Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3307; CARLSBAD BLVD SHORE PROTECTION; DETAILED PROJECT REPORT; 1996-04-01
US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District FINAL REPORT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SECTION 103 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Volume I Main Report Environmental Assessment U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 April 1996 r1 - . -I, . •. CARLSBAD SECTION 103 DETAILED PROJECT REPORT Main Report and Environmental Assessment Volume I April 1996 US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District FINAL REPORT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SECTION 103 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Main Report U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 April 1996 SYLLABUS The City of Carlsbad (Agua Hedionda) Feasibility Study This Final Detailed Project Report was prepared in response to a request for Federal assistance for shore protection by the City of Carlsbad, dated 7 December 1994. This study was conducted under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Continuing Authority Program (CAP), pursuant to Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-874), as amended, to investigate the feasibility and economic justification for protecting a 3,000-foot long stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard located between the intake and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Problems and Needs The study area is susceptible to coastal storm flooding, which results in damage to adjacent parking areas, undercutting of the highway foundation material (requiring debris removal), as well as traffic detours along the highway. In recent years, the area has been damaged and the highway closed on the order of once every two years. In view of the vital importance of Carlsbad Boulevard to the regional economy of both the City of Carlsbad and the northern portion of San Diego County, and since it is not practical or cost effective to close or relocate the highway, measures to protect the highway are needed. Alternative Plans The study investigated alternatives for providing storm damage protection to Carlsbad Boulevard, between the intake and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The alternatives considered were as follows: (1) A T-groin with beachfihl, (2) A 3,112- foot long seawall, and (3) A 2,504-foot long seawall. The Federal objective in water resources planning is to contribute to the National Economic Development (NED) objective consistent with protecting the Nation's environment pursuant to national environmental statues, applicable executive orders -and other planning requirements. It was found that .the plan to construct a 2,504-foot long seawall best meets the NED objective, as well as other evaluation criteria, and is the Recommended Plan. Recommended Plan The primary feature of the Recommended Plan, which is Plan 3 of the Main Report and Appendix A, is the construction of a 2,504-foot long steel sheetpile seawall, using 1,500-pound stone as toe protection and approximately 9,750 tons of rock. Benefits and Costs The Recommended Plan would reduce the present estimated annual equivalent storm damages to the road from $611,000 to $7,000. The average annual net benefits is estimated at $266,000 with a Benefit-to-Cost ratio of 1.76 to 1. The first . project cost of the Recommended Plan is-estimated at $4,128,000 (based on October 1995 price levels). . . . . . In accordance with Section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the Federal share. of the first project cost would be $2,900,000, and the Non- Federal share would be $2,128,000. Environmental Impacts A summary of the environmental impacts of the Recommended Plan, which is shown as Alternative 2 in the Environmental Assessment, on significant environmental resources of principal national concern are as follows: Water Quality. Minor short-term impacts to water quality could occur during the construction of the seawall. Marine Resources. Project impacts on marine resources will be adverse, but not significant. . . . . . . . . . Cultural and Historic Resources. The project as planned will not cause any impacts to cultural resources. Hazardous and Toxic Wastes. There is no evidence of hazardous or toxic wastes present in the immediate project area. Non-Federal Sponsor The City of Carlsbad is the Non-Federal Sponsor for this project. The City has agreed to enter into a Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) for this Feasibility Study. The City has also provided a letter of intent indicating, its interest and support in implementing the Recommended Plan. , . . . . .. . TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Authority ........................ . ..................... 1-1 1.2 Study Purpose and Scope ....................................1-1 1.3 Study Conduct .............................................11 1.4 Public Involvement ..........................................1-1 1.5 Prior Studies ...............................................1-2 1.5.1 Corps of Engineers Studies .............................1-2 1.5.2 Studies by Others .....................................1-2 2.0 THE STUDY AREA 2.1 Location ..................................................21 2.2 Description ................................................2-1 2.3 Physical Characteristics ......................................2-1 2.3.1 Bathymetry .........................................2-1 2.3.2 Local Geology/Sediment Characteristics .................2-5 2.3.3 Climate ............................................2-5 2.3.4 Tides and Sea Level ..................................2-5 2.3.5 Water Levels ........................................2-6 2.3.6 Currents ...........................................2-8 2.3.6.1 Offshore Currents .............................2-8 2.3.6.2 Longshore Currents ............................2-8 2.3.6.3 Cross-shore Currents ..........................2-8 2.3.7 Waves and Storms ...................................2-9 2.3.8 Littoral Processes ....................................2-11 2.3.8.1 Sediment Sources and Sinks ....................2-12 2.3.8.2 Existing Structures, Beachfihls, and Dredging History .........................2-13 2.3.8.3 Erosion and Accretion Rates ....................2-15 2.3.8.4 Historic Shoreline Changes .....................2-16 2.3.8.5 Historic Profiles ..............................2-16 2.3.8.6 Longshore Transport ..........................2-17 2.3.8.7 Sediment Budget .............................2-17 2.4 Social and Economic Factors .................................2-20 2.4.1 Location and Description ..............................2-20 2.4.2 Demographics ......................................2-20 2.4.2.1 Population ..................................2-20 2.4.2.2 Tourism and Recreation as Major Industries .........................2-21 2.4.2.3 Employment ..................................2-21 2.4.2.4 Income . 2-21 2.5 Environmental Resources ....................................2-22 2.5.1 Marine Resources ...................................2-22 2.5.1.1 Vegetation and Wildlife ........................2-22 2.5.2 Other Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ......2-24 2.5.3 Noise .............................................2-25 2.5.4 Air Quality .........................................2-26 2.5.4.1 Climate and Meteorology ......................2-26 2.5.4.2 Existing Air Quality ...........................2-27 2.5.5 Land and Recreation Uses ............................2-27 2.5.6 Ground Transportation ...............................2-27 2.5.7 Public and System Safety .............................2-28 2.5.8 Aesthetic ...........................................2-28 2.5.9 Cultural Resources ..................................2-28 3.0 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 3.1 History of Storm Damage and Beach Erosion .....................3-1 3.2 Analysis of Long-Term Erosion and Storm Action .................3-3 3.2.1 Long-Term Erosion ...................................3-3 3.2.2 Storm Recession .....................................3-3 3.2.3 Runup .............................................3-4 3.3 Damages ................................................... 3-5 3.3.1 Roadway Damages ...................................3-5 3.4 Analysis of Economic Losses ................................3-6 3.4.1 Expected and Equilvalent Annual Damages Without Project Conditions ...............................3-6 3.5 Recreation ................................................3-7 3.5.1 Recreation Analysis .................................3-7 3.6 Summary of Problem Definition ................................3-8 4.0 THE PLANNING PROCESS 4.1 Planning Consideration ......................................4-1 4.1 .1 National Objective :4-1 4.1.2 Public Concerns .....................................4-1 4.1.3 Planning Objectives ..................................4-2 4.1.4 Evaluation Criteria ....................................4-2 4.1.4.1 Economic Criteria .............................4-2 4.1.4.2 Environmental Criteria ..........................4-3 4.1.5 Costs ..............................................4-3 iv 4.2 Alternatives . 43 4.2.1 Plan I - A T-Groin with Beachfill .........................4-4 4.2.2 Plan 2-A 3,112-Foot Seawall ..........................4-4 4.2.3 Plan 3- A 2,504-Foot Seawall ..........................4-4 4.3 Evaluation of Alternatives ...................................4-12 4.3.1 Engineering Evaluation ...............................4-12 4.3.2 Cost ..............................................4-13 4.3.3 Economic Benefits ...................................4-17 4.3.4 Optimization of Seawall Crest Elevation for Plan 3 ..........4-17 4.3.5 Environmental Considerations .........................4-19 5.0 THE RECOMMENDED PLAN 5.1 Plan Description ............................................5-1 5.2 Plan Accomplishment ..... . .................................. 