caltrans vehicle emissions Model. ' Calculations were carried Out for winds parallel to Carlsbad Boulevard ,that maximize concentrations near the ioadway and for diagonal winds that carry' emissions - -further 'into the nearby residential tract. - - Results from this "hot spot" analyses shown in., -' - Table -4 indicated no potential for any violations of the hourly - - ' CO standard near the roadway under', increased traffic loads. In,fact, continued vehicle emissions reductions between now - and: 1995 actually' cause 'CO levels to, drop from an hourly maximum of 3.6 ppm to 2.7 ppm.' With the highest measured f 'hourly CO -background concentrations in Oceanside of 10 ppm - and- 8 hour levels ,of 4 ppm, ,the project 'contribution-plus the - worst 'p,ossible- background 'level still do'n-ot threaten the CO - standard on the sidewalk on the bridge, much'less within- - 'residences several hundred feet from the roadway.. • ' ' '' ' '- "' ' ' - - ' ' - '- ' ' -, ' ,.F 11' ,- -' - -- ,' -' TABLE 3 VEHICLE EMISSIONS/SPEED RELATIONSHIP (1995) • ,' (Pollution penalty(benefit) in percent resulting. . . from any decrease in mean 1995 Carlsbad Boulevard traffic speed compared to 35 mph design speed) Carbon Total Reactive ' Oxides of; V:Monoxide Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons • Nitrogen: : 35 mph :, 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 ' 0.9 . V 34 mph. +1...2 +1.6 , . +0.9 33 mph' V V+27 V . +3.1 . ' +2.8 ' -1.6 32 mph +4.5 V +4.6 : . -2.2 31 mph +6.5 t7.9 +7 3 -3.3 V • 30 mph +8.8 +10.2 +10.1 29 mph 1l.4, +13.2 ' , ' +12.8 '• _49VV 'V V 28 mph' 14 4 V +16.5 : +16.5 5.4 27 mph , +17.6 , , +20.5 ' , , +202 , V -6.5 V ' 26 mph '' +21.1 ' V +24.4 25 mph 8 : +28.3 , +27.5" .. TABLE HOURLY CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) ADJACENT TO CARLSBAD BLVD V ' 1980 • V V V 1995 Parallel Diagonal Parallel Diagonal' V Distance from Roadway Wind' ' Wind' ' Wind , , Wind V 'V 'V 3.56 ' 0.90 V 2.56 , 0.65 ' V V ' ' '' " • 3.55 ' '. 1.09,' ' 2.55 , 0. 79 V 10' ' V 3•53'' , , 1.17 ' ' , 2.54' ' 0.84 20' " V 3•44 , 1.15 , ' ' V ,2.46 0.83 ' V 40' ' V 2.88 , 1.09 , , 2.07 0.78 80' ' 0.61 , 1.07 0.44 ' ' ' 0.7,7 160' , ' 0.06 , 0.69 ' ' 0.04 ' V , 0.50 " V V 320' V 'V V V neg.: ' , 0.48 ' ', neg.' ' V 0.35 640' neg 0.33 neg. .0 .24 V Hourly 35 ppm Std = V , ' 8-Hour Std = 9 ppm V , V F-12 S MITIGATION : With no predicted long-term local or regional air: quality degradation, there. is little need or potential for mitigation. The project itself constitutes •a mitigation measure • for emissions from stagnating traffic streams Temporary ! 0 nuisance emissions, of dust and odor may occur during constrUc- tion, but their effect can be readily controlled By applying extra water near the residential area and by beginning construc- tion in early spring when -'the ground is damp, much of the dust problem can be minimized It is also helpful if earthmoving activities do not start before 8 a.m. near the residential receptors, this allows the winds to pick up t0 better disperse • any emissions and allows many receptors to be in school or at work during maximum construction activity emissions S F-13 , 0 HousIng & Redevelopment Department (714)438-5611 0 Planning Department (714)438-5591 March 25, l8' NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc 1850 Fifth Avenue : San Diego, CA 92101 Re: Notice of Early Con.sul cation Meeting preliminary to,ari envirornientai assessmerit/envirurrenta1 imract. report (8ridgfb and Highway. Improvement for Carlsbad 3oulevard between Tamarack cnd Cannon Streets, Carlsbad. California) The City of Carlsbad ,:11 b2 the local ,.roject director and local agcrcy resoonsible or preprr.ion of environmental documents for the o oject 'dertlfid above. This letter is a request for the views of your agency or organization re- garding potential environmental issues re1at4 e to the proposed project which are pertinent to your.statutory responsibilities or to your organization's interests.. This notice is being sent to all cooperating agencies and organizations, known or thought to be interested in the proposed project. RepreseFatIves of your agency or organization are invited to attend and to present their views at an "Early Consultation Meeting" to be held:. Wednesday, April 1, 1981 The meeting will be held at 1 30 p.m., Carlsbad City Hall' Council Ch:r.ber,T2O0 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California.. I The pcc o - -r.eting L0 i PV- Jt1( '-t' fi -,"orl of r vi (I Vital 1sS s a n t e> te t ol- i n1 rrer1t fl& IYS iS apprOp(kj tor. th ,.prcpos:.. Carl sbao r cge projct. PO 'eu ?sir to M -s v'i i - 2m .s - ho .ovc inc'ie rri of d con r: cn in VCtr q';p ' /ur acn', orqri' Zut on., or ii is - mo iv 1 u'a1 E t a "es Ltive, c respcnd;ced.. tee prooscd r,ject .G(!red c i , aLv oe :c' cd 'ii 'r ird 'Lu t s S S .; S. •' S. • /' C-;" S -• S S 4 &—'c-- • • S LE s Evans City E'iqtreer .. •. S. 55 . • :. 5 •5 • 5, 5, 5 : . S G_2 EARLY CONSULTATION MEETING • BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN •• TAMARACK AVENUE AND CANNON.. ROAD -. * • - April 1, 1981 L:30 p m Carlsbad City Hall Council Chamber 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California - AGENDA A WELCOME Betsy Weisman - NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc B. TECHNICAL PRESENTATION. • • . S 1 Pro3ect Description Art McDaniel, McDaniel Engineering Company I.. • &• . 2 Possible Environmental Issues Ed Dilginis, NEW HORIZONS Planning • Consultants, Inc C DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Betsy Weisman, NEW HORIZONS, Planning Consultants, inc 11. : • SUNMARY • •• :- • • E CLOSING • G3 :V V.. PRELIMINARY EARLY CONSULTATION REPORT for ' PREPARATION' OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL V ASSESSMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT V For the. Proposed Constructionofthe V Bridge and Highway Improvements 'V For Carlsbad' Boulevard V :' V V V V V V •V ' Between Tamarack Avenue V • V V V • and Cannon Road V • V .. 'V City of Carlsbad ' V ,• • - ' V V Engineering Department V 1206 Elm S'tree, ' , CVarlsbad,,CaliforVnia V V • V 'V Prepared by: ' V : V V V • NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. V V •V V V 1850VFifth Avenue V ' V , , San Diego,' Californiá 92101 V V V VV ',VVV V V V V , , ' ',V ' V V V • G4 •V V V , V , V 1 0 INTRODUCTION The City of Carlsbad plans to conduct an early consultation meeting and data gathering period to determine the extent of environmental analysis necessary to satisfy the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and. the National Environmental Policy Act of 1.969' (N-EPA). relative to the proposed construction of a four-lane replacement bridge at Agua Hedionda Lagoon and accxipanying road improvements from Tamarack. Avenue to Cannon Road, . . In order to develop a structurally safe, functional and environmentally sensitive project, the city of Carlsbad would like to receive comments from the ooperating agencies at this early point in the planning process, so that the concerns of the agencies and organizations involved can be incorporated into the project design. The first planning phase of the Bridge and High- way Improvement for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California was completed I. . in 1979. Tentative plans and 'a pplication criteria were developed. The initial study indicated the need for addi- tional environmental analysis. . In February 1981, the City of Carlsbad initiated the second phase of project planning for preliminary design work and preparation of an Environmental Assessment.! Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project is located within the City of Carlsbad,in the County of San Diego (Figure 1). In general, the Site extends along Carlsbad Boulevard. from 300 feet G-5 1oTo.1 IU0TI i ;s. N3N.: -. .-. - ...-:.:.-• :'- .. south of Tamarack Avenue for a distance of approximately one and one quarter miles to Cannon Road (Figures 2 and 3) 2.0'PROJECT' DESCRIPTION 2.1 Purpose The City of Carlsbad proposes to construct a four-lane bridge on Carlsbad Boulevard over Agua Hedionda Lagoon to replace the structurally ..deficient current two- lane bridge.. The proposed project includes widening •of the two lane roadway to four lanes from just south. of the Tama- rack Avenue intersection to extend to the Cannon Road inter- F section Roadway widening coupled with the bridge replacement will be consistent with the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, May 1975. The proposed bridge would be 180 feet in length and 78 feet in width comprised of four 12-foot traffic lanes, plus five foot sidewalks and five foot bicycle paths in each direction. The additional ten feet width is for railings. The superstructureis planned to be of pre-stressed concrete. Several alternative bridge designs, one or two piers or clear-span are being studied The impacts of these alternative designs will be addressed in the preliminary design stage Fnding for the pr6posed project would be from Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Funds (HBRR): with eighty percent federal, funding for the, bridge. Road improvements would be funded through Federal A'id to: .Urban Hi.ghways (FAU) program with ninety percent federal contribution. Priority forHBRR funding is based onsuf- ficiendy fatings priority order''-from lowest to. highest. C-? Figure 2. : Sub Regional Location - G-8 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS ----I. PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARIES Figure 3 Aerial View of Proposed Project Site G-9 I .0 NEED- The present bridge was completed in 1934 The bridge is classified as structurally deficient since the reinforced concrete has deteriorated to an unsafe condition and traffic is limited to restricted truck weights as posted Carlsbad Boulevard (S-21) provides the major north/ south local link to the coastal community of Carlsbad west of Interstate 55 It also provides access to the beaches and state park adjacent to the proposed project. 4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The objective of the "early consultation" meeting J's to help to identify environmental issues and to assess the level of environmental concern relative to the proposed project The following preliminary list includes environ- mental issues which have been raised in the initial study and which are presented here for background and discussion . purposes only Possible effect on plantsor animals,. . . including both marine and terrestrial species associated with the Agua Hedionda Lagoon The Outer Lagoon is dredged.bi-annually and iscurrently in the process of being dredged, so the incidence of undisturbed species is not expected... .: Possible effects of the proposed project L. on water quality in the Lagoon G-lO • 0 ..0 • The design of the replacement bridge will alter the present aesthetics, adding an improvement which is expected to be • visually pleasingSandl enhance the appearance of the area. • Effect of the proposed project on air quality, both short and 'iong.term. • 0 0 • Effect of the proposed project on any parks or historic sites. - . Effect of the proposed project on the wet- lands and coastal zone, including public access to the beach.. • The long-term effect of the proposed project is expected to improve traffic circulation in the project area, and to provide safer circulation for bicyclists, pedestriansand joggers. Short-term impacts :1 • 0 to traffic circulation can be expected to 0 0 vary according to the construction method • •• • selected. 0 Effect of the proposed project on. noise • • : • • levels in th surrounding area. • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • 0 • 0 0 0 H•. 0 • 0, 0 • • 0 •• . -11. • • . 0 Summary of Input at Early Consultation Meeting held 1:30 p.m. Carlsbad City Hall, Council Chamber 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Participants included Les Evans, City Engineer, City of Carlsbad, Jim Murray, and Laity Dossey, City of Carlsbad, Engineering Department, Charles Grimm, City of Carlsbad Planning Department and Ed Dilginis and Betsy Weisman; NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc Others, present included Art Mc Daniel, McDaniel Engineering Company, Dave Siino, SDG&E, Bill Fait, State Department of ['arks and Recreation, and Helen Denny, United States CousL (uFid PRESENTATIONS - The meeting was moderated by Betsy Weisman, NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc . Alter brief introductory remarks, the meeting was turned over to Art McDaniel, of McDaniel Engineering who gave a descrit.ion of the, project, referring to several aerial maps° and photos of the proposedproject, which were displayed throughout the meeting. An accompanying hand- out describing the project was provided toall in attendance. Following the project description, Ed Dilginisof NEW HORIZONS P1-anning Consultants.addressed potential environ- mental -issues which may need tobe studied in the Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Reportwhich his firm is to prepare. It was explained that the purpose of the meeting is to identify potential issues early in the project planning, G-12 .. I I I at a point where mitigation me'asures can be incorporated into project. design. Betsy Weisman of NEW HORIZONS then led a group discussion of the potential environmental issues and asked for ideas, to mitigate possible impacts. The environmental issues discussed included possible impacts on marine li-fe. It was felt that most-of the plant and animal life, including birds, was found in the two inner inlets of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and that the biannual dredging done by SDC&E, plus the speed of flow in this channel, probably was not compatible with extensive marine life. It was agreed by participants that the potentially most significant issue was beach parking and associated ues. Issues which were raised included current winter beach erosion' which is cutting into the width of the sand beach. It was noted that storm surf ha's covered the present road during winter • rains at several times in the past two -years. - - - A sugges tion to cisc t he curr ent problem was possible installation of a Longard Tube by the State Parks Department. Revising the grade of the r-oad was also mentioned. - The issue of title to the portions of land included in H the right of way- and the exact dimensions of the right-of-way were raised. -. Several issues were broughL up relative to parking These included the possibility of adding additional parking north of Tamarack Avenue an the beach side or parkirg improvements to the fishing area on the SDC&C property east of Carlsbad Boulevard - - - - - - -:. -'- -- -- -- C-13 I Related circulation issJes raised included concern over the possibility of speed increases on a four-lane road bringing the proxilniLy of fast moving LLdCf1c to heavy pedestrian traffic and creating a possible need for a fence or guard rail Concern was voiced over providing safe turn-outs for persons entering and exiting parking areas. It was stated that parallel parking directly on the side of a four-lane road would be dangerous. It was also suggested that the proposed project would probably 0 - create a need for a traffic signal at the corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and: Cannon Roads. Addftional ideas suggeted were the construction of the bridge'replacement With no highiay widening, but it was pointed Out that Carlsbad Boulevard presently exceeds recommended traffic volumes, for 'a two-lane road and that federal funding would require a four-lane-road. Another possibility discussed was to close Carlsbad Boulevard, ending the road in tw.o cul-de.