5-1 5.3 Project Cost ...............................................5-1 5.3.1 Real Estate .........................................5-1 5.4 Benefits ...................................................5-2 5:5 Economic Justification .......................................5-2 5.6 Environmental Effects ........................................5-2 5.7 Plan Implementation .........................................5-6 5.7.1 Project Purpose ......................................5-6 5.7.2 Cost Appropriation ...................................5-6 5.7.3 Federal Responsibility ................................5-7 5.7:4 Non-Federal Responsibility .............................5-7 5.7.5 Sponsorship Agreement ..............................5-9 5.8 Procedures for Implementation .................................5-9 5.9 Schedule for Implementation .................................5-11 6.0 DISTRICT ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION ............... .......... 6-1 LTA LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Location Map of Carlsbad Study Area ..........................2-2 Figure 2.2 Study Area ...............................................2-3 Figure 2.3 Oceanside Littoral Cell ......................................2-4 Figure 2.4 Statistical Distribution of Higher High Water at San Diego ..........2-7 Figure 2.5 Wave Exposure for the San Diego Region ......................2-7 Figure 2.6 Future Without Project Sediment Budget .......................2-19 Figure 3.1 Beach in front of Carlsbad Boulevard .........................3-2 Figure 4.1 a Plan I - A T-Groin with Beachfill - Typical Cross-Section of Beachfill and Typical Profile of Groin ...........................4-5 Figure 4.1 b Plan 'l - A T-Groin with Beachfill - Schematic ....................4-6 Figure 4.1c Plan I - A T-Groin with Beachfill - Typical Cross-Section ofGroin ..................................................47 Figure 4.2a Plans 2 & 3- Typical cross-section of Seawall ...................4-8 Figure 4.2b Plan 2- A 3,112-Foot Seawall - Schematic ......................4-9 Figure 4.2c Plan 3- A 2,504-Foot Seawall - Schematic .....................4-10 Figure 4.2d Plans 2 and 3- Typical Cross-Section of Seawall ................4-11 Figure 4.3 Carlsbad 103 Study - Optimization of Seawall Crest Elevation ......4-18 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 San Diego Tidal Characteristics ................................2-6 Table 2.2 Oceanside Harbor Extreme Wave Heights .......................2-10 Table 2.3 Historical Deep Water Storm Waves (unsheltered) ................2-11 Table 2.4 Major Coastal Structures Affecting Longshore Transport ............2-13 Table 2.5 Beachfills and Revelant Dredging at Agua Hedionda ...............2-14 Table 2.6 Dredging and Beachfills in Oceanside ..........................2-15 Table 3.1 Storm Recession versus Return Period ..........................3-4 Table 3.2 Wave Runup Level (Feet MLLW) Present Conditions ...............3-4 Table 3.3 Carlsbad Study Area Present Without Project Physical Damages ........................................3-5 Table 3.4 Carlsbad Study Area Future Without Project Physical Damages .........................................3-6 Table 3.5 Carlsbad Study Area Expected and Equilvalent Annual Damages Without Project Conditions ....................3-7 Table 3.6 Carlsbad Study Area Estimate of Present and Future Beach Use .....................................3-8 Table 4.1 Runup Reduction, Plan I ....................................4-12 Table 4.2 Cost Estimate for Plani - T-Groin with Beachfill ...................4-14 Table 4.3 Cost Estimate for Plan 2- A 3112-Foot Seawall ..................4-15 Table 4.4 Cost Estimate for Plan 3- A 2,504-Foot Seawall ..................4-16 Table 4.5 Economic Evaluation of Plans .................................4-17 Table 4.6 Optimization of Seawall (2504 ft) Crest Elevation ..................4-19 Table 5.1 Estimated Cost-Sharing of Federal Shore Protection Project for the Recommended Plan ..................................5-6 Table 5.2 Schedule to Complete ......................................5-11 Appendix A - Coastal Engineering Appendix Appendix B - Economic Appendix Appendix C - Woodward-Clyde Consultants Seawall Design Appendix D - MCACES Cost Estimate Appendix E - Real Estate Appendix VII 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Authority This study is conducted under the U.S Army Corps of Engineers Continuing Authority Program (CAP), pursuant to Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-874), as amended. The study is in response to a request for Federal assistance for shore protection by the City of Carlsbad, dated 7 December 1994. A copy of the City's letter is provided in Appendix A (Coastal Engineering Appendix). 1.2 Study Purpose and Scope The City of Carlsbad (Agua Hedionda) Feasibility Study was conducted to investigate the feasibility and economic justification of protecting a 3,000-foot stretch of Carlsbad Blvd. from continuous erosion and damages caused by storm events. The main elements of the study are as follows: (1) Describe the identified problems and needs of the area, (2) Determine whether there is Federal interest in participating in a solution to the identified problem(s), (3) Identify at least one likely solution suitable for Corps implementation under current policy, (4) Produce a study cost sharing agreement with the sponsor to share feasibility costs for feasibility studies costing more than $100,000, (5) Identify and recommend the best solution for the identified problem generally in accordance with the procedures applicable to specifically authorized studies, limited by the scope and complexity of the recommended solution, (6) Confirm or deny interest in Corps implementation of a candidate project, (7) Develop project design as a basis for preparing plans and specifications, and (8) Produce a draft Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with the sponsor to share project implementation costs. 1.3 Study Conduct This Feasibility Study was performed by the Los Angeles District in coordination with the City of Carlsbad, consistent with the principles and guidelines contained in EC 1105-2-211, Continuing Authorities Program Procedures. 1.4 Public Involvement The non-Federal sponsor which requested this Section 103 Feasibility Study is the City of Carlsbad. The study was prepared in coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1-1 Service, National Marine Fisheries, California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Boating and Waterways, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Regional Air Quality District, Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee, San Diego Association of Governments Beach Erosion Committee, and other interests. 1.5 Prior Studies 1.5.1 Corps of Engineers Studies In May 1990, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, completed a reconnaissance report entitled " Section 103 Small Project, Carlsbad Beach Erosion Control Reconnaissance Study, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California". The report provided the current status of the Carlsbad Beach Erosion Reconnaissance Study; addressed the problem of storm damages to the causeway section of Carlsbad Blvd., between the intake and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon; (c) gave an estimate of potential damage savings, recreation benefits, and Equilvalent project first costs. However, no project cost data was developed for comparison with the potential benefits, because the study was discontinued at the request of the local sponsor when it appeared that the California Department of Boating and Waterways would fund the design and construction of the project. In September 1991, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, completed a comprehensive report on "The State of the San Diego County Shorelines". In this report, shoreline changes along the study area were analyzed using both long- term and storm event impacts. The report presents the final findings of the Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study for the San Diego Region. In January 1994, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, completed a reconnaissance report entitled "Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California", covering the five reaches of the Carlsbad coastal area from the mouth of Buena Vista Lagoon to La Costa Ave (approximately 7 miles). The study results indicated Federal shore protection improvements appeared feasible for several reaches in Carlsbad and recommended proceeding to a cost-sharing feasibility study to be combined with the City of Oceanside. However, the feasibility study has been terminated due to the cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad not willing to cost-share at this time. 1.5.2 Studies by Others The City of Carlsbad published a report entitled "City of Carlsbad Proposal for the Carlsbad Beach Erosion Study and Coastal Shore Protection Project", dated April 1-2 1989. The report recommended as a feasible solution a 2,200-foot long concrete- capped sheetpile seawall with revetment at both the north and south ends, which represented the local sponsor's desires. 1-3 2.0 THE STUDY AREA 2.1 Location The study area is a 3,000-foot long segment of the shoreline between the intake and outlet jetties of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon within the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The area is located about six miles downcoast of Oceanside Beach and about 90 miles south of Los Angeles (see Figure 2.1). The 3,000-foot long coastal segment is a very narrow cobble beach fronting State Highway 21/Carlsbad Boulevard, which is one of the three major north-south thoroughfares serving the entire northern San Diego County region's transportation system. 2.2 Description The study area includes the 4-lane divided causeway-Carlsbad Boulevard completed in 1989; with an automobile parking area between the sand dunes and the lagoon on the east side, parallel curb parking on the west side of the road, and a narrow strip of beach. Almost every year, winter storms and summer swells strip away the thin layer of sand, leaving a discontinuous layer of sand cobbles on the beach. East of the immediate study area are the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Rail Line, San Diego Freeway and an inner lagoon (see Figure 2.2). South of the area is the San Diego Gas and Electric Company's power plant. Immediately north of the study area across the intake jetties is a public parking lot with approximately 400 parking spaces and Carlsbad State Beach on the westside of the boulevard and. residential and commercial developments on the east side. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon serves a multitude of uses; including a body of cooling water for the adjacent power plant, research area, fishing, and feeding spot for wildlife. Due to annual dredging of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, the area between the intake and outlet jetties is significantly wider during the summer than under normal winter conditions. 2.3 Physical Characteristics 2.3.1 Bathymetry The deep water bathymetry offshore of Carlsbad is shown in Figure 2.3. Carlsbad is located in the central portion of the Oceanside littoral cell bounded by Dana Point in the north and Point La Jolla in the south. Figure 2.3 shows that the bottom contours throughout much of this cell are gently curving and uniform. The 2-1 I#4. 0 I S I C.) S I ago S S I S I Now S S I C) %* SAN FRANCISCO 00 "S Vf SAN LUIS CALIFORNIA \ OBISPO N. PROJECT SANTA BARBARA tLOCATION VENTURA LOS NIGELES LONG BEACH CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO IVEXICO SCALE O 100 200 300 400 'MILES Figure 2.1 Location Map of Carlsbad Study Area 2-2 Figure 2.2 Study Area 2-3 c". EL MAR LOS :,ENAsou:roS LAGOON LA JOLLA JOLLA 118°I0 \\ ., NORTH c iE!i %\ fAA I AN ' V¼ CLEENTE %\\\ \ tNM.VEOrre .400 CP \\ \"¼"\AN ONOFRE cP 400 -,' ' ' '% % 'f •. ' \\ '?2%:,' V \\ '- \ 2SO\ \ : r) VSO -o V ' \\ - - cIV ? '\2O OCEANSIDE 4. 'iO S \__ ARLS8AO \ \ '.' c c_ ' '•;__ \s. I• it S ( t I 4:44,.04 , \s\ d-'.- / •.-. "i I ,-.___... I / , $ to : •___ i/ ,/ ((( I I I SCALE IN MILES / I FALSE POINT' hi SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS 0 . I I I%8°20 \ 11830 / t I 1l840 I Figure 2.3 Oceanside Littoral Cell 2-4 332O nearshore contours at Carlsbad are relatively straight and parallel, except where Carlsbad submarine canyon approaches the shoreline. The head of this canyon is located at approximately the 100-foot isobath. Nearshore slopes are steeper south of the canyon. 2:3.2 Local Geology/Sediment Characteristics Based on data gathered in connection with the Coast of California Study from 1983 to 1986, the mean grain size in the littoral zone varied from 0.15 mm to more than 0.4 mm depending on the season. The City of Carlsbad made available to the Corps a number of geotechnical reports that were done by private firms for both the city and private individuals in preparation for the construction of the seawalls. In the study area, bedrock was found at minus 6.25 MLLW, lying under silty sand. 2.3.3 Climate The climate of coastal Southern California is generally considered to be of a semi-arid Mediterranean type, with mild winters characterized by about 10 to 20 inches per year of rainfall. According to USAED, Los Angeles (1986), the local average wind speed is approximately 7.7 miles per hour, only slightly higher than those measured in inland areas. Ocean-landmass temperature variations result in daytime wind patterns dominated by onshore winds, and nightly patterns dominated by offshore flows. Exceptions occur during occasional winter storms where wind directions vary, and during Santa Ana conditions when winds are usually out of the northeast. 2.3.4 Tides and Sea Level Tides along the Southern California coastline are of the mixed semi-diurnal type, consisting of two high and two low tides each of different magnitude. The lower-low normally follows the higher-high by about 7 to 8 hours, whereas the next higher-high (through lower-high and higher-low waters) follows in about 17 hours. The NOAA collected 7 months of tide measurements at Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Gulf of Santa Catalina and 18 years of measurements at La Jolla, Pacific Ocean in establishing tidal datums of the 1960 to 1978 tidal epoch. While the former are directly applicable to the project at the Carlsbad coastal area, extreme highs may not be represented due to the lack of measurement in the 1982-83 storm season. Tidal characteristics of both of these tidal stations are shown in Table 2.1. 2-5 C 1ABLE 21 C C C SAN DIEGO TIDAl. CHARACTERIS1ICS C : c(R fC ced toMean Lower Low Water) C C I Agua Hedionda I La Jolla Highest Observed Water Level 7.55 7.81 Observed Date 14 February 1980 8 August 1983 Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) 5.05 5.37 Mean High Water (MHW) 4.24 4.62 Mean Sea Level (MSL) 2.29 2.75 Mean Low Water (MLW) 0.82 0.93 Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) 0 0 Lowest Observed Water Level -0.85 -2.6 Observed Date 16 May 1980 17 December 1933 2.3.5 Water Levels A review of yearly mean sea level data recorded at San Diego indicates that a rise of 0.7 feet per century has occurred (Flick and Cayan, 1984). If past trends are projected into the future at San Diego, a sea level rise of at least 0.2 feet would be expected over the next 25 years. Positive departures from the annual mean occur during strong El Nino episodes. These meteorological anomalies are characterized by low atmospheric pressures and persistent onshore winds. Tidal data indicate that five episodes (1914, 1930 through 1931, 1941, 1957 through 1959, and 1982 through 1983) have occurred since 1905. Further analysis suggests that these events have an average return period of 14 years with 0.2-foot tidal departures lasting for two to three years. The added probability of experiencing more severe winter storms during El Nino periods increases the likelihood of coincident storm waves and higher storm surge. According to Flick and Cayan (1984), the record water level of 8.35 feet MLLW observed at San Diego in January 1983 includes an estimated 0.8 feet of surge and seasonal level rise. Figure 2.4 shows the statistical distribution of Higher High Water in the Carlsbad area. Storm surge is relatively small along the Southern California coast when 2-6 - San Diego Tide - Higher High Water 45678 Water Elevation (ft MLLW) Figure 2.4 Statistical Distribution of Higher High Water at San Diego SANTA BARBARA \\ CNANN(I. ISLANDS LOS Cm I••• :° ANGELES '. h'Secp \ 277° SANTA CATALINA L 273* SE* 270° SREEZE SAN NICOLAS I. WAVES TO S SEC PERIOD 26d, SAN CLEIIENTE (SUMMER) NORTHERN HEMISPHERE POIN SWELL TO 20 SEC. PERIOD OM too SOUTH &WD SOUTHWESTERlY SEAS TO SO SEC PERIOD I WINTER I SAN SOUTHERN MISPHERE SWELL TO 22 SEC. PERIOD SUMMERS Figure 2.5 Wave Exposure for the San Diego Region 2-7 compared with tidal fluctuations. According to the U.S. Army (1991), storm surges driven primarily by atmospheric pressure can raise the sea level on the order of 0.5 feet for two to six days on the average. Extreme stillwater level departures from astronomical water levels may be as much as one foot or greater for the severest extratropical events. 2.3.6 Currents 2.3.6.1 Offshore Currents The offshore currents consist of two components: (1) major, large scale coastal currents which constitute the "mean" seasonal circulation and range from 5 cm/s to 40 cm/s, and (2) fluctuations in durations of 3 to 10 days resulting from tides and other phenomena which are expected to be superimposed on the "mean" seasonal circulations. These tidal currents have peak longshore velocities of roughly 20 cm/s. 2.3.6.2 Longshore Currents Longshore currents in the coastal zone are driven primarily by waves impinging on the shoreline at oblique angles. This wave generated current and turbulence is the major factor in littoral transport. The surf zone currents along the Oceanside Littoral Cell is nearly balanced between northerly and southerly flows, as predicted by previous littoral transport studies (Hales, 1980). Typical summer swell conditions produce northerly drifting currents while the large winter storms from the west and northwest produce southerly currents. Overall, the persistence of the northerly drift dominates, however, the strength of the southerly drift during major storm events results in a net southerly longshore transport. 2.3.6.3 Cross-shore Currents Cross-shore currents, exist throughout the study area, particularly at times of high surf. These currents tend to concentrate at creek mouths and structures, but can occur anywhere along the shoreline in the form of rip currents and the return flows of complex circulation cells. To date, no information is available on the quantification of these currents, nor their effect on sediment transport. However, the occurrence of summer-type and winter-type profiles along the Southern California coastline has been well documented. A detailed analysis by Aubrey (1979) of 5-year profile records at Torrey Pines (in the Oceanside Littoral Cell), provided quantitative estimates of on- offshore sediment transport associated with this seasonal profile transition. In his study, on-offshore transport rates in the profile were inferred from the comparison 2-8 between a summer-type berm profile and a winter-type bar profile. Material involved in this process moved onshore from the depth range of 7 to 20 feet to form a berm in the summer profile, returning to the same depth range to form an offshore bar in the winter profile. The pivot point for this on-offshore exchange of material was located at a 10 foot depth, across which an average of about 34 yd3/yr of material was estimated to move on the seasonal basis. Another pivot point was recognized at a depth of 20 feet, across which the rate of sediment movement was much smaller, about 6 yd3lft. The sediment exchange at the second pivot point was also seasonal, consisting of winter offshore movement and summer onshore movement. During storms, strong winds generate high, steep waves. When the waves break, the remaining width of the surf zone is not sufficient to dissipate the increased energy. The remaining energy is spent in erosion of the beach, berm, and bluffs. The eroded material is carried offshore in large quantities where it is deposited on the nearshore bottom to form an offshore bar. Methods to quantify the growth of this bar do not exist at this time. 2.3.7 Waves and Storms The coastal areas of Carlsbad are sheltered somewhat from deep ocean waves by the offshore Channel Islands. Waves can approach the Carlsbad coastal area through three wave windows. The southerly window is located between the coastline of Southern California and San Clemente Island, at approximately 160 degrees to 245 degrees. A westerly window exists between San Clemente Island and Santa Catalina Island, at approximately 245 degrees to 285 degrees. A north-westerly window exists between Santa Catalina Island and the coastline of Southern California, at approximately 285 degrees to 305 degrees. Figure 2.5 shows the wave exposure. The data on storms waves is obtained from the wave studies described in the Design Memorandum of Oceanside Harbor of the USAED, Los Angeles (1992). Deep water waves were transformed to account for island sheltering, refraction, shoaling, and depth limitations. An extreme value statistical analysis results in a set of wave conditions representative of various recurrence intervals. Table 2.2 shows the wave statistics at Oceanside Harbor (at depth of approximately 30 feet). These values were transformed to determine the waves at Carlsbad. Table 2.3 shows historical deep water storm waves. 