- sacs and using. the closed roadway for additional parking. It I was pointed out that this alternative would alleviate the parking problem but would attenuate traffic and circulation. problems along Tarnarack'Cannon and other roadways in the surrounding area. 0 0 It was also mentioned th.it temporary closure of the road might be feasible during demolition of the old bridge, creating a short-te'riii traffic Lind a nd circultion ima.ct. • Some additional concerns expressed included SDG&E's concern to maint a in t idal- flow in the inlet during construction demolition and construction. It was pointed out that this was an operational, more than a environmental concern'.' ' It was stated, by the Coast Guard represen tative that navigation through this inlet did not sound advisable and therefore navigation standards For height of the bridge above mean high tide would not apply. G-14' •: 1 Several additional ideis included possible provision • of a fishing area on the bridge, or improvements to the existing fishing area on SDC&E properly The possible impact of traffic noise on the few homes • near Cannon Road was noted Also thel issue of seismic safety and proximity to the Rose Canyon fault was raised .•• • Additional responses or comments which your agency would wish 10 communicate will be .'accepted by correspondence addressed to Mr Les Evans and will be included in the preparation of Lhe EnviLonfuenLul Assessuienl/Envlronmenldl Impact Reporl .r . • •• •.•• • •. •, .• .• • • • : • •• • •••'••••. G-15. •• S S : 1:30. p.m. Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California NAME I I AGENCY I G-16 6DE iT Y ac So p; ADDRESS tq4 , '12J2- I 2 LM Avg. i.g- C/sb..d i2/,c1 d Cl; F 2 1/dc 'CCr,V ;4°7Z: Lô,w t 1Yz2 /2O 4'.'c. 4..(,4.qcs 5a- PIEL'O qzit"/ I ? F; F7L/, I S 0 A k PHONE 2-3 ,& 101-3 43 Z/3) 57€-.2 2.2I .. 4344. 4'3 S37/ 3 •3 o )3 37o7 Dear Sir: This responds to your letter requesting information on possible impacts of the proposed bridge and highway improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road and includes comments made by Staff Biologist Gary Wheeler to Mr. Larry Dossey of your staff in their telephone conversation of 17 April 1981. It is unfortunate that .the discussion at your early consultation meeting o seemed to minimize, the fish and wildlife habitat values present in the western portion of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Weare convinced that the western portion of Agua. Redionda Lagoon is of extreme importance to a rather " ' diverse assemblage of fish and wildlife resources, particularly fishes and I water-associated birds. Characteristics of the area which make it so attractive to wildlife include good water quality and clarity, adequate tidal flushing, and dense eelgrass beds. The presence of large. healthy eelgrass beds is adirect result of good water quality and clarity which, in turn, is dependent upon adequate tidal flushing. Eelgrass forms the basis of an important food web which culminates in the, production of large piscivorous fishes such as basses which, in turn, are harvested by man. Eelgrass also functions in stabilizing sediments and recycling nutrients. Consequently, in order to protect the important wildlife and fishery resources of the area it is necessary, to protect the', eelgrass beds by maintaining good water quality and clarity throughout project construction. The California least tern and California brown pelican, two state and 'S federally listed endangered species, utilize the western portion of the lagoon for feeding on small fishes. Again, the maintenance of good water quality and clarity is important in preventing a degradation of their • feeding habitat in the lagoon. The maintenance dredging permit recently issued to the San Diego Gas and Electric Company by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was conditioned to allow dredging only during the months of . October through March,' so that. excessive turbidity is not produced during G-17 I the months of April-September when terns are present. We would encourage you to assume a similar construction schedule for any work on the. bridge V. that will result in lower water quality or clarity so as not to adveráélyV impact tern feeding. . . . You should be aware that if your project will require any Federal permits or receive any Federal funding, the Federal agency involved must comply. . with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. What this means is . that the Federal agency permitting or funding the project must determine whether or not the project may affect*,any federally listed threatened or, endangered species. If' it is concluded that the project may affect a listed species, the Federal agency must request formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Our agency's other concerns would be the placing of fill material into productive wetlandhabitat as a result of roadway improvenents and the . 'V. protection of the fishing access point on the lagoon. Currently, we do not know enough about the project to determine if these resources would be affected. We would appreciate receiving more information on this subject.. V We appreciate your contacting us early in the planning process when problems ; can most effectively be resolved and would apprciate 'receiving' any other project information you feel would help us to assess the biological impacts of this project. Any questions you have regarding these comments may be V directed to Mr. Gary Wheeler or myself at (714) 831-4270. Sincerely yours, Ralph . Pisapia Field Supervisor cc NMFS, Terminal Island, CA CDFG, Reg. 5, Long 'Beach, CA (Attn: Susan Ellis) CDFG, Mar. Res. Reg., Long Beach, CA 41 V V ' G-18 -"V . •• . V • •V V V UTEOSTATES DEPA RTMENT OF COMMERCE . . iationaI Oceanic and Atmospheric.t&dministratian NATIONAL MARI NE, FiSHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 300 South Ferry Street. Terminal Island, California 90731 May 8, 1981 F/SWTt33:RSH 1503-01 S S ..RECEflT]J . . S .. Mr. Les 'Evans 1 1981 - City Engineer . . City of Carlsbad . . r'vv , r'ri 1200 Elm Avenue Lr U\L jr-LAJ I . Carlsbad, CA . .. Engneenng Departhint Dear Mr. Evans:. - I. We have reviewed the Preliminary- Early Consultation R e p o r t a n d a s u m m a r y o f lie input from an early consultation meeting regarding th e p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the bridge and highway improvements, for Carlsbad Bo u l e v a r d b e t w e e n T a m a r a c k A v e n u e and Cannori Road. We have the following comments. We are concerned that the value of the outer section o f A g u a R e d i o n d a L a g o o n , particul-arlyto fishery resources, has not been adequately addressed. Extensive :'- • eelgrass (Zostèra marina) beds presently exist both a l o n g t h e w e s t e r n a n d e a s t e r n sides of the outer lagoon. These beds serve as an important habitat for fishery re sources of commercial and recreational importance. The large n u m b e r of anglers which fish the western side further indicate the valu e o f t h e o u t e r l a g o o n . The 'documents we have received do 'not indicate how t h e r o a d w i d e n . i n i a n d . bridge construction will occur. However, if encroachment into the lagoon is being considered, we strongly recommend tha.t attempts be l n a ( . l e t o m i n i m i z e a n y a d v e r s e impacts to the lagoon. In order to assist you duri n g t h e p l a n n i n g a n d d e s i g n phase of the project, we have enclosed a copy of our R e g i o n a l . H u i b : L t a t P r o t e c t i o n Policy for your information., We would appreciate receiving further information a s t h i s p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t f progresses. Should you have any ciuestions regarding our commen t s p l e a s e c o n t a c t Mr. Robert Hoffman, of my staff,' at the above address or telephone 213-548-2518. /1 S Si. ely you S5 N • ' ,.- Gary Smith . . 1 'cting Regional Director End • '. • S cc: . ,C1)FG, Long heath • S •• S USFWS, Laguna Niguel .. S • C-19 r .,,... ,. June:.8, 1978 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE SOUTHWEST REGION HABITAT-PROTECTION POLICY The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviews Federally initiated:or' Federally licensed or permitted projects which have the pote n t i a l o f a l t e r i n g aquatic environments and thereby impacting the biological resou r c e s w h i c h d e p e n d upon those habitats. The Southwest Region of NMFS will not r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l or authorization of any project or activity that will damage any e x i s t i n g . o r potentially restorable habitat of living marine, estuarine, o r a n a d r o m o u s r e s o u r c e s . Habitat may include spawning areas, rearing areas, food-pro d u c i n g a r e a s , o r o t h e r areas necessary for the survival of those organisms. The wa t e r - d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e proposed activities will be a positive consideration in determi n i n g p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l . S Under circumstances in which habitat/resource damages' can be co m p e n s a t e d , exceptions to the policy may be allowed. The following, conditions are req u i r e d for such exception: The project will incorporate all feasible modifications and con s t r u c - tion techniques to eliminate or minimize adverse environmen t a l i m p a c t s ; -kn acceptable combination of habitat restortion, enhance m e n t o r off- ,site acquisition will be adopted to compensate for adverse e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s ' that cannot reasonably be' eliminated by project modification ; a n d . Post-project habitat value shall be equal to or greater than pre - p r o j e c t habitat value. Determination, of. post-project value will be b a s e d o n t h e c o n t r i b - ution of that habitat to the support of commercial and rec r e a t i o n a l f i s h e r i e s , fishery resources, certain marine mammals, and/or endangered spe c i e s . . - Some of the types of projects and activities which may cause d a m a g e t o m a r i n e , estuarine, or anadromous resources include: dredging, filli n g , r i v e r a l t e r a t i o n s , drainage of wetlands, discharge of effluents, as well as c e r t a i n c o n s t r u c t i o n o r operational activities. The activities listed are' not in t e n d e d t o b e a l l - i n c l u s i v e but are representative of' activities which are of concern to NIFS. It is in the best interest of project sponsors to contact the appropi a t c Nt4FS office as early as possible to determine the' impacts, if any, of each parti c u l a r p r o j e c t . For further information contact one of the following oEfi:cs: National Marine Fisheries 'Service National Marine Fisheries Service Environmental Assessment. Branch EnvLronmental Assessment Branch 300 South Ferry Street, Room 2016 3150 Paradise Drive ' Terminal Island,.CA 90731 Tiburon, CA 94920 . Telephone: 213-548-2518 Telephone: 415-556-0565 National Marine Fisheries Service Environmental Assessment Branch Western Pacific Program Office 2570 Dole Street Honolulu, 111 96812 Telephone: 808-946-2181 c_20 4. S New. horizons October 20',,1981 ".Mr. Gary Wheeler United States Department of the Interior Fish, and Wildlife Service Ecological Services 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel,, California 92677 Dear Mr. Wheeler, In rsponse to your let ter of April 24, 1981 and our sub- sequent phone conversation of October 15, 1981, we wish to inform you of the completion of the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Bridge and Highway Improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard. In order, to address. the concerns of your agency and 'to comply with the provisions of the lndngered Species Act of 1973, as: amended, 'construction of the:'prolect will 'be' limited to the months fom Oober to March to avoid 'ay impacts to Least Tern . feeding. . Additionally, the project will not involve dredging or the placing of any. fill into theweriand' habitat, 'nor will it decrease •• or interfere with access to the'SDG&E fishing area on the lagoon. The proposed design: is a clear-span bridge engineered, to minimize possible impacts to the lagoon. . I. hope.-this information assures you that the concerns of your agency have'beenaddressed. We would' appreciat e,. a.'l.'etter to" this effect at your earliest convenience. ' ' '• • Sincerely yours, at7 Betsy Weisman ' BW/cjj •" : '.. . ' ,' ' ' • ' ' . . NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants Inc. 1850 Flffi Avenue San Diego. California 92101 (714) 233-9707, H-i ' trAy Or United States Department of the Interior 2 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES Laguna 24000,Avila Road Niguel, CA 92677 - . S .. . . October 23, 1981 Ms. Betsy Weisthan New Horizons Inc. ... 