2-9 TABLE 2.2 OCEANSIDE :VllVEHE..DE.F1H.:OFT'MtLW)' HARBOR EXTREME Return Period (years) Significant Wave Height (feet) 1 10 10 13.5 25 15.9 50 17.9 100 20 2-10 Table 2.3 Historical Deep Water Storm Waves (Unsheltered) He Dir I I Date (ft) (deg) (sec) 12(22(77 8 250 12 01/10/78 13 255 13 01/13178 11 263 14 01/16/78 15 282 16 02/10/78 13 280 16 03/01/78 14 247 12 03105(78- 15 271 14 01/16179 12 268 17 03/28/79 7 259 11 12131/79 14 277 18 01/13/80 12 263 13 02120/80 16 250 14 01/20181 12 258 15 01081 15 265 17 01/28/81 22 265 17 11112181 15 285 17 11114/81 17 277 17 03/08182 10 245 13 1150/82 18 287 11 12/17/82 12 287 19 12(22182 8 248 11 01/24183 17 278 17 01/27/83 21 282 20 01/29/83 16 273 16 02/10/83 20 281 20 02/13(83 19 275 16 03/02/83 31 258 18 03117183 15 269 14 12125183 10 248 11 03/09/84 15 280 19 11/13184 9 256 12 01/17185 11 263 18 11/25/85 9 251 11 12(03/85 21 271 18 01/14/86 14 272 16 02/01/86 24 276 19 02(03(86 15 277 17 02/15/86 24 253 17 02(28/86 13 270 15 03/11/86 21 280 17 03/06/87 11 243 13 12/16187 11 269 14 01/17/88 30 267 16 12(03/89 15 275 17 02103/91 12 274 17 03/02191 16 280 17 12(29/91 16 270 17 01/06/92 11 271 15 01/14/93 : 11 258 12 01/18(93 12 265 13 Source: Pacific Weather Analysis, 1993 2.3.8 Littoral Processes The City of Carlsbad is located in the central sub-cell of the Oceanside Littoral 2-11 Cell (see Figure 2.3). This central element runs from San Mateo Point in the north, to the Carlsbad Submarine Canyon (between Batiquitos and Agua Hedionda Lagoons) in the south. The following sections discuss the various components and the effect that these have had on the shoreline. 2.3.8.1 Sediment Sources and Sinks There are a variety of sources that supply sediment into the littoral zone. These sources include erosion from the adjacent watershed with sediments transported to the beaches via natural streams, creeks and storm drains; coastal bluff erosion; beach erosion; and artificial beachfills. Two rivers contribute to the littoral cell. The Santa Margarita River is located about eight miles north of the study area and the San Luis Rey River with its mouth. emptying to the sea about six miles to the north. The total sediment load arriving at the coast from the river systems of this littoral cell varies from 53,000 yd3/yr to 426,000 yd3/yr. The contribution of the San Luis Rey is the lesser of the two and is within the reach considered in the sediment budget. It has been assumed to contribute 10,000 yd3/yr to the sediment budget. Active bluff retreat is still occurring along the undeveloped shoreline of the Camp Pendleton Marine Base. In highly developed communities south of Oceanside Harbor, the majority of the bluffs are stabilized by revetments and gunite and would only contribute sediments to the littoral zone during extreme storm events. The Oceanside Littoral Cell has three submarine canyons, namely, the Carlsbad Submarine Canyon in the cell's central portion and the Scripps and La Jolla Submarine Canyons at the cell's south end. The head of the Carlsbad Submarine Canyon is in water depths of about 100 ft. According to the Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study report CCSTWS 88-2, this depth is deep enough to prevent transport of littoral sediments into the head of the canyon. Breakwaters, groins, jetties and headlands effect sediment transport. Depending upon length and location, jetties and groins can reduce or even block sediment flow. The north breakwater of Oceanside Harbor is responsible for retention of approximately 50,000 y0yr of material upcoast in an existing fillet, whereas, the beach immediately south of the harbor is confined by the groin/south jetty of Oceanside Harbor and the north jetty of the San Luis Rey River. In the study area, approximately 130,000 yd3/yr of material is trapped in Agua Hedionda Lagoon, but this is bypassed annually by SDG&E as shown is Table 2.5. Sedimentation at the Oceanside Harbor entrance is estimated to trap about 2-12 200,000 yd3lyr on average. Dredged material from the harbor entrance is normally discharged along the Oceanside beaches. Due to the relatively fine sizes of this material and the lack of adequate containment, it is assumed that 75 percent of the disposed material is immediately integrated into the nearshore sediment budget. 2.3.8.2 Exiting Structures, .Beachfills, and Dredging History Existing Structures A series of man-made coastal structures are.located adjacent to the Carlsbad study area. These structures are presented in Table 2.4. Table 2.4 Major Coastal Structures Affecting Longshore Transport Beachfills and Dredging History Following the 1954 project at Agua Hedionda Lagoon, a Federal beach nourishment project which was completed in 1963 placed 3.4 million cy of material on the beach downcoast from Oceanside Harbor. Federal beach nourishment projects in 1981 and 1982 accounted for 863,000 and 922,000 cubic yards of sand, respectively. There have been numerous other beachfills as a result of maintenance dredging of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Oceanside Harbor (see Tables 25 and 2.6). The total nourishment from the Harbor atone amounts to 11.9 million cy since 1954 or about 200,000 cy/yr. 2-13 Table 2.5 Beachfills and Relevant Dredging at Agua Hedionda YEAR QUANTITY PLACEMENT with respect to the LAGOON 1954 4000000 NEW SAND: NORTH AND SOUTH 1955 111000 . SOUTH 1957 232000 SOUTH 1960 . 370000 SOUTH 1961 225000 SOUTH 1963 . 307000 SOUTH 1965 222000 SOUTH 1967 159000 SOUTH ...... 1969 . 97000 SOUTH 1972 259000 NORTH & SOUTH 1973 398000 NORTH & SOUTH 1974 341000 .. NORTH & SOUTH 1976 331000 NORTH & SOUTH 1981 392000 NORTH & SOUTH 1983 200000 NORTH & SOUTH 1985 447000 NORTH & SOUTH 1988 334000 NORTH. 1991 465000 NORTH & SOUTH _j Average = 129,972 yd3/year from 1955 to 1991 . Data obtained from CCSTWS of USAED, Los Angeles (1991). 2-14 Table 2.6 Dredging and Beachfills in Oceanside YEAR QUANTITY (YD3) 1955 800000 1960 410000 1961 481000 1963 3800000 1965 111000 1966 684000 1967 178000 1968 434000 1969 353000 1971 552000 1973 434000 1974 560000 1976 550000 1977 318000 1981 863000 1982 922000 1984 475000 1986 450000 1988 220000 1990 . 249000 1992 168000 TOTAL 11892000 Data through 1990 was obtained from CCSTWS of USACE - LAD, 1991 2.3.8.3 Erosion and Accretion Rates Shoreline changes within the Oceanside Littoral Cell have been studied extensively through analysis of historic surveys of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geologic Survey, comparison of aerial photography and comparisons of relatively recent profile surveys taken for CCSTWS (USAED, 1991). In general, the 2-15 shoreline between Oceanside Harbor and the southern boundary of the City of Carlsbad at Batiquitos Lagoon has fluctuated in absolute location over the years due to major storms and coastal construction. 2.3.8.4 Historic Shoreline Changes The earliest shoreline position available in the comparisons are based on a 1887-1889 USGS survey - the plan location of the "shoreline" by these surveys was approximately equal to Mean High Water. Relative to more recent surveys in 1972 or the shoreline mapped from January 1988 aerial photography, the present shoreline is located seaward of the shoreline of 100 years ago throughout most of the City of Carlsbad. This is largely the result of coastal construction of the power plant at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In 1953-54, the San Diego Gas and Electric Company constructed two pairs of stone jetties; one to stabilize the inlet of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the second pair to serve as a channel for the discharge of the thermal effluent from the power plant across the beach. Between March and November of 1954, over 4 million cubic yards of material were dredged from Agua Hedionda Lagoon and deposited on the beach extending from about 3,500 feet north of the lagoon inlet to 2,000 feet south of the discharge trench. The beachfill contributed to the widening of the beach width along the study area. The furthest seaward shoreline location occurred in the mid 60's or the early 80's as testimony to the effects of the major beachfill from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon power plant in 1954 and the beachfills in Oceanside in 1964 and 1983. Since that time, beach widths have fluctuated with some profiles showing erosion and some showing accretion. One of the more recent shoreline position was mapped from aerial photography flown subsequent to a major wave event in January 1988. This shoreline shows an eroded condition demonstrating the effects of major storms. 2.3.8.5 Historic Profiles Five comparative profiles in Carlsbad were analyzed in the CCS1WS. These profiles document changes across the nearshore zone between 1934 and 1988, although the data is not always complete. Like with the shoreline positions, seasonal or storm induced erosion masks any discernible long-term trend in profile degradation. Significant depth changes are observed generally to the 20- to 30-foot water depth, and seasonal changes in the plan location of MLLW have been at least as large as 200 feet. Also, evident in the comparison between profile locations for the same survey in April 1986 is the pronounced steepening in the nearshore bathymetry in the southerly direction from Oceanside Harbor to the Carlsbad submarine canyon. 2-16 2.3.8.6 Longshore Transport A number of longshore sediment transport studies have been performed and reviewed in the Coast of California Study. The general conclusion of these findings is that the net littoral transport in the Oceanside coastal vicinity is directed towards the south, with a net transport potential at a rate of 100,000 to 250,000 cubic yards annually. 2.3.8.7 Sediment Budget Historic Sediment Budget A sediment budget provides a conceptual model of littoral processes by accounting for volume changes and sediment fluxes within cells and across cell boundaries. The sediment budget presented in Chapter 9 of the CCSTWS (USAED Los Angeles, 1991) covers possible scenarios over the past 90 years by examining the previously described historic changes in the coastline, sources and sinks, and coastal process elements. Carlsbad is located within the central sub-cell of the Oceanside Littoral Cell. Three historic time periods were analyzed: 1900-38, 1960-78, and 1983- 90. The first period can be viewed as the "natural" shoreline condition prior to Oceanside Harbor and the power plant at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. However, by 1900 the watershed and coastal lagoons had been significantly altered by construction of roads, railroads and water supply and flood control works. During this period, the beach cell gained material with large contributions from bluff erosion and from major flood events on the Santa Margarita and San Luis Rey Rivers. Large losses were assumed to the offshore while the net longshore transport downcoast is assumed equal to the transport potential of available wave energy. Prior to 1942, longshore sediment transport in the Oceanside Littoral Cell was not significantly influenced by man-made structures. In 1942-43, the U.S. Navy constructed Camp Pendleton Harbor (now known as the Del Mar Boat Basin) with two arrow head jetties about 1,300 feet long. The northern jetty was extended by about 2,300 feet by the Navy in 1957-58 to form the North Breakwater, and further jetty construction and dredging in the 60's and 70's by the City of Oceanside and the Corps of Engineers eventually evolved into what is now the Oceanside Municipal Harbor. Since the initial construction of the original jetties, the shoreline immediately up and downcoast of the harbor has advanced seaward, while the shore fronting the City of Oceanside experienced severe erosion. This erosion has been somewhat mitigated by beachfill projects and the placement of dredge material from Oceanside Harbor on the 2-17 Oceanside beach area. The second period, between 1960-78, includes the effect of Oceanside Harbor over what some have considered a relatively benign period of storm and wave activity. In this scenario, the central sub-cell gained 40,000 cy/yr. Significant contributions are shown from beachfills and bluff erosion. Oceanside Harbor is shown deflecting 80,000 cy/yr to the offshore and the net downcoast transport is equal to the previous period. The last period, between 1983-90, is a period thought to be of unusually larger than normal northerly directed longshore transport. The beach cell gained material at a rate of 60,000 cy/yr with most of the beach material derived from eroded bluffs. The net downcoast transport is estimated at 70,000 cy/yr for this time period due to the aforementioned unusual wave climate. Based on the review of available information on the coastal processes along the study area, the following is a description of the sediment budget along the study segment: Historic sediment budget analyses and the assumption that there will be no new beachfihls in the future forms the basis for estimating a future sediment budget. The most probable future wave climate is expected to be similar to the 1900-78 time period. Site investigations also revealed that bluff erosion will be negligible south of Oceanside Harbor to at least Batiquitos Lagoon due to protective seawalls and gunite slopes. The continued maintenance dredging of Oceanside Harbor with placement of about 200,000 yd3/yr on beaches to the south is assumed, and a net downcoast transport which is less than or equal to the transport potential of available wave energy is predicted due to the paucity of sand. Development of the sediment budget, for future without project conditions, assumes the following: Net southerly potential longshore transport of 270,000 yd3/yr. This rate is assumed to be uniform along the littoral subcell extending from Oceanside Harbor to the northern reach of the Carlsbad area (Agua Hedionda Lagoon). Historic shoreline erosion rates vary from I to 2 ft/yr along the study area. This assumption is made based on the:findings of the Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study (1991) on the long-term shoreline movements (1940-1989). Based on the volume of sand losses/shoreline retreat analysis, shown in the Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, beach material erosion rates of 60,000 to 120,000 yd3/yr occur along the four-mile Oceanside shoreline, and 30,000 to 60,000 yd3/yr along the Carlsbad area. 2-18 Santa( Margarita River San Luis Rey River ,o Oceanside 270 , 11 N / 10 Buena B uena ,-'--' oo on -60 Vista Agua 0 %100 200 -- Lagoon 70 -30 Hedionda Pacific Ocean 30 '\ \ \ Carlsbad Batiqultos Lagoon LEGEND Change in E1 Littoral Sediment Volume (000s y3!yr) - S — Sediment Flux Rate ' ' 270 (COOs y3lyr) 270 - Harbor Dredging 200 Without Project Sediment Budget (000s y3/yr) Sources Northern Boundary: 100 -100 Northern Transport into Harbor Harbor Dredging: 200 -270 Net Southern Transport S.L.R. River 10 -30 Offshore Losses Total: 310 -400 Total NET VOLUME CHANGE = -90 Figure 2.6 Future Without Project Sediment Budget 2-19 An annual deposition rate of 200,000 yd3/year was also assumed to take place at Oceanside Harbor entrance. It is also assumed that dredged material from the Oceanside Harbor entrance will be placed along Oceanside beaches at a rate of 200,000 yd3/year. The quantity of sediment deflected off Oceanside Harbor is the most difficult component of the sediment budget to estimate. Based on the estimate of Inman (CCS1WS, September, 1991), the offshore sediment losses are estimated at 70,000 yd3/year. Another 30,000 yd3/year is assumed lost in the vicinity of Carlsbad. An annual supply of 10,000 yd is assumed from the San Luis Rey River. As shown in Figure 2.6, the future without project sediment budget has an annual loss of about 30,000 yd 3/year along the Carlsbad shoreline. Thus, an average erosion rate of about 1 foot per year would be anticipated in the Carlsbad study area. 2.4 Social and Economic Factors 2.4.1 Location and Description, The City of Carlsbad is a coastal community located in Northern San Diego County. The city is bordered by the City of Oceanside to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the west, the cities of Vista and San Marcos to the east, and Encinitas to the south. Directly west of the city lies approximately 6.5 miles of coastline. 2.4.2 Demographics• 2.4.2.1 Population San Diego County ranks second largest in population out of the 58 counties in California. The county population density in 1990 was 594 persons per square mile. In contrast, the City of Carlsbad's population density was 1,674 persons per square mile in 1990. The population of Carlsbad was :65,661 as of January 1, 1992. From 1980 to 1990, Carlsbad's population grew 77.8% and is projected to grow another 79% between 1990 and 2015. This equates to an average annual growth rate of 2.35% for the city in comparison to a 1.5% growth rate for the county. Although these forecasts portray continual growth in population and development through year 2015, experts contend that this rate will decline, if current 2-20 growth management policies prevail. Under current conditions, Carlsbad will have developed all available single-family and multiple-family urban land by the year 2015 as the population approaches 115,000 persons. This could prove to be an important factor in projected beach visitation. If the city chooses to preserve the growth management plan, development of residential and commercial beach property will be limited after the year 2015, affecting the future number of beach visitors stemming from the local region and the availability of hotel accommodations. 2.4.2.2 Tourism and Recreation as Major Industries Tourism is a primary component of the City of Carlsbad's taxable sales and revenue. The city is largely a beach resort town which has traditionally attracted beachgoers and tourists interested in the major attractions within San Diego County. Between the period of 1981 to 1990, an estimated 31,000,000 persons visited San Diego County annually. Carlsbad beaches alone accounted for 9.4% of annual average visitorship for the county during this time period. The hotel occupancy rates ranked above the national average of 64% in 1990. Although local concerns of over expansion have induced growth management planning, the tourist population has remained relatively constant subsequent to 1987. 2.4.2.3 Employment Employment data for San Diego County depicts a less prosperous picture for future conditions in relation to the previous decade. Although the total number of jobs in the civilian labor sector is expected to rise an average of 27% between 1990 and 2015, this equates to an average 23,000 fewer jobs per year than during the 1980's. Between the years 1990 and 1993 alone, the region is predicted to suffer a total loss of 45,000 jobs (SANDAG, Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast: Revised Regionwide Forecast 1990-2015). Employment data for the City of Carlsbad, shows that the rate of unemployment for the civilian population was 4.9% in 1990. The State of California's unemployment rate for the civilian population in 1990 was 5.6%. The city's figure compares favorably with both the state's average and the San Diego regional average of 6.5%. The primary source of employment in Carlsbad stems from the retail sales sector. 2.4.2.4 Income The per capita income in 1990 for Carlsbad ranked well above the county level, along with the median family and household incomes. Real per capita income for San 2-21 Diego County is expected to decline an average of 8.2% between the years 1990 and 2015. The current recession trends caused real per capita income to decline 10% between 1990 and 1993. A general growth in income of 1.8% by year 2015 is assumed to result from the predominant lower paying job expansion within the region. 