1850 Fifth Avenue . San Diego, CA 92101 Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Bridge and Highway - Improvements for Carlsbad Boulerd - r Dear Ms. Weisman: . . Based upon the information provided in your letter to Gary Wheeler of October 20, 1981, .namely that construction will be limited'to the months . - of October to March and-It-hat the project will not involve dredging or the plácing.of fill material in wetland habitat or.eiimination of the SDG&E-CDFG fishing access area, we do notbelieve the project wi1L:have any. significant adverse impact upon fish and wildlife resources or their habitats. . Therefore, the Fish and Wildlife Service has, at this time,. no objection to the construction of this project. However, we reserve the right, to make further comments should some unforeseen detrimental environmental S . effects be brought to light. S •.. . - • Sincerely yours, - - - .5 5 5•, . . • - S • - - S Ralph . Pisapia ,- S Field Supervisor S 5 5 cc: NMFS, Terminal Island, CA S • • S • - CDFG, MRR, Long Beach, CA'. - S :. . • 5S S, • -- - .,H:2 . . - • -. •0, 0 •0 • 0, f*lew. -OflZOflS - October 20, 1981 S United States Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration- National Marine Fisheries Srvice Southwest Region 300 South Ferry Street Terminal Island, California 90731 0• Attention: Robert Hoffman - Dear Mr. Hoffman: •. - In response, to your letter of May 8, 1981 and our sub- sequent phone conversation of October 19, 1981, we wish to inform you of the completion of a Draft Environmental Assessment for the Bridge and Highway -improvements for Car].sbad Boulevard. Preliminary design has indated that there will be no encroachment into the lagoon. The project is not planned to include any dredging of the lagoon, nor the placing .of any fill into a wetland : habitat area;;- Also; the 'projectwfll not. -interfere with -access to the Encina fishing area. The preferred. design proposed is for a 0 clear-span structure engineered to minimize impacts to the 0, lagoon. 0000 Actua1 work in -the lagoon will be limited to removal of the 0 existing bridge pi 11 ers and setting of temporary falsework during construction. Construction w-l.L he permitted during the months of October to March, eliminating possihl.e interference with least tern 0 0 feeding. times. 0 0 0 T. hope this information will. assist in your informal review. .0 We would appreciate a letter from your agency at your earliest convenience. • 0 0 0 0 - 0 •• Sincerely yours, 1 - - -- - - - - - iVv- - Betsy Weisman BW/Cjj - - - ••• - S - NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants Inc. 1850 l-;tth AVIn! San Diego, California 92101 (714) 233-9707 - 0 0 •H-3 - • - - ui £TS EP EI \ J .trnna ac a~nd Atrnpir 3 tra n \• ,' NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southwest Region 300 South Ferri Street Terminal Island, California 90731 October 26, 1981 F/SWR33:RSH 1503-01 Ms. Betsy Weisman New Horizons Planning Consultants,. Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue ' , '• San Diego, CA' 92101 Dear Ms.' Weisman:' Our letter' of May. 8, 1981, stated the concerns our Agency would have if the proposed bridge and highway improvements on Carlsbad Boulevard resulted in sig- nificant impacts to Aqua Hédionda Lagoon. Your letter of' October 20, 1981 and attached project plans indicate that the work in the Lagoon will be' limited to' the removal of the existing bridge piers and setting of'temporary falsework during construction Our Agency will have no objection to the proposed project provided impacts 'to the Lagoon are restricted to ,those stated in your letter. ;If you have 'any ' .furthe questions please contact Mr. Robert Hoffthan of my staff. Sincerely Alan ,Ford Regional Director ' cc:- USFWS,'Laguna Niguel -• ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' - CDF&G, Long Beach S H-4 S I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION N1 AILI ~4G. ADDRESS: UNITED STATES COAST GUARD OAhD DIsTqICT UNION BANK BLDG. • LONG BEACH, CA. 90822 (213) 590-2222 16590/PF Ser: oan 284-81 27 October 1981 Ms. Betsy Weisman New Horizons Planning Consultants Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue • San' Diego, Ca 92101 Dear Ms. Weisman: I have reviewed the draft copy of the environmental assessment for the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge and Highway Improvements between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road in Carlsbad, California. My comments will be limited to the componqnts •'within Coast Guard jurisdiction concerning Bridge Administrat.on. A Coast Guard Bridge Permit will be required for the proposed Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge. The Coast Guard's function in approving plans for bridges across navigable waters, is to insure that structures meet the reasonable requirements of navigation; applications for a bridge permit will be considered on that basis. Navigation is not mentioned in the environmental assessment except that the boating public is excluded from the outer lagoon for safety reasons (page B-4). This statement should be explained, 'additionally the canoeing, water skiing, ski boating, launch ramps and condo/marina facilities in the inner la- goons should be described. The Interstate 5 Bridge and the railroad bridge spanning the lagoon should also be described. The navigational clearances (horizontal and vertical) of the proposed bridge should be included when the .bridge design is complete. Even though navigation may not be advisable/or is excluded for safety reasons, any comments received during the public review' process, concerning navigation, should be addressed in the environmental document. The proposed project will be funded from Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Funds. The Coast Guard will cooperate with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in accordance. with the procedures of the USCG/FHWA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the preparation and processing of Environ- mental Documents. In accordance with this MOU, the Coast Guard will ordinarily accept FHWA's environmental documentation as satisfactory compliance with NEPA for the purpose of processing the bridge permit application. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this important project. Copy: 'COMDT [G-WS-1] Sincerely, ' V.-I 010 Chief, Aids to Navigat..on Branch By direction of' the District Commander H-6' ' .New. Horizons ' October 19, 1981 Mr. Chuck Damm' California Coastal Commission San Diego District 6154 Mission Gorge Road H San Diego, California 92120 Dear Chuck: Enclosed please find a draft copy for your informal review of the Environmental Assessment (NEPA)/Initia1 Study/(CEQA for Bridge and Highway Improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road. ., S Several minor: chnnes have been made since this draft, however I do not think these will ffect your, review at this time: One item which is e:<p]ained 'in more detail is the OS designation at the corner of Cannon Road and Carlsbad Boulevard. This is SDG&E land which is currently leased on a year to year basis to the City of'Carlsbad which maintains it as a city park. No portion of this land -is S included in the proposed project. I appreciat.eour informal, review of the document ' at this time.' Sincerely, ' We srnrin BW/cjj ' S F S ' NEW HORIZONS PIanñng Consultants Inc.. 180 Ifil Av'-, San Dieo, California 92101 (714) 2.339707 H-7 ' State of Californi, Edmund G. Brown.Jr., Governor California Coastal Commission San Diego District. 6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 220 San Diego, California 92120 (714) 280-6992 ATSS 636-5868 S October 28, 1981 . Betsy Weisman -. New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue . . San Diego, CA 92101 Subject: Preliminary Response to the Environmental Assessment for Bridge and . Highway Improvements for Carlsbad Boulevard Between Tamarack Avenue - and Cannon Road. - - Dear Ms. Weisman: The staff of the Coastal Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on the environmental assessment for the above referenced project. In reviewing the assess- ment, staff has concluded that it is thorough and addresses all the relevant ,--environmental issues. However, staff does want to express, at this time,. our concerns about the project in relation. to the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 since this project will require a coastal development permit from the Commission. Essentially, there are two main concerns the staff has identified, both of which are addressed in the environmental assessment but not in the context of their relation to the policies of the Coastal Act. These concerns certain to the effects of the project on the wetland habitat values of Agua Hedionda Lagoon 'and the impacts on beach access (primarily as relates to beach parking). Sections 30211, 30223 and 30233(c) of the Coastal Act are particularly relevant. These Sections state: Section 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legisla- tive authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. Section 30223. Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. Section 30233. (c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, I Betsy Weisman October 28, 1981 : Page the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California", S shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative.measures, nature study, commercial fishing faci- lities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division. Aqua Hedionda Lagoon is one of the 19 coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game and the Commission has found that widening of roads is nbt consi- dered minor incidental public facilities. Based on review of the environmental assessment and site inspection by staff, it would appear that the road and bridge -improvements can -be accomplished without encroaching onto the wetlands. Temporary construction impacts could adversely impact the wetland. and staff is available to discuss possible mitigation. Such mitigation might involve the season or time of year during which work woud.occur. If staff is incorrect in our preliminary analysis and some alteration of the wetland -(i.e., lagoon)-would be required to accommodate the project, this would be considered a substantial adverse-environmental impact. With regards to beach access and access to the recreational fishing area, as - noted in the environmental assessment, the-road widening would eliminate a onsi-- derable amount of public beach parking. Without mitigation, th is, would result in - apparent inconsistency with Sections 30211 and 30223 of.the Coastal Act. Several alternatives are mentioned in the environmental assessment as mitigation, which if implemented, would result in no net loss of public parking spaces. Such mitigation would be a necessity to ensure compliance with Coastal Act policies. . - Hopefully these comments are of assistance to you; if you have any questions re- garding this letter or desire a meeting, please contact chuck Damm at the S District Office. . - - Very truly..yours, - - - - - - -- Tom Crandall - 0 - District Director - -- TAC:CD:am I _;-• •. . • . H NPW 0nzons November 3 , 1981 Mr. Earl Lauie California. Department of. Fish and Game 350 Golden Shore- Long Beach, California 90802 Dear Mr. Laupe: . . We.have prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment/Initial . Study for the Bridge' and Highway Improvements for Carlsbad -Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon'Road. In order to expedite processing,, we wou1d' appreci'ate an. informal review and written response from your agency at this time Preliminary design for the project has indicated that - there will-be-no dredging of the lagoon and no placement of fill .ithin a- wetland habitat area. -The 'peferted desig - concept is for a clear-span structure.. Also, I the project . will not interfere with access to the Encina fi.hirig area Actual wock t.n the I ioon will be limited' 'Lo reI1ov31 of the existing bridge piers and setting of temporary flsework during construction Construction will he limited to the months of October to March, eliminating possible inter- ' ' ference-with Lethst' Tern feeding times.'Encl'osed -are pre-. - liminary project plans. ' - . We would appreciate a reply from your agency at -you 'earliest convenience. Very truly yours JJff r Betsy A Weisman -, - .- - S BAW/cjj • '. - . . . • ' - Enclosure . • - - - , . S S - •• • NEW HORIZONS Pianning Consultants Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 92101 (714) 233-9707. o -- -• -. • -. H-10 • , , • • - Prepared for . City of Carlsbad : 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California • Performed by NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. 1850 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 92101 HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY • ". ..' 1. PROjECT DESCRIPTION , This project will result in: 1) replacement of the present Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge #57-C- 133'with a new bridge to be constructed at the existing alignment and widened to four-lane width to the west of the existing bridge and 2) widening • of the-existing two-lane pavement to four-lane width from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. All - construction-activities-will be contained within the Area of Poteñtiäl' EnvironmentalImpact (Attach- • ment 3) Bridge construction is planned in two phases - :with a temporary 2 lane bridge to be constructed • - west of the existing bridge while the old bridge - • is removed. The,,.second phase,con's.ists of construction of the eastern section- of the replace- ment 'bridge on the alignment of the existing bridge. " ' ' ' : Following the replacement of the bridge, the 'will be widened from its present 2-lane ,roadway' ' ' ' ' width to 4-lanes, extending from"Tamarack Avenue south to Cannon Road. , Bike paths' on either side o ' ' of the roadway 'and a parking strip along the west side are included. '•• • ' ' ' ' All project waste, i.e. old- asphalt, concrete, fill,' etc. will be disposed, of" off the job site, • ' outside the APEI.. The total project length is 1.19 miles . ' .: •.,' '•'. '•-" '- H , '1 0 •0 2.. PROJECT LOCATION The project is located within the Carlsbad Corporate Boundaries, Township 12 South, Range 4 North, San Luis Rey Quadrangle (USGS) (Attachments 1 and 2.). . The project is located along Carlsbad : Boulevard, between the. center line of Tamarack Avenue and the centerline of Cannon Road. The project is.'contained within an approximately 100'1 wide strip centered down Carlsbad Boulevard, formerly State Highway 101 xl-SD-.2-B, relinquished to the City of,Carlsbad as shown on County of San Diego's Assessor's Maps 204-31; 206-07; 210-01. 