2.5 Environmental Resources 2.5.1 Marine Resources 2.5.1.1 Vegetation & Wildlife The primary environment includes supra-tidal beach areas neighboring Carlsbad Boulevard. Secondary environs include the existing rocky supra-tidal and sandy inter- tidal habitats. The tertiary environment includes the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Beach Associated Community The supra-tidal beach is void of vegetation. Characteristic sandy beach organisms are expected to include sand crabs'( analoga), bloodworms (Euzonus mucronata), and beach hoppers (Orchestoidea SD.). The supra-tidal rocky habitat includes the existing revetment near the north jetty; this habitat is also barren of marine vegetation. It is likely to support niches for different invertebrates, including crustaceans. The inter- and sub-tidal areas likely consist of unconsolidated sediments. If vegetation is present, it is likely to include sea pansy (Renilla kollikeri) at shallower depths less than 20 feet, and sea pen (Stylatul elongata) at the greater depths than 30 feet. If rocky substrate exists, it is likely to support different kelp species. The nearshore sandy areas are expected to support a common sand bottom community, including bean clams (Donax gouldi), polychaetes (ApoDrionosDio vamaeus and Nemertea sp.) and amphipods (MandibuloDhoxus uncirostratus). The water column supports planktonic organisms, which drift with the currents and include phytoplankton (primary producers) and zooplankton (animal component). Many species, including many of the invertebrates and fishes important to fisheries, spend the early stages of their life histories in-the plankton. Planktonic communities are generally characterized by patchiness in distribution, composition, and abundance. Common sandy fishes are likely to include thornback rays (Platyrhinoides triseriata) lizard fish, (Svnodus lucioceps), speckled sanddab (citharichthvs stigmaeus), northern anchovy (EnQraulis mordax), white croaker (Genvonemus lineatus), and 2-22 walleye surfperch (Hyerpros000n araenteum). Between March and September, grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) may also use the nearby beaches for spawning. These schooling fishes, which are members of the silversides family (Atherinidae), lay and bury their eggs on sandy beaches during nighttime spring tides with eggs hatching on the following spring tide. Peak grunion spawning activity occurs between April and June. If rocky habitat is present, common rocky fishes may include: Garibaldi (Hyosypoos rubicundus), sargo (Anisotremus davidsonii), opaleye (Girella niaricans), black perch (Embiotoca lacksoni), rock wrasse (Halichoeres semicinctus), seniorita (Oxviulis californica), half moons (Medialuna californiensis) and kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus). California sea lions (Zaloohus californianus) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are also likely to be seen offshore. Several species of whales, dolphins and porpoises are also found offshore. The California gray whale (Escherichtius robustus) spends its summers in the Bering and Chukchi Seas and calves in the lagoons of Baja, California. The gray whale is occasionally observed offcoast during its seasonal migrations. The whales travel south between the last week in November and the first week in January, and they travel north between the second week of January and the first week of May (Dohl et al. 1981). Immature gray whales may not complete the entire migration and there is evidence suggesting that resident populations may exist in southern California. Gray whales have a low probability of occurring within the project area. The project area supports loafing, foraging, and roasting for a variety of shorebirds and waterfowl. Brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), gulls (Larus so.), ruddy and black turnstones (Arenaria interres and A. melanocephala, black oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani), and wandering tattlers (Heteroscelus incanus) may use the jetties for loafing. The California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) may forage in the harbor waters. A variety of shorebirds are expected to use the sandy-cobble beaches, including the long billed curlew (Numenius americanus), willet (Catootroohorus semipalmatus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis dominica), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), marbeled godwit (Limosa fedoa), sanderling (Calidris alba), and western sandpiper (Calidris mauri). Coastal Wetlands Community Agua Hedionda Lagoon supports nearly 150 species of estuarine and marine invertebrates, 65 species of fish, 65 species of birds, and 46 species of other animals. The lagoon also supports saltmarsh vegetation, including pickleweed, seablite, alkali heath and jaumea. Upland vegetation consists of California sage scrub, including 2-23 California sagebrush, goldenbush, and black mustard. 2.5.2 Other Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species The following information concerns the status of endangered species which may have a medium or higher probability of being found in the general vicinity of the project area. California Brown Pelican. The Federally listed endangered brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) is a year-round resident of the southern California coastline. It is most abundant on the mainland coast from August to November. Breeding occurs on several of the Channel Islands from June to October. The brown pelican is relatively common in the nearshore waters of the project area, particularly when schools of suitable fish prey are present. It usually forages in offshore waters greater than one mile from the coast; they typically roost on existing tanker ship buoys, breakwaters, rock groins, and piers in the nearshore waters. Brown pelicans are often very tolerant of human activity. Activities of the brown pelican in these waters are restricted to foraging, overflying, and/or temporary roosting. Brown pelicans have a medium to high probability of occurring within the project area. California Least Tern. The Federally and State listed endangered least tern (Sterna antillarum brown,) is a small seabird. The tern migrates to southern and central California in the spring to breed, arriving in early to mid-April. Terns nest in coastal areas adjacent to shallow marine and estuarine habitats, where they forage on near surface swimming fish, i.e. topsmelt and anchovies. Eighty percent of foraging occurs within 3 miles of the nesting site. The terns usually depart for wintering grounds in August or early September after rearing of their young. The closest colonies are located at the Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos lagoons. In 1980, only 835 breeding pairs were estimated to be in southern California (Garret and Dunn, 1981). With intensive prior management and continuing efforts of many dedicated persons, the population expanded to over 2,250 pairs in 1993 (from publication CDFG census data). The least terns usually forage within a mile and a half of the harbor shoreline on surface fishes, such as topsmelt and anchovies, in nearshore waters and estuaries near the breeding colonies. They are intolerant of human activity at close proximity. Least terns have a medium to high probability of occurring within the project area between April and August. 2-24 Western Snowy Plover. The snowy plover (Charadrinus alexandrinus nivosus) is a Federally listed endangered species. Its coastal breeding population is severely depleted. This small shorebird nests on large expansive sandy areas and forages on sand flats or intertidal mudflats. The Western snowy plover nest sites typically occur in flat, open areas with sandy or saline substrates where vegetation and driftwood are usually sparse or absent. Nest site selection and pair bond formation occur in late March, and eggs of the first clutch are usually laid in early April. Nesting activities generally occur through July and into August. Plovers forage on invertebrates located in intertidal sandy areas above the high tide and along the edges of salt marshes and ponds. Studies in California, Oregon, and Washington indicate that the coastal breeding population has declined significantly in recent years (Page and Stenzel 1978; Wilson 1984). Fewer than 1,500 birds, and 28 nesting sites, remain in the three states. The subspecies of plover has disappeared as a breeding bird from most of California beaches south of Los Angeles, and development has eliminated the plover as a breeding species from many other coastal areas as well. Dune stabilization by introduced beach grass has modified much formerly open coastal sand flat habitat. Evidence exists that human activity (i.e. recreation, beach cleaning) is responsible for some of the coastal decline along with predation by animals, including dogs, cats, crows, foxes, and skunks. The Western snowy plover has a medium probability of occurring within the project vicinity. Light-footed Clapper Rail. The clapper rail (Rallus lonqirostris levipes) is a year round resident that is know to nest in cordgrass stands at Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and Batiquitos Lagoon. Clapper rails' home ranges are estimated to range from 0.9 to 4.2 acres. They are generalistic feeders, foraging on mudfiat invertebrates such as crabs and snails. Nesting occurs between mid-March and mid- August. The primary cause of the decline in population has been correlated with wetland disturbances and development. The light-footed clapper rail has a medium probability of occurring within the project vicinity. Tidewater Goby. The tidewater goby (EucycloQobius newberrvi), Federal threatened-endangered fish species, is usually found in the upper ends of brackish or freshwater lagoons, or in shallow water near the mouths of coastal streams. This species spend most of their life cycle in fresh water. Several populations of the tidewater goby are believed to exist in Agua Hedionda Lagoon (USFWS 1994). The tidewater goby has a low to medium probability of occurring within the project area. 2.5.3 Noise Dominant noise sources include waves, beach recreation activities, and vehicle noise on adjacent roads. The sound of wave action will vary with many factors including wave height, period, frequency, angle of attack, bottom profile, wind conditions, etc. One study performed