0• 3 AREA OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT , ,0 The APEI designated for this project was. .appoved by FHWA Enineer.Monte Darden on May. 22, 1981 in the Caltrans District II Environmental Branch Office (Attachment 3).. • . 0. • 4. RESUME OF SURVEY • 0 •, • .• • •. • • 0 • 0 The State Historic Ptservation Officer, , Dr. Knox Mellon was-contacted in writing on June 2,1981 regarding the presence of federal or state regis- 0 tered properties within the study area. Since he did not respond, to the request for information, , • as outlined in our letter, we can assume no regis- tered properties occur within the study area. A . • • • copy of the correspondence is enclosed for refer- ence (Attachment 5): • 0 • • • The 1980 National Register of Historic Places • and Federal Register supplements thereto, the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976) 0 • • S . . and a listing of California Historical Landmarks • (1979) were reviewed for historical and archi- tectural resources within the APEI.. No registered resources are located within 'the proposed project APEI. The archaeological survey, report for the Carlsbad. Boulevard Bridge Replacement and road improvement was, completed by Keith Polan, NEW HORIZONS Planning 'Consultants, Inc. in May 1981 (Attachment 4). One' archaeological resource was located, within the APEI. In addition to the APEI the survey included the, fishing area east' of the roadway ,on SDG&E property and all parking areas from Tamarack Avenue on the north to Cannon Road on. the south. Site SDM-W- 1'27A recorded in the 1920's refers to abroad one- half acre site at the junction' of the slough and ocean, consisting of varied scattered evidence of camping,with'o'ne shell' concentration. The site .is estimated to'be., buried to .a depth ' ,' ' of thre'e feet. , No field evidence of the site was discovered. A bridge evaluation form for the. Carlsbad • Boulevard Bridge was prepared by Betsy Weisman of NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants '(Attachment 6). This., evaluation" was reviewed 'and, approved by Robert A. ,Clark' for John Snyder,' CALTRANS Architectural'Historian, ". on June 5, 1981 (Attachment Q. He determined' that the bridge 'is-.,not significant from a historical architectural, or engineering perspective. No further evaluation of, this structure is necessary. •''' : , '••' ' ' : '' ' '' '•' ' ' 3 . ' I 5 RESOURCES IDENTIFIED One recorded site SDM-W-127A is in the Area of Potential Environmental Impact No cultural material from this site was discovered from the surface field reconnaissance As the record search indicated that this was a buried site and after consultation with the California Department of Transportation staff, an extended survey was performed to determine if any subsurface cultural material was present Three backhoe trenches three meters long and 50 centimeters wide were dug to a depth ot slightly more than one meter The soil removed was visually exam- ined for artifactual material The side walls of each . trenchwere scraped and examined •forcultural materials. .. The above techniques failed to identify any new archaeological sites or, evidence of any previously- recorded site 6 ACTIONS PROPOSED TO PREVENT SITE DAMAGE Since no evidence of Site SDI-210/SDM-W-127A could be located during the survey or test trenching, it is concluded that the subject cultural resource is not within the study, area and no further actions are required 4 . I •• LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1 Project Vicinity Map 2 U S G S Project Location 3 Area of Potential Environmental Impact (APEI) 4 Carlsbad Boulevard An Archaeological Survey Report of the Right-of-Way for Proposed Bridge and Street Improvements between Tamara:k Avenue and Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California 5.. Correspondence with .State Histbric.Preservation • Officer 6 Bridge Evaluation Form .. • .• . .. . .. 6 NE HORIZONS Planning Consultants Inc 7 tw t-iUKiLUC ianning Lonsuicants, Inc. •\ -.- -- -- .. BUN4 V vv - ••. _______ .5 \ 7 It A. 6 Center Kelly rh 10-1 44 ...PuneA.\ \• 'ARLSBAD '• .•• .. .. S P' \\ Jr Hjh .hS 'o Clise J'• Field jiP ,• -• S - S. • - . S BR : •- b - S .•. . • S - S - 5' Tanks \ '.- 1. Farr \.& C-arlsbad Boulevard/Bridge Location (Bridge No. 57-C-133) (Portion of U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey 7.5'. Quadrang1e) 5 5 5 5 5555 S S S NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. S n 0 4D Ll (. J11_L,jjH1 AO AJ Hf 0/0.' 94 / -- - ve ijtjwuivawii)Ui 77777777 ,.ii.. .. - - -- - : -.-- - - ....-.--. - .. .. . - .. . , eo zu lift Jill HIM I) hJi r:::::_ ............ •. - : . . - . . . . I . . . . I -- . I: . .. . ..; "iiiIIiIiII,nj - ...- ___-___.-.-,---- .-- - .......----.----.----------.---.- 'Are . rea of Potential Environmental Impact - Sheet 1 '.9 fl 1i NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. .41 / / El J / / -. - c .• .7-77 ç .• , , -:' ________--.5.5 _-_.5• _. ___•.,_5..5.,5-. C _______.., __..•_._.__. _,-- Ez,n9 - to e - : • •' I •. ' - . \\. .. . . 'I . . . .. - II ••• .. :. 1J, 5 - - - . . . . • . !L J '•.. ////.;' -.....: O/. Y • .5 .5.,.. •. .5 ., 1- 0 V, Area of Potential Environmental Impact - Sheet 2 10 I \'f 1.1 I: ri AC Pavcn,t '. J/'j f&.U9nd9i ftc ?b - .•.• . : -. : rm. V - .• -_=---z_ —.-•=-- .5' - - --,--- ---- — - - CO -, - - —; - _. ZIT -T -•. . - --- -- 'C fl H NEW HORIZONS Planning Consultants, Inc. IM'ev.V '1WFJ( ,-.t-s frar, %'-,d Co - 4 HASE1 - 41. S. I ff 4- ii S. •4 - - PHASE2 PHASED BRIGE CONSTRUCTION 4 A, ze• ,. I. • • 1 -w i• .• - Aer — __ I 1 E • / - -8i? : • • • / / ( ,re' i oerPy s • PARKING ADJOINING 74• L 37 - • _____________ •• - • }.._8 i' _ = 6 12 /1 12 6 .7 I - - - RN POCKET SLOPES ADJOINING Area of Potential Environmental Impact - Sheet 3 I'* - • 1• - •• ----—— -•• - 1USiIl4. ci; Iransp..irtation a.genj Memorandum CUJ!4[TE To Headquarters Date: May 26, 1981 Duane Frink Cultural Studies File 11171-929051 • Division of Transportation. Planning ATTN: John Snyder From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.-*District 11 Subject: Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Evaluation L . Enclosed, you will find a bridge evaluation form for the Carlsbad ou1evard Bridge, located over the Aqua .Hedionda Lagoon in San Dieco County. The evaluation was prepared by Betsy Weisman of New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. Please review the evalu- f ation for the bridge's potential for inclusion on the National Register of.Historic Places. • Tu Vdsquez. Thief • • :.rrorirentaJ Analysis Branc:h... . .........• ..... it • • • S • • . JCheshire S S rile f S S S S. S S S • 13 . S State of CaUfoiTlia Busin.0 and Transportation Agency Memorandum To ..:Tim Vasquez - 11 . . . Date.i June.5, 1981 Chief, Environmental Branch File No. . 11-SD-Geri 11171 - 929051 . : . ' Carlsbad Boulevard Original Signed by Robert. Clark .. .. . . Bridge. Evaluation From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 'Djvision.of Transportation Planning. .. . . . . . ANN BAFthLEY, Chief As requested by your memo o May 26, 1981, the. attached evaluation of the subject bridge has been, reviewed and . .. . found satisfactory. It is returned herewith for inclusion in the HPSR for this project Attachment JWS:dah . . CWhite - 11 JChesh.ire - 11 . . . . . . '. . . vAbersold' ,. . ' . . . . . . .. M]3a1tich DJ.Frink . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . JSnyder . . . . .. Atk:'ore . DOr'p File Environmental File .:. , . • 0 , , . 0 •' 0 I JUN 11 1981 14 &?fl ' I S (:.o: Th.s 1crr i onI. n h ue'i t.vr: r!A/flPO c•'::ran of Iersa::1nc dtoc December -10, 1981 ..) . (Attach copy o; :rcpriate 11 : ;c.:i.n strctu:o . 1octior. , e q. , iifl• quad mao. C. (.i L1.Sbad Bou1evrd POST 1I LE: N/A -(not a state ----__•____ ... . High NAME (bridqe name or feature crossed) :A Hedi onda• formerly NU AB ER.57_13l - revise to 57-C-133 ..SCRIPTION: (Attach at 1oas1 one side photo and one view of the deck a oi)g the. centerline. TYPE (circle on) : TEMPORPY . STANDARD CULVERT TYPE OF SUPE-'rRUCTURE: JstLnJtIcLP!nfoced_concreLo - tee beam . . ----...----.___ ________ _ . p TYPE OF SU STRUCTU)'E: (;oncreLe piers and abutments 0 n.jjsLfoocing ompteten LYSta te HiSTc.RY : DATE r. COE SAT L;CTI ON/DES IGER: of Cali fornia Dept of Public .0 - . Works OTHER EISTORIC.J., 1hFORNATiGN (persons, events--c. c WPA/CCC aEfl L State of - PRE.;i:DP, Y: Betsy We:i s iii .in . •,:. ... . . . p051 Env inmenLLAntlyst DATE: J20/8i. PJVIE?E) f : 1.: Attachment 5 • • S. r. H • CAAD BOUL1: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR • PROPOSED BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE AND CANNON ROAD, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Performed for: City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Performed by: New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. '1850 Fifth Avenue • San Diego, California 92101 • • H. Keith'. Polan • Staff Archaeologist • • • • ' August 7, 1981 • , . S SUMMARY . . One archaeological site, SDM-W-127AiSDi-210, was ideñ- tified prior to the field reconnaissance. Apparently, two • cultural components are represented at this site: Paleo- Indian (San Dieguito) and Early Archaic (La Jollari)'. These cultural deposits reportedly have a,. depth of approximately .5 • one meter. However, careful examination of the surface, as well as subsequent test trenching in the area, failed to identify any. evidence of this site in the field. Due to • the negative results 'of the surface and subsurface exami- nations, it would appear. that the proposed . project will not • result in impacts to the subject cultural resource. • • • ', • • • as : '.'':".:'.',.'i" :.:'" ••.• . • • • •: 0 .5 . . . 0 . •0 Ai Table of Contents INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . . .. . . . . . . . . ., 2 SOURCES CONSULTED. . . .. . ...'. . . . . . . ... . ..,4 ' BACKGROUND Environment . '. . • . . . . . . . . • • • •' 5 Archaeology • .• •• • •• • • • • . • . • • • •.• • • • 7 thno g rap hy. • •. • Ethnography • • • • - • • • • • • • • - • • • • - 19 0 History • . • • • , • • • • • • •' • • • • • • • 24 FIELD METHOUS. . • , e • • • . . .. . •. . . • . . • 29 S STUDY FINDINGS . .. •- . • . • . • • . . •. • . • . . • • . 31 0 - CONCLUSIONS. . • . • . . .. . . . . - . • . • . . •• . . . • 3,1- SOURCES.,. • . • • • • .. . . .• . . . •. • . . .•. • .,, .. 32 - - 0 - 0 - 0 ••' 0• - S. • - 0 .. 0 •' 0'•• A-ii • - - - • Table of Contents (Continu'ed) • ILLUSTRATIONS: page # • Figure ]. Regional Location of Project 1 • Figure 2 t3SGSLocation of project 3 • MAPS: • page # • • Map 1 Project Map, 36 APPENDICES: Appendix .A: • • Project Map for Proposed Bridge and Street Im- provements • • Appendix B: Original site forms, SDM-W-127, SDM-W-127A, • • and SDi-210, plus USGS Location Map • H • .•• • • • •• • ••. • .• • • A-jjj • • .5 - INTRODUCTION S -. On May 14, 1981, an archaeological survey was conduc- ted: for a proposed bridge replacement. and- road., improvements S in on Carlsbad Boulevard San Diego County. Following con- - sul-tation with. California Transportation Department staff, . a series of backhoe trenches were excavated on August -6, 1981.- The field . reconnaissance and test trenching was - S -performed- by: H. 'Keith Polan, Project -Archaeologist.. B.A. An- • thropology; 'archaeological experience in. Cali- ' - - fornia. - - • -. - . -' 5___ . - PROJECT LOCATION- AND DESCRIPTION - The study area for 'the following report is a - linear -, transect'ranging in width from-approximately 30 meters (100 - - - feet) to. 90 meters (300 feet) , - and 2.01 kilometers (1.25 miles) -in length located: in northern San Diego County - - - (Figure-I)-. -,This area straddles Carlsbad Boulevard between - -- Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road in -the City of Carlsbad, - . - California, as. depicted - on-the San Luis Rey 7'.5' quadrangle - - - - - - - - A-]. - I S . OCE AE VISTA78J PROJECT LOCATION ESONDIDO 78 78 JULIAN RAMONA DEL MAR POWAY 87 15 LA JOLLA 85 153 (_) . LA .j j ALPINE EL JON - YT SAM 01 GO' POINT LOMA MAT IOMAL 94 - . - \CITY - •.\•i CHU.LA \\3VISA IMPERIAL BEACH -I-* 80S - 0 - 51 10 USA scale in miles ME 4 I .• • - • • CARLSBjDBOULEVARD BRIDGE - [ AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS Fig. 1' USGS map. - de I, CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS A Fia. 2 'hotorecsed (USGS 1968; 1975), 'in Township 11 South, Range 4 West (Figure 2 and Map 1). SOURCES CONSULTED Prior to the field survey,, a records and literature search' was conducted to identify any previously recorded sites within, a 1.6' kilometer (1 mile) radius of'the project area. The National ,' Register' 'of Historic Places U.S.. Gov- ernment 1976), the' California Inventory of 'Historiô Re- f sources (State - of California 1976), and the California Historical Landmarks directory (State of California 1979) were researched, al]. with negative results'. ArchaeolOgical' record searches were' requested •at the San .DiegoMuséum of Man and the Cultural Resource Management Center at San. Diego State University.. Both institutions indicated the ' presence. of recorded archaeological sites'. within and adja- cent to 'the ,project boundaries' (Figure 3). The record.' searches 'indicate that 'one, site (SDi-210/SDM-W-127A) is located in and , adjacent to the southerly end of 'the • study area. The exact' placement,' of ' this- 'site is difficult to disóérn, since San Diego State's... recor'ds show ,this site beneath-the Encina 'power plant' and the' Museum of Man's records 'do not, show fly 'are'al 'boun- . A-4 • S S ' S , daries. Based upon therecdrds of San Diego. State and the field notes from the Museum of Man's records, the probable. location , of, this site., is shown on Map 1, sheets 2 and 3. As' can be seen from the map, the locations donotcoincide. • While the reasons for thi 's are unclear, the locations shown reflect the incomplete nature of the 'records per-. taming to this site. S. S S ... S .. . According to Malcolm Rogers' field notes, site W-127 consists of buried ' evidence of camping over a large area, with one shell concentration enáompassing one-half acre. ,For site W-127A, Rogers, identified two cultural components .. S consisting of San Dieguito II with: ...a few scattered [La , Jollan II] cobble hearths" located. at the .junction of the S •,' "''''":""""""'" .5"..,.' 5 5 " slough with the Ocean. The San Dieguito. material is found S S at a depth ,of approximately' one,meter, while the La Jollan component occurs,,in 'the upper' 30 centimeters. .5 ..'• .. . .....'S. .S . •• • . ',2 ''',• • '' S ' ' : , ' BACKGROUND Environment The project area is situated largely on a ' sand bar at • 5 5 .5 ' ... 5 . • ., . the, western,' end of Agua Hediond&' Lagoon. This lagoon presently ' extends. inland 'approximately 2.7. kilometers (1.7 miles) in, 'a southêasterly'direction.. and. .."ranges in.width • A-S from S 190 to 850 meters. Dredging operations by San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) have resulted in an average depth of 2.4 meters below mean sea level, although the areas beneath the bridges are deeper. The major drainage into this basin is from Agua Hediónda Creek. At either end- 6f the sand bar are .preipitôus - sandstone cliffs (Miller 1966) . . . 'Topographically, the study area exhibits relatively little relief, ranging in elevation fro a maximum of- approximately 15 meters (50 feet) above mean sea level (AMSI) at the . intersection'. of Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue to a low of roughly'- 1.5 meters (5 feet) AMSL along. the strand across Agua Hedionda-.Lagoon'. •. ' - • -The' majority-of the study area is lined with large granite -boulders used as ripàp to retard erosion. These rocks provide shelter for numerous, species'of fauna such as Squirrels'.. (ospermophilus spJ, Pinni.peds, and li'zads. Additionally, the area appears to support various avifauna ;• uch'as Pelicans (Pelecaniis ) Gulls (Laru.sspp.), and . I Pigeons •(Co1ua.fasciata)..: Virtually all of the study, area has sustained sub- - . stantial amounts of disturbance 'from road construction and recreational 'use.- This' . diturbancé. -consists of - rain . . qutters, landscaDinc of shoulders . and ad-lacent areas. 0 •• . .. 0'• - A'-6 . fences, paved and unpaved parking areas, and fire rings, as well as transmission lines from the power. plant. • Archaeology Radiocarbon dating, supported by archaeological evi- dence, has shown that San Diego County has been inhabited for at least 11,000 years, and perhaps much longer. The date of 11.000 years is an extrapolation based upon the 9,000 year-old dates taken from three separate sites within the county (Moriarty, and Broms 1967, Bada, Carter, & I • Schroeder 1974) Three separate cultural horizons for San Diego County are represented in the vicinity of the project area. These are often calledby a variety of different terms, but will be identified here as the Paleo-Indian Horizon, the Early Archaic Horizon, and the Late Archaic Horizon. The concept "horizons" of cultural entails the assumption or belief in a common cultural adaptation to the ecology of a given geographical area which is independent of social or un- • guistic boundaries. The',three horizons are represented by distinct differences in tool kits, land use patterns, and method of environmental exploitation. Since the sites on f. • A_7 and around. the subject property appear to represent all three cultural horizons, this overview will summarize the entire cultural sequence for San Diego County in order to put the subject sites in their proper perspective. The sites represent what might be thought of as the culmination of milleni.a of human adaptation to the environment and re- sources -of Southern California. 1. Paleo-Indian Horizon The oldest documented cultural horizon for San Diego County is the Paleo-Indian Horizon. It is characterized by the San Dieguito Desert facies, considered to have been an offshoot of the Clovis and Basic Ovate Traditions (Davis 1969).. Malcolm Rogers first described this tradition as. the "Scraper-Maker Culture" in 1929. Although he was in- itially of the opinion that this culture was preceded tem- porally by the "Shell Midden People" (1929:466), he subse- quently (193911945) reversed the sequence and changed the terminology, with San Dieguito replacing Scraper-Maker and La Jolla for Shell Midden People. Rogers later defined three temporal..phases distributed over three geographical zones (1966:25-26), ranging inage from circa 10,000 years Before Present (BP) to the advent of the Early Archaic sometime between 5,000-6,000 BP. Artifacts include scraper S [J . S. '4 types, leaf-shaped knives, crescents, hammerstones, and • crude chopping_ ..tools., ,.Materials, are usua11y 'locally available felsites or some other fine-grained volcanic material. N, -. - , 4 I -- ' -! . I •', , -. Many, theories have been postulated to describe the I.' origins of the San -Dieguito. •Warren, True, and Eudey (1961) felt that they represented. ad-istinct desert cul- ture,,utilizing a generalized hunting tradition which had originated in'the, Great Basinarea. Be decribedthe San. Dieguito Complex tool assemblage as containing leaf-shaped points, in ste and shoulder points, ovoid, domed, and rec- tangular end scrapers, engraving tools, and crescents. - • and interpreted Moriarty, Shuinway, Warren (1959'2) this horizon as a Pre-Desert Complex, dating from approxi- mately 8,000 to '1l',000 years BP' with a flake industry, well made S-knives-, leaf-shaped points, convex' scrapers, : • scraper planes, and crescents.,,: Little ,evidence of grinding has to date been associated with these people. Davis (1969) saw the ' San Dieguito- as 'a part of the • Western Lithic Co-Tradition. The San Dieguito Complex is considered to consist of a pattern of related lithic in- • -• •. dustries that existed in the Great Basin, throughout the desert,,, :and in'. southern coastal and. peninsular California as early as 10,000 years BP. These industries persisted - A-9 for several thousand years wfth little or no change. Only • a central core of tool types -remained the same.,while the other tool types reflect highly stylized forms, Althougji the San Dieguito were probably hunters, their 40 generalized tool assemblage suggests that they may' have also expIited plants resources in the coastal area (Moriarty, ét al. 1959). Data recovered from the Harris Site seem :to indicate that the San Dieguito also utilized shellfish. According to Warren, True,. and Eudey (1961:12), . . "...the site is a very late Sän'D'ieguito III, coincident with an extremely aidperiod. . It is suggested that during . this period, ' gamebecame scarce and 'that, the San Dieguito peoples were compelled , to overcome their' traditional ' avôidace of shellfish." The nvi'ronment during the San Dieguito III Period was very warm and dry. 'The Anathermal, or San Dieguito II,'is believed to have occurred around 10,000 years.BP', and the • . Altitherinal, circa 8,000 years BP (Miller 1966) . . Analysis of pollen from' the Anathermal indicates that' pinon .and ,juniper were the dominant forest species of the San Die- guito period (Moriarty, et al. 1959:8). . The • fauna associated with, this type of semi-arid. en- vironinent, such as, deer, elk, and bighorn sheep, were probably not very numerous. This hypOthesized scarcity of large game animals -would have limited the San Dieguito's dependence upon this type of food- resource, suggesting that their subsistence strategy would have been relatively de- .pendent upon plant and/or marine resources, although the scarcity of grinding , implements seems to belie this con- clusion. Moriarty stated that the primary food sources would have been the pinon pine, nut, various water fowl, • fresh-water mussels, and local vegetation (Moriarty,. et al. 1959) Several researchers have interpolated' San Dieguito settlement patterns from what has been assumed: to. be the . subsistence pattern of these people. Warren, et al. (1961) 'suggested that since San Deguito sites. contain little or 0, ••, .. -. -no bone, the animals must have been hunted fom' various outlying camps, and only the desired''portions brought back to the main campsite. Warren and. True (1961) -state that though the Earris'Sit'e is located in a river valley, most San Dieguito sites are located on. the tops of mesas and ridges, lack mIdden, 'and are usually 'heavily eroded. They further, suggest that the small number of artifacts found per site is indicative of the small populations of these camps., • . •• :.- San Dieguito occupations are found from the coastal areas to the Sonoran Desert, except for San Dieguito I, 1: A-il Jhich Is not found west of the Peninsular Range f Soütherñ S and Baja California (Rogers 1966:79). However, San Die- guito II and III., are found throughout this range. The basic tool types and technology are considered to have. changed with each phase, with the last phase - San Di'eguito III -having what is. considered the most refined and com- plex tool -assemblage of the three. . . . 2. Early Archaicilorizon . . 'The La Jolla Complex, which constitutes the coastal . manifesta,tion.of the. Early Archaic, is. distinguished 'from the San Dieguito Complex .by- a difference in. subsistence pattern, consisting of a change in. primary emphasis' away from hunting,-to a gathering, economy. , The presejice of num- erous manos and , metates (grinding implements), in.addition toquite extensive shell middens, is characteristic of La Jolla-type sites.,,The La Jolla Complex is believed to represent actual migrations of peoples . to the coast, bringing with them 'a. gathering-based economy which was . 1 better adapted 'to the more , arid inland' environment than that found .aiong the coast. This pattern was soon adapted. to ' the gathering' of' shel1fish along the beaches and ' la- goons, ' but was never very well' adapted to exploiting the resources 'of ' the ocean 'beyond the low, 'tide mark. ' The ... A-12 abundant supply of shellfish available in the lagoons and • on the coast at this time, made an increase in population - possible, as well as greater aggregation of the population into large permanent villages located near the larger lagoons'(.War.reri 1964). The transition from the Paleo-Indian to the Early Ar- chaic is not as well understood along the coast as it is further inland. There are presently two 'defined complexes for the San Diego area during this cultural horizon.: a coastal manifestation, known as the La Jolla Complex; and an inland complex known as the Pauma. Both groups used . different'.resources; the.,.La:Jólla'peoples used the local. shellfish.resources •.(Rog6rs•1966;: Warren •.1.964Y,.. ,and the Pau is 'exploited a"lare pinbn resource (.Tnie 1958) It is, in fact, quite possible that these two complexes are I - in. actually one, with the differencesin their respective • . -•, tool assemblages being attributable to seasonal exploità- tion of different microenvironments, • Malcolm Rogers first suggested that the La Jolla Com- plex should be broken into two phases: La Jolla I and. La Jolla II.- This - partition is based upon differences in burial, practices and 'artifac:t assemblages (Rogers -1945)). It has subsequently been suggested that these differences were, not really phases, but rather, ...seasonal and eco- A-13 nomic differences or differéncs in the artifact sample..." S (Moriarty, et al. 1959:162).. Warren interprets the, development of 'the La Jolla Complex as being more ecologically conditioned. His scheme for this' development would be 'as follows (Warren 1964)':' Period I• San Dieguito Period II: B.C. 6,000 to Ca. B.C. 3,000, the ' ' ' initial date of the La Jolla Complex on the San ', ' Diego coast. 'The terminal date is defined by' an ecological change that resulted, in a reduction in , the size and depth 'of the coastal' lagoons 'caused by heavy silting, resulting in a drastic reduc- tion in the supply of shellfish. Period III. B.C. 3,000 to A.D. 1,300. This is ,the most poorly documented of the 'three periods; the terminal date is tentatively set at the be- ginning of marked cultural influences from the east, represented by the' introduction 'of ceramic ' technology into this area.' ' Furthermore, each period is divided into , cultural stages. Period II is divided into the Adaptive Collection Stage and the Incipient Maritime Stage. During the Adap- tive Collection Stage, a small population is posited to have entered the area from the interior regions. This stage is considered to be one of transition, entailing an adaptation of subsistence strategies to the resources of the coastal areas. Representative sites would include Batiquitos Lagoon (Warren 1964; Warren and True 1961) and the Scripps Estates Site (Moriarty, et al. 1959). Typical f . tools include percussion-flaked cobbles, large primary flake scrapers, and manos and metates (Warren 1964). The Incipient Maritime Stage is believed to have been from approximately 5,500 B.C. to 4,300 B.C., and is char- acterized by a maximum utilization of coastal marine re- sources, reflected. in relatively large amounts of shell present in the middens. Artifact assemblages are charac- terized, by small domed scrapers, shell, manos, metates, discoidal- and doughnut-shaped stones, and,a wide range of large chopping and : hammering tools. Burials .are mostly flexed and oriented in" a northerly direction. Examples of this phase would be the. Scripps Estate Site, the Torrey Pines' Site, and the Batiquitos Lagoon .: 'Site. 'The hypothe- . sized settlement pattern appears to indicate that there was a great emphasis o.n.the gathering of shellfish and 'seeds, rather than on fishing. Hunting evidently played a rather small and insignificant, part in the total economic strategy .of.these 'people'. By'3,000 B.C., however, changes in the climate and concomitantly the ecology of the area,' forced a shift in' ,'popu1ation.pattern1ig. Groups. in areas to the north of Mission Bay/False Bay'S turned to ,a more 'intensive hunting' and plant gathering economy, while' people in other . . areas shifted to a. subsistence 'strategy emphasizing fishing and maritime • activities, but with a much lower population density than had been the. • case during the preceding time A_15•.., • . period. Period III represents a time of readjustment to the. new environmental conditions which were actually still in a state of flux until perhaps 1,000 B.C. in some areas. There. was also another movement. 