by Chambers Group (1992) revealed average 2-25 noise levels (Leq) from wave action ranging from approximately 56 to 70 decibels on an A-weighted scale (dBA) for 10 minute periods at a distance of about 165 feet from the waters edge at low tide. The noise included both wave and wind activity. These noise levels can vary considerably more than presented depending on wave action and atmospheric conditions. Beach noise (dBA) is expected to vary between the 50s and 70s. 2.5.4 Air Quality 2.5.4.1 Climate and Meteorology The climate in the project area is characterized by moderate summer temperatures, mild winters, frequent morning coastal stratus clouds, infrequent rainfall confined mainly from late fall to early spring, and moderate onshore breezes. The project area, being coastal, is protected from the worst of the air pollution problems by the daily sea breeze that brings in clean air and blows pollutants inland. For this reason, the coastal regions have better air quality than inland areas. Two meteorological parameters are important in assessing air quality impacts of changing patterns of emissions. These are the winds which control the rate and trajectory of horizontal transport, and the vertical stability structure which control the vertical depth through which the pollutants are mixed. Winds across the site travel in two distinct directions: a strong onshore-wind by day which is strongest in summer, and a weak offshore wind which is strongest in winter when nights are long and the land becomes cooler than the ocean. In addition to the two characteristic wind patterns, there are two corresponding temperature inversions that trap pollution within shallow layers near the ground. The first is created when daytime onshore cool ocean air undercuts a massive dome of warm air within the Pacific high pressure system. This process creates marine/subsidence inversions that form a lid at about 1,000 feet or so above the surface over the entire airshed basin regulated by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). These inversions allow for the mixing of pollutants near their source, but they trap the entire basin's emissions within the shallow marine layer. As the relatively clean marine air moves inland, pollution sources continually add contaminants from below without any dilution from above. Reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides combine under abundant sunlight to form photochemical smog. Smog levels increase steadily from the coast inland until the inversion is broken by strong surface heating and by thermal chimneys created along the heated slopes of the mountains surrounding San Diego. The second major inversion type forms during long, cloudless nights as cold 2-26 air pools near the surface while the air aloft remains warm. The radiation inversions from this second type are very shallow and contribute to the "hot spot" potential near ground level sources, especially vehicular source concentrations. (A "hot spot" is a high concentration of pollutants trapped in a cooler air pocket with limited dispersion characteristics.) Regional trapping inversions occur on about 85 percent of all summer afternoons while ground-level radiation inversions are found on about 70 percent of all winter nights and early mornings. Both of these inversion types occur during all seasons and at all times of the day, but they are not as strong, persistent, or frequent as during their summer afternoon and winter morning dominant periods. 2.5.4.2 Existing Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends are best documented from measurements made by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). Based on the California Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are more stringent than the National Standards, the data shows no long- term decreases in local airshed quality. 2.5.5 Land and Recreation Uses Much of the Carlsbad coastline has been developed for parking lots, and commercial and residential units. The project area consists of public beach, neighbored by Carlsbad Boulevard. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon exists east of Carlsbad Boulevard. The project area supports beach recreation activities, including sunbathing, swimming, snorkeling, surfing, and fishing. The coastal waters provide for recreation opportunities, including both boating and fishing. Some of the common sportfish caught by anglers include Pacific bonito, California barracuda, rockfish, sole, California halibut, and sandbass. The lagoon also supports recreational activities, especially boating, hiking, and bird watching. 2.5.6 Ground Transportation The Carlsbad project area is accessed by Carlsbad Boulevard (S21) via Palomar Airport Road (S12) from the south or Tamarack Road from the north via Interstate (I) - 5. 2-27 2.5.7 Public and System Safety Adequate wave and storm damage protection is not currently provided for shoreline structures. These conditions may place the general public at risk. A review of available literature on known hazardous, toxic, and radial waste (HTRW) sites and underground storage tanks does not identify any sites within or adjacent to the proposed construction limits. 2.5.8 Aesthetics The aesthetic character of the project area is composed of a recreation-oriented visual setting, dominated by public beaches and the lagoon. The area is maintained and projects an image to attract the recreation user. 2.5.9 Cultural Resources The project location was surveyed for cultural resources by a Corps staff archaeologist. Based on this survey, the Corps has determined that there is little likelihood for the presence of cultural resources. The beach has been subjected to repeated wave action that is alternately bringing fresh sediments onto the beach and causing heavy erosion. This wave action precludes the potential for any cultural remains to be existent. 2-28 3.0 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 3.1 History of Storm Damage and Beach Erosion The study segment has been the subject of many investigations and has experienced severe storm damages to its narrow beach and the adjacent Carlsbad Blvd. road. The road was undermined on many occasions. This undermining of the road caused the road to fail at different locations due to erosion and flooding, which resulted in damage to adjacent parking areas, undercutting the highway foundation material, and requiring debris removal as well as traffic detours along the highway. Severe erosion has occurred along this shoreline with damages to both public and private property. In recent history, the area has been damaged and the highway closed on the order of once every two years. Figure 3.1 shows scour at the base of the sidewalk. The worst extent of damage occurred in the spring of 1981 when the highway was closed for 5 days and 200 paved perpendicular parking spaces were lost to erosion. It is estimated that the areal extent of erosional damage for this event was two-thirds of the lengths between the two jetties (or about 2,000 feet) with an encroachment distance of about 100 feet. Flooding and debris deposited on the road was concentrated in the low-elevation areas over an extent of about 700 feet. Replacement value for the lost parking, including fill and pavement, was estimated to be about $500,000 (1981 price level). The double perpendicular parking which was lost in 1981 was not totally replaced, but instead was replaced with a single row of angled parking. The angled parking was lost in the 1983 storm season, to the extent of about 100,000 sf, at a replacement cost of $250,000. The lost parking was subsequently replaced with parallel parking which exists today. The January 1988 storms did not seriously affect the parking areas but created a debris hazard and produced damages to the rock revetment around the bridge and road shoulder. About $20,000 (1988 price level) was spent on clean-up during the 1988 storms. In addition, because of the storm damage to the roadway and the resultant highway closure in the area during the storms, all traffic, including private and public safety and emergency response vehicles, had to be re-routed, causing great inconvenience and lost of time (due to extra travel time) to the general public and interruption of critical public services. Carlsbad Boulevard is important to the regional traffic circulation system of both the City of Carlsbad and the northern portion of San Diego County. This highway is the main route of transportation to the Encina Power Plant and neighboring economic developments. Protecting this reach of highway is vital to the local economy. 3-1 Figure 3.1 Beach in front of Carlsbad Boulevard. 3-2 3.2 Analysis of Long-Term Erosion and Storm Action The primary problem defined along the study area is the storm damages to the 3,000-foot reach of Carlsbad Boulevard. This reach lacks adequate protection due to the lack of protective beaches and potential flooding problems during the winter storms. 3.2.1 Long-Term Erosion The long-term evolution of the future without project shoreline considers temporal changes in the sediment budget. From the sediment budget analysis in Section 2.3.8.7, the shoreline at mean sea level is predicted to retreat at an average rate of 1 foot per year for the next 50 years. Thus, a 50-foot shoreward recession in the present shoreline has been obtained for the future without project condition. However, the retreat rate of 1 foot per year only applies to the summer beaches, due to the fact that the winter beaches have already moved to about the limit of shoreward retreat. At the study area, the limit of erodible material is at minus 6.25 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Consequently, it is anticipated that the beach will erode to the roadway and then continue to scour vertically. As a result, the depth at the toe will continue to deepen, and the road will be exposed to greater wave energy. 