'of- peoples' from the east toward the' Peninsular Range Province of; Southern Califor-' nia. During this period, there was a continuing shift from lagoon-oriented exploitation to a greater dependence upon 'river valley' resources as the lagoons continued' to silt in.' In summary, the uniting factor for, the above-mentiàned 40 complexes is not limited to the .advent of milling technol- ogy, but is rather an aura of 'a gathering economy reflected' by the entire artifact assemblage and the; faunal- remains ' present' in' the sites'. While shellfish ' remains, and/or,' milling stones are common, there is an extreme paucity of hunting' equipment, as well as an absence of the remains of,, . . game animals. This ' gathering economy apparently was, not originally adapted to the ecology' of the coast, and it has been hypothesized that the coastal cultures originated in ' the interior desert areas and followed the river drainages to tie coast (Meighan 1959;. Osborne 1958). The ' current lacunae in the .,,data from the interior, as well , as from the coast, makes it virtually impossible to.,confirm or refute . this, hypothesis, however. The. obvious similarities between • ..•, AL16 • such complexes as Pintà,' 'Gypsum, Cochisé, and the. 'early gathering complexes of the Southern California coast cer- tainly suggest some sort of relationship, but until these complexes are better defined and have. been adequately • dated, these relationships will remain nothing more than tantalizing possibilities. 3' 'Late Archaic Cu'lturai Horizon . The Late Archaic Horizon' is manifested in Northern San Diego County by various phases of-the San' Luis Rey Complex (Mei'ghán 1954; True., et al. 1973). As 'wI€h many complexes, it is divided' into two phase:'the San Luis Rey I and San ........Lui's '-AéyIIL The é.ple'o•f 'thi" cámp1'ex were probably the direct ancestor's of the present-day Luiseno Indians. The first phase, San Luis Rey I, 'is contemporaneous,' • ''. ' ,., with Rogers' •'Yuman-.,'.II typology for Southern San Diego County (Rogers. 1945). This phase is 'exemplified by the following assemblage of tools and artifacts: bedrock and' • . " ' '. ' portable.' me'tatés and' mortars, unifacial. and bifacial oval inanos, pestles, doughnut-shaped... stones,.' fiiielymade tn- angular projectile points, stone pendants, Oliyella discs, • ' quartz crystals, deer bone' awls, cannon bones, and bone and antler.' "flakers (Warren 1964207); Unfortunately, the exact settlement pattern and subsistence scheduling . for this. A-17 phase have yet to be worked out. Meighan (1954:,222) dates this phase as starting about A.D. 1400 and ending Ca. A.D. 1750. However, these dates have. since been moved'.' back so that now the San Luis Rey I is believed to have been from approximately A.D. 500 to A.D 1500 (True, et al. 1973) In any case, it has been reported that no San Luis Rey I sites have been recorded in the Coastal Province of San Diego County, although sites containing pottery , havebeeri found in association with tools typical of the La Jollan culture (Warren 1964-:208) The San Luis..Rey II Phase is placed..by True, et al. (1973) at between A.D. 1500 and A.D. 1800. The area cov- ered by this group was probably the same as that known for the historic Luiseno. The artifact assemblage included bedrock grinding. features, mànos, triangular projectile points, bifacial knives, scrapers, scraper planes, arrow- shaft straighteners, bone awls, Olivella beads, Olivella discs, clay pipes, clay figurines, and pottery. vessels. There is some question as to when pottery first arrived in this area, Meighan postulates a date of about A.D. 1500, but McGowan (IN lovin 1963) feels that it arrived around A.D. 1250. True indicates that the people of this phase probably exhibited a cultural pattern similar , to that of, the his- .. A -18 • toric Luiseno (True, et al. .1973),. which -.included a pattern 0 of seasonal exploitation of local environments as they • moved through the area .that was defined as their own. Villages were located at either lower-elevation foothills • in the winter orhigher-elevátion móuntain,in. the summer. All of,-this was contained within a relatively very small and clearly defined territory.. Eachàf .the seasonal -camps • ha associated processing stations Sand camp sites. Most of the village sites supported aopulation of from 100 t'o 200 individuals (White 1963Y. Such a population density would • seem to'suggést that á'viIlae,of this size would have beer forced to maximize its exploitation of the local environ- -ment in order to süpo-rt its population. - • - - -. - .. •. -.-•.'-•-• _*• .. •- • ? • .,, Ethnography .• . - •. The cultural, recipients of. the.San Luis Rey Complex are- the Liiieho, atérm given by the Spanish to the people O • -•.-- •. • • living near the Mission 'San ..Luis'Rey de Fran , cià.-. Linguis- tically, the Luiseno belong to the Shoshonean language family, which, iel,ates,them to' -the C-áhuilla,. Cupeno,- Gab- • rieleno, and the Capistrano, although they are believed to .•. .•' • • - have recieved some. aspects of 'their •mate'rial'culture from the Diegueno'to the south, Le., pottery (Rogers 1966) • _•; • I - A-19 I Kroeber (1908) indicates that the name for theirl, speech was Ne-tela or Cham-tela. A great deal of data[have been gathered by various anthropologists to describe the Luiseno and their culture. As stated above, they are probably the cultural recipients of the San Luis Rey II, therefore much of the culturual information for the Luiseno can be con- sidered analogous for the San Luis Rey Complex. To the Luiseno, the lineage was considered the basic political unit (Phillips 1975). Kinship, marriage, rights of succession and residency rules were all detrmined by lineage. Membership in the lineage was based on batrilineal descent. The various lineages were grouped into, exogamous clans, which Kroeber estimated to number at least.80 mdi- viduals among the Luiseno (Kroeber 1925). Lineages from the various clans in turn formed endogamous territorial units that had political functions. White (1963 159) called these political units "Rancherias", which he esti- mated to consist of about 50 individuals. Commenting upon the political structur~6 of the Luiseno,. Kroeber (1925:688) stated. that: "...it is clear that the chief was the fulcrum of •. the Luiseno society. The religious group was called a 'chief', the social groups were the 'children'. A chiefless family was nothing but ac-- body of individuals. Chiefs headed up Ifamily groups,--although the one thing that is obscu re is the relation of the chief to the territort1ai or political groups. Since there can scarcely have A-20 been several. family chiefs of equal standing of the head of such groups, and since the families were so small, they could not have been thesôle political units. Possibly there were always chief-families, and in a large community, the chief of a certain family may have been accorded primacy over his colleagues." While the principle of primogeniture was strong among the Luiseno, in that sons'always succeeded their fathers as chiefs, when no men were available to replace dead leaders it was sometimes allowable . for a woman to succeed to leadership.- The Luiseno practiced the Chinigchinich (cf. Kroeber 1925, Boscana1933).form of religion, with all of its cer- emonial and ritual béhavIôr.......It was considered a new faith, having come into the area at about the same time as Christi.anity .. (DuBois 1908). The efforts of the early Spanish missionaries to convert the inland Luiseno to Christianity only served to strengthen the belief in Chin- The Chinigchini.ch cult came to the Luiseno from the islands of !Santa Catalina and San Clemente: first to San Juan Capistrano and then toSan Luis Rey,"... and from there they brought the ceremonies and 'gave tolache' in all the. upland Luiseno places such asRincon, Potrero, Yapiche, and La . Jolla, and carried the ritual to the Dieguenos of Mesa Grande'. and Santa Ysabel" (DuBois 1908:75). This I.. F. 0 transmission of the faith was brought about in large part through the proselytizing zelamon its adherents. The Chinigchinich was a secret religion based upon ritual.,and vision .questing. ."Acquaintance with Luiseno mythology re- veals altogether a: loftiness'of, conception,, a power. of definition and of abstract thought, which must find these people. claiming, a place among the dominant- minds...":: (DuBois 1908:74).. The Chinigchinich ceremony'also- inco.r- : porated the. use of .simple geometric. 'sandpainting . (DuBois 1908:71), utilizing seeds or meal sprinkled over sand to form the designs .(Kroeber 1925). V V V Kroeber (190,8)", has indicà'tedthat the Luiseno hada wide-ranging system of rituals and ceremonies, besides that associated with Chinigchi'nich. One of these was the Moknic Ashwiti, or eagle ceremony.: The entire-ritual', took about. one year, during which the village chief,'raised the bird to maturity. It ended with dancing and rites in which the V eagle was killed and skinned. The feathers were then made, into a skirt which became an object',of veneration. This ceremony often was associated with the death of a chief, and was usually-given-by, his 4 successor.. (lovin 1963; DuBois. 1908). It has been noted that the condor was employed in the, same way by - eastern Luiséno groups, V while bald eagles and chicken hawks .were utilized by peoples the coast .•l A-'22' • : •' ' ' 5,' ' S ,'• , S . S 5 - (DuBois 1908:182).' S . S There are other ceremonies which were performed in Luiseno society, dealing with. such events as death, funer- als,. mourning,, 1onévity, and the initiation of' boys and girls into adult life (lovin 1963) • The Luiseno also had an involved and intricate form of rock-art, which may have I. been associated with one .of'the initiation ceremonies.' The form taken by this' art forin',is 'chains of diamonds, cross-. hatching, "circ1es, crosses,. linear patterns o dots or straight-,lines, or any combinations' of these (True 1958; True, et al. 1973; lovin' 1963). They are generally located. . on a single,boulder and :.are in association with a specific • , village. '. '; ' ' •'. ' ' S , , ' ' ' S The, Luiseno had a wide variety in their material cul- ture. 'Many' -of the' items found in the San Luis 'Rey Complex can be found as 'well among ' the ethos of the Luiseno, some of -which include: fishhooks, nets, fire drills, mortars, ' metates, manos,. pestles, br,ushes,tweezers, digging sticks, • food paddles, spoons, stone and pottery bowls, baskets, awls,' 'saws', 'cordage, war' clubs, throwing. sticks, bows, arrows, slings.,' projectile' points, knives, scrapers, and choppers, as 'well as musical and gaming toys (lovin 1963)i, The above, listing, is of 'course' only a small portiOn of .the Luiseno material culture; some ,. types of artifacts, such as • • S, ' S ,, ''S ' 5, S ' ' ' ' • ' 'A-23. baskets,,, can be broken down into at'. least twelve different forms. S Economically, the Luisenowere similar to the people of the San Luis Rey II Phasein.'that they lived in semi- permanent villages and 'practiced a "seasonal round" form of subsistence strategy. Each of the villages were semi- autonomous units and claimed 'strictly defined territorial areas which • were defended from.* all intruders. 'This settlement pattern changed as Anglo-Amer.ican.s began moving into the area, forcing the Luiseno onto small reservations which represented only a small. fraction. of ., their..' former territory. .. • HISTORIC CHRONOLOGY 'Agua Hedionda Lagoon was first seen. by the members of ,: , • Portola's' overland expedition in 1769, at which time, the' valley, was described by Fr..Crespi as "not very far from the' shore, ' and 'at th'e end of it we saw an estuary although the' sea." was not visible." ''Apparently, the' lagoon was closed at this tithe, since Portola's men' referred.to the- ' smell, 'implying a closed system. . ', S. A-24 . S , ,'. ,•' ' • Hedionda Rancho, an early Mexican land grant of some 13,311 acres covering the hills and valleys between Vista and Carlsbad (Gunn 194.5:12). The estuary is believed to have originally been named Santa Sinforosa,, but this name faded from popular usage and the area became known as San Fran- cisco. When Rancho Agua Hedionda was granted to Don Juan • Maria Marron in 1842, both names were used (Davidson n.d.). Against Marron's wishes, the land became popularly known as "Rancho Agua Hedionda", or literally the Stinking Waters 1. Ranch. Captain Marron',, his brother Sylvestre Marron, Sr., and other members cf the family built several adobe houses on Agua Hedionda Rancho. When Don Juan Maria Marron died in 1853, his widow and four children inherited the rancho, with the exception of 360 acres bequeathed to Silvestre. The latter was also given grazing rights on all the rancho. The Marrons leased Agua Hedionda Rancho to Francis Hinton in 1860 for a loan of $6,000.00. In 1865, Hinton assumed • ownership (Moyer 1968). Hinton, whose real name was Abraham Ten Eyck De Witt • Hornbeck, died at the rancho in 1870. He had never married and he willed Agua Hedionda to his majordomo, Robert Kelly. I family, to San Diego County. He settled a ranch adjoining that of Robert Kelly. According to John Kelly, one of Matthew's sons, thel small valley where they settled was known as"Los Quiotes", meaning the yuccas or the daggers -- referring to the shape of the yuccas) (J. Kelly n.d.). Upon Robert's death in 1891, Agua Hedionda Rancho was inherited by his nephews and nieces -- sons and daughters of Matthew-Kelly,.,Sr. "At the time the place were [sic] divided there were quite a few owners that were still single. There were sister Emma, myself, sister Jane and Robert J. Kelly and John L. Kelly. They soon found a pardner and started in ranching."(William S. Kelly, n. d.). From a,-copy of a map made when the rancho was being divid- ed, one can obtain the names of the heirs John L. Kelly Minnie L. Borden William S. Kelly Matthew E. Kelly Francis J. Kelly Robert Kelly Lizzy A. Gunn Charles Kelly bleary Emma Kelly (Squires) An agreement was reached on the system of division among the heirs. The parcels were designated on slips of paper and drawn from a hat by the heirs. There were three exceptions to the original agreement. First, Minnie L. (Mrs.W.W. Borden). and her husband' asked A-26 . ... .. for the parcel designated as Lot J. The home the Bordens built on their portion was later the residence of R.N. Sheffler. There were also two parcels that remained as common holdings. One,Lôt E, which includes the study area, was a strip of coast a mile or more wide. It in- cluded the lagoon area to the southern, boundary of the grant. Some twenty years later it was sold to the same interests who planned to build the Henshaw dam. The other 1. common holding was a small rectangle, including the basal- tic cliff, and known as . Calavera. It was sold many years later to W.S. Kelly, ; who, owned the surrounding land (Friends of the Library n.d.). . . . Except for Elizabeth Kelly Gunn, .who... had married and . ................................'.... . .. S .<. was living in Julian, all nine heirs settled on the divided lands. Lot . J, conceded to Minnie L. (Mrs. W.W. Borden) . and her husband, was :the first to be divided among.-. .the next generation. The inheritances were given out through the ,years between. 1910 and 1920. Lots A and I were sold as entities by the original owners. In later years, a large , . .. .. portion of Lot I was purchased by W.S. Kelly and sons Allan and Horace. Lot. B, later divided among second-generation holders, retained only one of the family as title holder in • 0, .. . later years. . . . . . When a' first géneratioñ daughter married,, the name 'S. .A-27 . - changed, which accounts for later holders namesappearing as Borden on Lot J, Gunn on Lot D, Squires on Lot C, and Pritchard on Lot I. Second. and, subsequent generations added many more' names. The Kelly name, however, was re- . corded on titles of the central portion of the rancho, in- cluding Lots E, F,G,' and:L and smaller portions of B. Not so long ago among the Kellys still in the area were found the names Allan,: Carroll, James, and Irwin. Kelly, whose homes were located -in the ce'ntral'. portion'of the rancho 0 (Friends of the Library n.d.).. . The lagoon itself has evidently undergone substantial' changes since its discovery 'by Portola in 1763. An early raiIroa'd survey map shows the lagoon with the entrance at ' the south end. The present: entrance at the north end is probably the result of highway construction (Miller 1966:37). " The 1916 edition 6f the United States Coast and : ' Geodetic ,Survey Chart 5102 shows no connection between the lagoon and• the sea. The first, road in the study area was apparently :a dirt road. • In 1915, this road. was paved, and a concrete , bridge built over the lagoon entrance. 'Several , large storms in 1922 and 1927 cut the' entrance 'channel to the' lagoon very deep, and this allowed the lagoon' to remain '• . open to the sea for several. years, duringwhich time the sand: bars, And beaches at the mouth of the lagoon became 0 0 , •' 0 ,0 ... A.-28 0 ' 0 . ,. Popular picnic areas. ' An Air Photo Compilation Map dated January 1934 shows a channel and open entrance to'the sea at the locàtión of the present channel. However, the 1946 USGS map for the area shows a closed lagoon. Evidently, the lagoon was not open . to. the sea between 1946 and 1955, except for occa- sional openings by the. citizens of Carlsbad. The lagoon was permanently opened to. the ocean * in .1955 by SDG&E to furnish water for cooling the generators of the • . Encina Power, ,Plant. Except for periodic dredging, the la- goon has remainedessentially the same since then. . FIELD METHODS • The project area, as.. shown in Map 1, was.iritensively examined by means ''ofa. series of linear transects spaced • approximately ten meters apart. Large portions of the survey area were- obscured4 by heavy growth of succulent ground cover, 'paved parking areas, and the existing S ' , roadbed. These areas were examined as well as possible, although . those:: areas lacking dense ground cover were accorded - the most 'attention." Virtually all of the easterly A-29 ' I one—half of the sand bar across Agua Hedionda Lagoon was S examined. The exception to this was a fenced area immediately north of the power, plant After consultation with California Transportation Department staff, test trenching was performed in the southerly portion of the study area. This extended survey consisted of the excavation of a series of th-ee backhoe trenches. The location of each trench was chosen so that it was accessible to the equipment and in or flea: the areas shown by the record searches as site area (see Map 1, Sheet 2 and 3). The backhoe trenches were excavated to a depth of S slightly more than one meter, with length equal to approximately three meters and a width of 50 centimeters. The exception was trench number three, which was somewhat less than three meters in length, with a width of 1.2 meters to.minus 80 centimeters, and 50 centimeters to a depth of 1.3 meters. During excavation, the soil being removed was visually examined for artifactual material. Following excavation, the side walls of each trench were scraped and intensively examined for the presence of cultural materials. S A-30 STUDY FINDINGS The above techniques failed to identify any new archaeological sites or evidence of the previously-recorded • • site' during the field reconnaissance. Additionally,, the results of the trenching were essentially negative; no prehistoric remains were encountered, 'although what may be 1. . the 1915 road surface was located at a depth of 80 centimeters in trench number three. f :- ' . CONCLUSIONS Since no evidence of site SDi-210/SDM-W-127A could be - located during the, survey or test trenching, ".it. can.be concluded that the subject cultural resource is not located within the study. area. • 'Additionally, the extensive • disturbance of-the area in.quSstion (i.e., the road surface encountered in trench number three) would probably have destroyed any cultural resources present.' ' -.1' . • ' . - A-31 • SOURCES Bada, Jeffrey L.,,, Roy A. Schroeder, and George F. Carter 1974 New Evidence for the Antiquity of Man in North Amer- ica Deduced from Aspartic Acid Racemization. Science, 188:791-793. Bickel, Polly 1978 Changing Sea Levels Along the California Coast: An- thropological Implications. Journal .DI California Anthropology, Vol. 5(1):7-'20. Boscana, Geronimo 1978 Chinigchinich. Malki Museum Press. Banning. • Davidson, John fl.d. Names Used for Ranchos in Early Days. Newspaper clipping on file at the Serra Museum. Davis, Emma Lou • . 1969 -T1= Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum • . Paper number 6. . Dubois, C. • 19.08 The Religion, of the Luiseno Indian. University f .California Publications •in American Archaeology. • Ethno1oy, 8:69-173. Eberhart, H. • ,Archaeological 1952 Report , an Archaeological SurveyNlear Rinconln- .Q . Diego County; California. MS on file, Department of Anthropology and SociOlogy, University of California at Los Angeles. 0 Friends of the Library • :• n.d. fljtoLy Carlsbad. • Friends of the Library of. Carlsbad. Gunn, Guard . • . " . . 1945 Rancho Agua Bedionda: Borne of the Marrons and the Kellys. Southern California Rancher, March 1945:12. 32 • 0 . . 0/ lovin, 1963 A Summary of Luiseno Material Culture. Annual Report Archaeological Survey. University of California at Los Angeles. S V Kelly, John n.d. Life on ,.a San Diego County Ranch. Manuscript. on file at the Serra Museum. ' Kelly, William n.d. Agua Hedionda Ranch. Manuscript on file at the Serra V Museum. Kroeber, A. 1908 A Mission' Record 'of'the California Indians. Univer- sity -Qf California Publications .in American Archae- ology =A Ethnology, 8(l):1-27, V 1925 The Handbook of Indians' of California. Bureau •gjV American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 78. Washington, DC. V • Meighan, C. V V V V V V 1954.-A Late ' Complex in Southern 'California. prehistory. V Southwestern Journal Qf.'Anthr'opology, 10(2):252-254. V 1959 California Cultures and the Concept of an Archaic Stage. American Antiquity, 24(3):289-305. Miller, J.N. V V ,,1966 jbje Present And Past Molluscan Faunas Environ- • V V • ments Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons-. Vat V • •. MS on file at University of California San Diego. Moriarty, J.R. andR. Broms V V • V • 1967 The Antiquity and Inferred Use of StoneSphereson S V •• the Diego Coast. V ,V UCLA Archaeological Survey V San- - • Annual Report. V V ' • V V Moriarty, J.R., G. Sliumway, Warren V ' •V •V V and C. Warren, 1959" "Scripps Estate Site l' (SD i-524): Va• preliminary re- • • port on an early site 'on the Sari Diego coast.Annual V V V Report, Arhaeo1ogical Survey: 189-21.6. V • '. A33 V V • • V S 5 0'•• ," ••, .'. • Moyer, Cecil C. 1968 Agua Hedionda Rancho Yields to Power •Plan€s, Air- port, Homes. 9.= Diego Union - I - S _•5 1' Osborne, D. • 1958: Western American Prehistory -- An Hypothesis. Amer- ican Antigjy, 24(1) :47-52. S 5' Phillips, George H. 1975 Chiefs 'n Challengers: Indian Resistance .and Coop - ration .jn Southern California. tIC Press, Los An- geles. Rogers, Malcolm • 1929 Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. American An- • thropologj.st . Vol. 31:3:454-467.' '. • ' 1939 Early Lithic Industries Lower Basin j21 tJ= Colorado River ' Adjacent Desert. San 'Diego Mu- ' seum of Man'' Papers,, No'. 3,' San Diego. • 5 1945," An Outline -of Yuman"Prehory.t •Soüthwes't&rn JOurnal' 'DI Anthropology, 1:2., - •, 1966 Ancient Hunters .tIj 'West. Copley Press, San Diego. • .5 " -..•: 5'.-. PhilipS.- Sparkman, 1908 The Culture .of,the Luiseno Indians. University California Publications in American Archaeokcgv 'nad Ethnôlogy, Vol. 8(4) :187-234. .. . ' • ' ' ' .:: State of California ' ' ' • 1976 California Inventory . 'H'isto'ric:Rèsources.' ' Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 1979 CaliforniA Historical Landmarks. Department of parks and Recreation, Sacramento. .- • ' '. ' True, D.L. ' " • ' •' ' 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County. • ' American An- - - tictuity, 23(3):255-261, : ' • .• • A-34 S. True, D.L., C.W. •Meighan, 'andH. Crew' ,• 1973 Archaeological Invetfgation ' at Molpa, , San .• Diego. County,' California; Univerity California Publi- cations ,j Anthropology, Vol. 11. U.C. 'Press, Berk-' eley. and London. •: ' S ' S S United States Government ' ' '' • " ":''' S , 1976 NationalRegister of Historic Places. Office of:Ar- cheology and Historic Preservation. Warren, .'. " Claude N. •: '' 1964. Cultural Change Continuity Dn th £n Diego ' ' Coast. ' unpublished PhD. dissertation, UCLA.. Warren, 3C.N., and D.L. True - ' 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and' its Place in 'California ,. Prehistory.. Archaeological Survey Annual , Report,' University of California at Los Angeles. Warren,.'C.N., DL. True, and A. Eudey•. '' ' .• • 1961 'M: The San. Dieguit'o' Type :Site:. J., Ro4e r,s-.1 1938 exca-. vation on the San' Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Paper No. 5. 'White, R. ' S •' S ' ' 1963' Luiseno Social Organization. University Df Califor- nia Publications in American Archaeology an.d. Ethnoi- 48(2) 91-194. 5' S. 5 • ' ' S • 5 . 5 S S • S '5 • , : , '5 ''S ...'' -•-•-----••-, ••, - _ 1 L'4'vd -- _;; ;i / - \ £.TJ/T5 Cvlthgd I ' -ii: T— __ ____ - - . • / -_ i..i 1 7 - -' I - • ;• E'' p''f .• /. -10 • A604 HEDAA / •.• • • • .• • • ••• - - • •• .•• ••. .•. ___________ lob lll,~ MONO 0 —ONO .•• - -- - - I' z'Z7 .be eO,2tt T .D,2, .6LIS • • - ____ - - - • - - - - -;•_-,_• 11EY TO SYMBOLS USED ON KkP 1: S Limits of Survey Area t 2PACFIC OCEAN Location of sDi 210 - • ------ II - so 0 • PRELIMINARY RoADwAy:pLAN • ' ' B' _ !_• ?o. tocatjonofwl2lA i r%I 1L rtoj BOULEVARD - • 1-1 = SHEET-3' A-37 - • A - • - •. • • / - 4 - - 7 - - - 7 N - ITrm ( - CARL SE3[jD BLVD. -• -'---'-,' Y TO SYMBOLS USED O) MAP 1 - A - zz I - ------------ E ° so PRELIMINARY ROADWAY PLA1---------- ----_ CARLSBAD BOULEVARD ___ 2 - -. fAPi A38 A S ph. wound 50.5 L 465 / N 505 - 4951 -t - 4g.6 :- / _ z8.6 48.15 V i A sph. . I -1. 48.6 - 1-48.6 Porkino c Pavec :c S - / I / - Ib4i .ey .I .. .. - -0!476 - Ij - 45.7 --- - - — 43.1 — d__ :.Jj S•( -443 -r44& .44 4.5 P r 46. 8 ( 76 8 . - '.. -. - - .- . N___S___ S_____ : • . - #10 17 _________ - - - - -' I. / • 8.4 Conc.'1 '1 423 4OSLJ - /io Constructn - 40/ *41.5 :- 4341-s , ! t40r KEY TO SYMBOLS SED ON AP 1: — I C.- i oj ( , - Limits of Surv4r Area 41.3 A ph 418 6 / CI) Conc.- , )S\CCC Area not surveL . I - ' ?39 40 II 40.b 79~3 50_ON5o 40 50 0 Location of SD 210 ---[ ,- - scale Location of W-lhA _ 73 : ;- - .127 ' ' ' - LOCATION: 'Nortb.esterd ófEedionda - c) • Block on the rim of the 0 •• Eedionda Slough ( south side). Elev.507 . CULTURES: SD-61 and Lit. II NAME: None. WATER CONDITIONS: None'. . AREA: There is buried scattered evidence of camping over a .. ARCHITECTURE: Lit.. II cobble hearths great area here with one shell very scarcee concentration of 1/2 acre. BURIALS: None. TYPE: Slough terrace camping of an intermittent nature. PE'rROS: None. ITRUSIVES: None. • STORY:. SD-11 people first camped on this sandy. flat- along the slough terrace but used practically no shell. Over this the Lit. II..people graduai]..y built aconcentration of shell not to exceed 14". It is of medium shell and charcoal content. REMARKS: This whole region produces reworked SD artifacts and the evidence is strong in this site. This reusage began in Lit. II and became strongest during Y-III. . It would be mAtural that somèSD tools would be used without resharpni,g and this would account for the finding of patinated feisite p ithW.-occasionally within a Lit. II midden along with ones which show fresh marginal flaking. ax. depth 24"..-of which the lower 10" is SD-Il in age. .. Metates and Manos scarce. W-127-A • . ... . • ••• :•• • . . SD-11 with a few scattered Lit. II cobble hearths. This is on the 50' to 75' levels on the point of the junction of the slough with the ocean. Al]. SD-11 is buried to a depth of 3' and Lit. II hearths .. occur in the upper 12".which ,has a shallow deposit of aeolian sand over it. . . . 0 • • .. - . ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA J " ° U.S. DEPARTMENT or TRANSPORTATION GUAM - FEI)ERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION . AUZZICAN SAMOA • REGION CALIFORNIA DIVISION • -:-. . . P-0. Box 1915 February 19, 1982 Sacramento, California 95809 • • . . IN REPLY REFER TO BC-CA .•• File: M-S101(4) Carlsbad Boulevard Ms. Adriana Gianturco, Director CALTRANS, 1120 N Street'.. •. • . Sacramento, California -95814 . . • .••. Attention: Federal-aid Branch, Room 3309 . . - . for Lewis K. Wood Dear Ms. Gianturco: . ........... •• •- . We have reviewed the Historic Property Survey Report transmitted with your letter of January 20, 1982 on the subject project It is determined there are no properties on or eligible to be n- cluded on the National Register of Historic Places within the area of potential environmental impact of this.project.. This completes 36 CFR 800 requirements for this project. - • . - •• . .. . Sincerely yours, -. •. • For -: - - • - - 0• • - Bruce E. Cannon - • .. - - • .- • . Division Administrator S.. f .. Business ciid Trciisporotion Agency 0 -... ii V To District I Date - S. I • 4- • - Attention - - File Local Assistance - . . . . '.•Z .., ----i.. it - __, •- ' . ': -S From. DEPARThNT OF TRANSPORTATION . . . Division of Local Assistance Stjbt: Environmental Document Action. . . The following action has been taken on the envirnmeñtal document '5-, _i.J :) / .—t . •. for •-•/i .• -. . Historic Property Survey app roved. . -. (FHWA concurrence letter attached.) . . Environmental Assessment approved for. circulation by FH'1A. . Please return signed title page (-attached) to Local Agency. - FONSI approved by FHWA. Please return signed title page (attached) to Local Agency.. Lewis K. Wood Chief - - . . . . Program ,Branch C • • - . - . Attachment() . . • • . - CC:. Area Engineer - - .• • ..; - - - . DLA-300 (11/80-) . . . . I -. . 5 .. ,. • • 5_S • • - . ... . . FEB 241982 • - ..- 1 S c . . . .. S. RISK ASSESSMENT FOR BRIDGE AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS . •. S ? :. . . FOR . . . . CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN . TAMARACK AVENUE AND CANNON ROAD CITY OF CARLSBAD 0 •0 • . 0 Prepared for City of Carlsbad 12.00 Elm Avenue . • . Carlsbad, CA 92008 0• ,. . 0 •• . •0 • Study Performed by Betsy Weisman, Project Manager . 0 • . . NEW HORIZONS Planning. Consultants, Inc. 185V Fifth Avenue • San Diego, CA 92101 0 0 March 1982 RISK STATEMENT • I. Area of Consideration A. Setting The proposed replacement; bridge is designed 0 to cross the 160-foot wide man-made tidal, channel of the Aqua Hedionda Outer Lagoon just east of the channel's' connection to the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). The permanent channel-opening to the ocean.wacreated in 1954 when San Diego Gas and Electric dredged. the lagoon to provide a source, of cooling' water to the Encina Power Plant located to the southeast of the proposed'project. The lagoon is dredged biannually by SDC&E to keep it open to I ' the 'ocean. The Ag'ua Hediond Lao,on'is' divided 'into three. sections, an inner, middle and outer lagoon, all ' of which provide considerable flood 'storage. The bridge location is at the channel entrance just west of the S ' approximately 900-yard long and 340-wide outer lagoon. At the -outlet -of Agua' Hedionda Lagoon to the ocean ' • • • SDG&E has constructed two' rock groins. The sides of the channel, where the bridge spans, are lined with rip- rap. The presentbridge structure was completed in 1934 and is a two-lane' structure of reinforced concrete 'construction with three 'concrete piling supports in the channel-an d a 160-foot span between abutments (Figure • 2); 'The proposed replacement' bridgeis planned as a' • , • • four-lane clear-span :structure of 200-foot span, and will be approximately 'four feet above the existing roadway • height The new abutments will be 20 feet back from the 1 Figure 1 Aeia1View of ProposèdProject Sitd AV '000p) VIP M. / w. \ LI \ t 011 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE STREET " ,? .2. :- A%.. - -a.-. ,- SiN 4.1 - l4 ., •-' - -.th - k..- - Pacific Coast Highway bridge (looking uostream). This point marks the mouth of Agud Hedionda Lagoon. - - - . . - - Source: - July 1973, Floodplain Information - Aqua-Hedionda Creek Pacific Ocean - to Buena, San Diego County, California. Prepared for San Diego County by the I. • Department of the Army, Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers. I existing channel.on either side andthis area adjacent to the water will be rip-rapped. The outer lagoon property is owned by San Diego Gas and Electric and is maintained as open space No public use of the outer lagoon water surface is allowed, except for a fishing area maintained by SDG&E There are no residences or structures in the floodplain of the outer lagoon The, limits of. the 100-ye'ar floodplain 'at the channel were determined -by the U. S-.Army Corps of Engineer'(1973 Floodplain Information Agua Hedionda Creek Pacific Ocean to Buena, San Diego County, California) and the Inter- mediate Regional Flood extends approximately 3-4 feet beyond the water line (Figure 3) The Federal Emergency Management Agency maintains a RegionIX Flood Prone List for California, and the Agua Fledionda Lagoon map, 'which includes the propos'ed project site, was dropped from the list in September 1981 as not being within an area of possible-100-year flood damage, and has a Zone C designation as 'a 500-year flood' area only. (Attchmet 1).. II Location Hydraulic Studies A Potential for Flooding, Overtopping The present bridge elevation is 13.4 feet at low chord (elevation at bridge. bottom) and 18 feet to' the roadbed. The height of the water fIowixig under the ' bridge during,an Intermediate RegionäT FI6d*(100 year. flood) is estimated to be5..8. feet and, 6.0' feet 'for. a . - 4 - T' LEGEND: OVERFLOW LIMITS I INTERMEDIATE STANDARD PROJECT REGIONAL FLOOD FLOOD :. M+ 2.50----- MILES ABOVE MOUTH [] CROSS SECTION 400---- ----GROUND ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET .:v. 71 CARLS.BAD -- . ... -J .Q:. Xi? CL 0. .20 - - - -u 2 NZ __\ -r \\ 2 C ::. \ . . V. • YMCA AGUA AOUATIC PARK .5. Flow :. ... I UA M HE D110INDA LAGOON 2 ' V V' Figure 3 - Boundaries of Inermediate Regional Flood (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) ,2J 600 0 600 SCALE IFEET DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FLOODED AREAS JULY 1973 5 • ..':'" Standard Project Flood (the most-severe combination of mtebrologic. conditions reasonably characteristic of the geographic region, excluding extremely rare combinations). The proposed replacement bridge is designed to-be four feet higher than the existing bridge (Figure 4) at roadbed level and the same as, the existing bridge of low chord. Thus, the new bridge is in no danger f'f-looding or over- topping. '. ••- - , B. Encroachment -oh Base Floodplain ' The limits 'of 'the floodplain as mapped by the Army Corps ofEngineers', 1973, 'extend approximately .' 3-4 feet beyond the water line. The existing bridge ...abutments are 160' feet apart and, are at the water's edge. The -proposed new bridge would be 200 feet between abutments, twenty feet beyond the water line, and at least 15 feet beyond the 100-year floodplain. Thus, 'the proposed bridge will not encroach into the floodplain. • ' '.•. ' • . •• . . fl - • C. 'Risk Associated with Implementation 'As was shown in Section A, there is no risk 0 - of overtopping .Other risks include the posib1e ' obstructionto' floodflows or possibility of erosion. • Flood' damage reduction measures which are currently u-sed and would not be altered in chained logs installed 'by • ' - SDG&E at the entrance between the outer and middle lagoons -_,.. and at the entrance to .the outer lagoon which serve to aid' deposition of heavy debris for. subsequent clearing or -. 'removal. In this way possible damage to the bridge or • - • -•- 6 L.ft - - -. I -. .. - .•-t -. . I - -. ---- - ILteR__-- - -_ -iim - ----u ----.. -- --- --- __u u.u .uu u_rI...__ p— ___ iiuuu.--__---umuuuuuuuu.umu.uuaui MEM muu1. ..—.u•__ —ul long mm __ low __ —uu•_•—•• u —uuu..— - .-- -----uiuuu Wro u,,-- ____ __--u-.---.—..--------.—. ••.••.— MILES ABOVE MOUTH Figure 4 . High Water Profile of Existing and Proposed Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Over Agua Hedionda Lagoon • . .. . ., . ;' lagoon bank by high velocity debris is "averted. Also SDG&E has constructed two rock jetties extending fromthe mouth of the channel, into the Pacific Ocean and -has lined the channel banks with rip-rap. The rock groins at the outlet of the lagoon serve to protect the shoreline and the banks of the lagoon from scour damage from possible floodflows. The flood dthnage. reduction. measures would remain unchanged -by the proposed project. • Where any additional area of, embankment might be exposed, it will be rip-rapped in the same manner as the -existing banks. • , ' ' The existing bridge has three concrete piers in the channel which create some impediment to water flows. • . These will, be removed as the new bridge design is a clear-span structure which will improve the water flow through the channel and reduce-impediments, to floodf lows. . D. Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values ' ' , ' The proposed bridge project will not change any of the land. use in the: project area, but will maintain the entire area in its present' state. As the channel is man-made and lined with rip-rap, no natural -vegetation will be disturbed. E. Probable Incompatible Floodplain Development The proposed bridge and 'roadway impovernent 'will ot result in ,any new areas for development and will not • . '.'.' .' , '• ' •" 8 ' • . ' . increase any deVelopment in the floodplain as most of. the floodplain is permanently under water, with only a narrow rim of 3-4 feet .offloódplain beyond the -water line, there is no area for development.. S F. Measures to Minimize. Floodplain Impacts The project has been designed to minimize any potential impacts to the floodplain by moving the abutments further back from the water's edge, and eliminating the piers in the channel. . G. Measures to Restore and Preserve Natural . and Beneficial Floodplain Values . . As there are no negative impacts to the floodplain created by this project, no such measures are necessary. 1• .S 5 5 III. Summary The proposed project is a Low Risk project which will have less impact on the floodplain than the existing S. bridge which has spanned the same area since 1934 and has • withstood reported damaging floods of 1938, 1942, and . • • . 1980. The proposed project creates no significant impact to the floodplain, no -change to upstream or downstream . flows, does not create scour damage, is in no danger of • Sr being overtopped, or washed out, and no possible cost • • losses due to flooding would be anticipated based on the • S - • : • data provided by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers study. • • S. S - • . 9 5 . S i. [IJ I. le FEDERAL Region IX EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 211 Main Street, Room 220 San Francisco, CA 94,105 REGION IX FLOOD PRONE LIST CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA COMMTY. NAME LAST REV. COMMTY. NAME LAST REV. TYPE COMMA & NUMBER OF MAP TYPE COMM.# & COUNTY OF MAP R R R R R R R R P P P R P R R R R P P R P P P P R R R R R * * 0606398 ADELANTO(San Bern.) 4-15-80 R 060272A CHINO(Sart Bern. Co) Map Resc. 060001A ALAMEDA COUNTY 4-15-81 065021B CHULA VISTA(San Diego)3-14-78 060002A ALAMEDA(Alameda Co) 8-1-78 060109A CLAREMONT(Los Angeles)Map Resc. 060003A ALBANY(Alameda Co) 2-1-80 R 0600278 CLAYTON(Contra Costa) 12-4-79 0600956 ALHAMBRA(Los Angeles) Map Resc. 060376A CLOVERDALE(Sonoma Co) 2-6-76 060193A'ALTURAS(Modoc Co) 1-2-76 060044C CLOVIS(Fresno Co) 9-5-78 060015A AMADOR COUNTY 6-7-77 R 060249A COACHELLA(Riverside) 9-30-80 0602139 ANAHEIM(Orange Co) 6-4-80 0600458 COALINGA(Fresno Co) 9-26-78 060359B ANDERSON(Shasta Co) 9-1-77 R 0603169 COLMA(San Mateo Co) Map Resc. 0600218 ANGELS CAMP(Cal.Co) 10-31-78 P 060273A COLTON(San 8errtadino) 9-17-80 0600268 ANTIOCh(Contra Costa) 12-2-80 060022A COLUSA COUNTY 9-6-77 065014A ARCADIA(Los Angeles) Map Resc. p 060023A COLUSA(Colusa Co) Map Res. 060061C ARCATA(Humboldt Co) 7-1-80 R 060110A COMMERCE(Los Angeles) Map Res. 0603058 ARROYO GRANDE(S.L.0.) 2-6-79 R 060111A COMPTON(Los Angeles) Map Res. 060097 ARTESIA(Los 'Angeles) Map Resc. 065022A CONCORD(Contra Costa) 4-9-76 060700A. ATASCADERO(S.L.O.) 9-16-80 060025A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 9-6-77 0603128 ATHERTON(Sari Mateo Co)Map-Resc. 060398A CORNING(Teharna Co) 9-26-75 0601898 ATWATER(Merced Co) Map Resc. 060287A CORONADO(San Diego) 9-10-76 0602409 AUBURN(Placer Co) 6-30-76 R 060250C CORONA(Riverside Ca) 1-19-79 060098A AVALON(Los Ar.geles) 9-29-78 R 0650239 'CORTE MADERA(Marin) 12-15-77 065015A AZUSA(Los Angeles Co) Map Resc. 0602168 COSTA MESA(0range Co) 6-27-78 060077A BAKERSFIELD(Kern Co) 8-6-76 R 060377C COTATI(Sonoma Co) 4-15-80 060100A BALDWIN PARK(L.A. Co) Map Resc. R 0650248 COVINA(Los Angeles Co)Map Resc. 0602468 BANNING(Riverside Co) 10-17-78 0600398 CRESCENT CITY(Del Nor9-6-78 060271A BARSTOW(San Bern. Co) 2-1-80 R 060114C CULVER CITY(L.A. Co) 2-1-80 0602475 BEAUMONT(Riverside Co)10-1778 R 060339C CUPERTINO(Santa Clara)5-1-80 060102, BELLFLOWER(L.A. Ca) Mao Resc. R 060217C CYPRESS(Orange Co) Map Resc. 060101 BELL(Los Angeles Ca) Map Resc. R 060317 DALY CITY(San Mateo) Map Resc. 065016A BELMONT(San Mateo Ca) 8-20-76 R 0604248 DAVIS(Yolo Co) 11-15-79 0604298 BELVEDERE(Marin Co) 5-2-77 060288A DEL MAR(San Diego) 10-17-75 0603688 BENECIA(Solano Co) 5-31-77 065025A DEL NORTE COUNTY 4-4-78 060004A BERKELEY(A(ameda Ca) 9-178 060197: DEL REY OAKS(Monterey)5-14-76 0606558 BEVERLY HILLS(L.A. Co)Map Resc. 060078A DELANO(Kern Co) 10-17-75 060074 BISHOP(Inyo Co) 6-7-74 R 060251B DESERT HOT SPRINGS 060438 BLUE LAKE(Humooldt Co)1-1775 (Riverside Ca) 4-2-79 060248A BLYTHE(Riverside Co) Map Resc. 060403A DINUBA(lulaFe Co) 2-6-76 065017A BRABURY(L.A. Co) Map Resc. R 0603698 DIXON(Solano Co) 5-19-El 060066 BRAWLEY(Imperia1 Ca) Mao Resc. R 060443 DOS PALOS(Merced Ca) Map Resc. 0602149 BREA(Orange Co) 12-2-80. . 065026 DUARTE(Los Angeles Co)Map Resc. 060439 BRENTWOOD(Contra Costa)Map Resc. R 0603638 DUNSMUIR(Siskiyou Co) 12-4-79 060314A BRISBANE(San MateoCo)5-24-74 P 0602898 EL CAJON(San Diego Co)9-15-77 0602158 BUENA PARK(Orange Ca) 2-1-79 R 060670 EL CENTRO(Imperial Co)Map Resc. 065018! BURBANK(Los Angeles). 1-23-81 - R 0650278 EL CERRITO(Contra 065019C BURLINGAME(San Mateo) 9-16-81 Costa Co) 6-1-77 060017A BUTTE COUNTY 12-27-77 060040A EL DORADO COUNTY 11-1-77 060633A CALAVERAS COUNTY 11-29-77 R 0603088 EL PASO DE.ROBLES(SLO)9-16-81 060067A CALEXICO(Imoerial Ca) .10-8-76 R 060118A EL SEGUNOO(L. A. Ca) Map Resc. 060440A CALIFORNIA(Kern Co) 4-15-77 P 0600059 EMERYVILLE(Alámeda Co)Mao Resc. 060068A CALIPATRIA(Imperial) 11-14-75 060290A ESCONOIDOSañ Diego) 4-25-78 060206B CALISTOGA(Napa Ca) 9-28-79 P 0603648 ETNA(Siskiyou Ca) ' 3-4-80 065020A CAMARILLO(Ventura Ca) 10-24-75 060062A EUREKA(Humboldt Co) 11-14-75 0603388 CAMPBELL(Santa Clara) Map Resc. I R 0604048 EXETER(Tulare Co) Map Resc. 060354A CAPITOLA(Santa Cruz) 3-19-76 P 060175A FAIRFAX(Marin Ca) 1-5-78 060370A FAIRFIELD(Solano Ca) 11-28-75 060332C CARPINTERIA(Sta.Barb.)7-7-78 0604058 FARMERSVILLE(Tulare) 5-31-77 060107A CARSON(Las Angeles Co)Mao Resc. * 060465A FERflDALE(Humboldt Ca) 3-26-76 ,.060108 CEPRITOS(Las Angeles Map Resc. R - COMMUNITY PARTICIPATING IN REGULAR PHASE OF FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM * - COMMUNITY NOT PARTICIPATING ALL OTHER COMMUNITIES PARTICIPATING IN THE EMERGENCY PHASE OF FLOOD INSURANCE PRCGPAt' ' R R