3.2.2 Storm Recession The January 1988 survey is representative of the eroded profile condition during a severe winter storm condition. During damaging storm events, a winter or storm profile would typically exist. This storm profile is deepened in the nearshore depending on the severity of the individual storm and the cumulative effects of the storm season. Storm effects on the profile were super-imposed on the present and future shoreline. It is rationalized that storm profile response would be directly related to storm severity and wave height, and therefore return period. Based on the analysis of the shoreline data presented in the CCSTWS of the U.S. Army Engineering District, Los Angeles (1991), shoreline retreat can be correlated with return period, The recession that would be expected as a result of the 10, 25, 50, and 100-year events is presented in Table 3.1. Since the runup was based upon the scoured 1988 winter profile, this recession was only appliedto the study area. 3-3 Table 3.1 Storm Recession versus Return Period Event Shoreline Retreat (ft) MHHW MSL MLLW 10 43 89 225 25 47 96 237 50 50 100 245 100 j 52 104 252 3.2.3 Runup The beach conditions used are the profiles taken after the storm of January 1988. Due to the bedrock conditions, only the profile in the study area will deepen over the 50-year period considered. As a result, runup will increase (as shown in Table 3.2). Table 3.2 Wave Runup Level (Feet MLLW) Present Condition Return 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 Period Study 18.2 19.5 20.4 21.2 21.7 22.2 22.4 Area 50-Year Future Condition Study 21.4 22.7 23.5 24.3 24.8 25.4 25.8 Area 3-4 3.3 Damages The lack of adequate protective beaches leaves the backshore of Carlsbad Boulevard exposed to excessive runup and increased wave attacks. 3.3.1 Roadway Damages Damages to Carlsbad Boulevard (in the study area) were based on historic storm events which produced an excess runup upto 4.1 feet over the top of the road. The runup was based on the portion of the boulevard exhibiting the lowest elevation. The area of road eroded during each storm frequency was estimated and a replacement cost based for the required construction materials and labor was applied. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 present the quantity of erosion which occurs in the study area, as the result of particular events. Table 3.3 Carlsbad Study Area Present Without Project Physical Damages Return Period Wave Runup (Ft) Excessive Runup (Ft) Erosion Area Lost (Sq. Ft) 2 18.2 1.4 0 0 5 19.5 2.7 0. . 0 10 20.4 3.6 27 54,000 25 21.2 4.4 64 128,000 - 50 21.7 4.9 86 172,000 100 22.2 5.4 109 218,000 200 22.7 5.9 . 132 264,000 excess runup of 3 feet and less causing 0 feet erosion. 3-5 Table 3.4 Carlsbad Study Area Future Without Project Physical Damages Return.• Period Wave Runup. (Ft) Excessive Runup (Ft). Erosion (Ft) Area Lost (Sq. Ft) 2 21.4 4.6 .73 . . 146,000 5 22.7 5.9 132 264,000 10 23.5 6.7 150 300,000 25 . 24.3 7.5 150 300,000 50. 24.8 8 . 150 300,000 100 25.4 8.6 150 300,000 200 25.8 . 9 150 300,000 * Assume: excess runup of three feet and less causing 0 feet erosion * 150 feet= total erosion of road 3.4 Analysis of Economic Losses. 3.4.1 Expected and Equilvalent Annual Damages WithoUt Project Conditions The annual expected damages in the without project conditions are discussed in the economic appendix (Appendix.B) and are listed in Table 3.5. 3-6 Table 3.5 Carlsbad Study Area Expected and Equilvalent Annual Damages Without Project Conditions Type of Damage Annual Damages Detour $5,200 Emergency/Clean-up $1,490 Revetment (South) $13,580 Revetment (North) $12,600 Roadways $610,850 Total Annual Damages $643,720 3.5 Recreation 3.5.1 Recreation Analysis The entire coastline of Agua Hedionda is covered by North Carlsbad Beach, which is used for beach activities. The beach has easy access, lifeguards, and adequate facilities for maximizing the public recreation experience. Public access to the beach is enhanced by adequate parking from the Tamarack public parking lot, which has approximately 127 spots and over 200 spaces for curbside parking along Carlsbad Boulevard. Currently, without project conditions, the study area has approximately 197,000 square feet of beaches, with an annual visitation rate of approximately 367,000. In the future, this area will have approximately 62,000 square feet of beaches, with an annual visitation rate of approximately 542,000. These estimates of visitations are based upon the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) beach recreation projections, listed in the "Draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region". Table 3.6 shows the present and future visitation projections for each of the months, based on the historical monthly average percentage of visitations to the study area. The present and future square footage per person (SF/Pop) is listed in Table 3.6. The calculations for determining the total square footage per person were calculated by dividing the estimated amount of people using the beach (at any given time) into the total square footage of beaches. The beach user at one time includes the division of monthly population by the number of days in the month, with an expected turnover rate of three. 3-7 Table 3.6 Carlsbad Study Area Estimate of Present and Future Beach Use Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Monthly 4.9 4.6 5.2 7.1 8.9 10.4 17.1 15.6 102 6.4 5.2 4.5 Percentage Present 18 17 19 26 33 38 63 57 37 23 19 17 Pop (000) Present 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 SF/Pop (000) Future 26 25 28 38 48 56 92 85 55 35 28 24 Pop (000) Future 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.20 SF/Pop (000) __ __ __ __ __ __ Based on Table 3.6, the without project conditions does not show any month with square footage per person less than seventy-five feet. In the future, the expected erosion rates along the reach are expected to reduce the beach area by 69%, yet the expected beach use along the reach is expected to increase by 48%. In the future, the marginal utility of recreational experience will be lower in months of July and August, since the square footage per person is less than 75 square feet per person. The Unit Day Value (UDV) for those months will decrease proportionately with reduction in beach area. The without project annualized benefit for recreation is $1,793,269. The annualized benefits of the without project conditions were determined by the discounted value of the yearly benefits based on an interest rate of 7.625%. The yearly benefits were determined by the total value of beach visitation to Carlsbad State Beach. The total value was determined by using the UDV of $4.10 and the projected yearly beach visitation into the next fifty years. Further detail is presented in Appendix B (Economic Appendix). 3.6 Summary of Problem Definition Based upon the historical and anticipated damages, a number of problems have been identified within the study area. The following factors combine to make this stretch of beach very susceptible to storm damages: (1) the beach is extremely narrow, (2) Carlsbad Boulevard reaches its lowest point (elevation +16.95 feet MLLW) in this area, and (3) the depth to bedrock is deeper here than in any other stretch of beach along Carlsbad Boulevard (elevation -6.25 feet MLLW), thus increasing the 3-8 susceptibility of this area to both storm-induced scour and long-term erosion. Based upon the historical record and the analysis, it is concluded that substantial maintenance costs are being incurred to protect Carlsbad Boulevard and the Tamarack parking lot from storm effects. In addition, this stretch of the road is the primary thoroughfare connecting key elements to the city. The shortest detour is approximately 1.1 miles. It is estimated that without protecting this study reach from storm damages, approximately $643,720 in annual damages would occur. The recreation value within the study area is anticipated to decrease as the width continues to narrow at one foot per year. 3-9 4.0 THE PLANNING PROCESS 4.1 Planning Consideration The Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad Section 103 Feasibility Study was conducted using a multi-objective planning process, consistent with the planning requirements of Section 904 and 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Circular 1105-2-211, Continuing Authorities Program Procedures. The objective of this planning process is to guide planning for the conservation, development, and management of water and related land resources. This planning process results in information necessary to make effective choices regarding resource management under existing and projected land use, and economic and environmental conditions in the study area. 4.1 .1 National Objective Federal and Federally-assisted water and related land planning activities attempt to achieve National Economic Development (NED). Contributions to NED are increases in the net value of the national output of goods and services, expressed in monetary units as the difference in economic costs and benefits. Plans are formulated to alleviated problems and take advantage of opportunities in ways that contribute to the NED objective. 4.1.2 Public Concerns Public concerns are perceptions about existing problems or needs and their desires for improvement to facilities which they use or which affect them. By eliciting information from the public, subsequent planning efforts can be directed to respond to these perceptions and desires. Public concerns may be expressed directly, such as at a public meeting, or indirectly through government representatives and agencies. Concern are expressed through public meetings and workshops with public, private and commercial interest groups. Additional comments were obtained through input and coordination with representatives of government agencies and the general public. The major concerns expressed regarding the Carlsbad Coastline by all public and private interests are as follows: the potential for storm damages to Carlsbad Blvd., the erosion of public beaches, and 4-1 (3) the loss of tourist revenues, as a result of the loss of recreation beaches. 4.1.3 Planning Objectives The planning objectives for the Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad Section 103 Feasibility Study reflect the concerns expressed by officials of the City of Carlsbad, the Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee, beach users, and the other local interest. The planning objectives are as follows: to reduce coastal storm related damage potential to Carlsbad Blvd. and other public and private property within the study area, to restore and control the beach erosion within the study area, with respect to its recreational value, and, to preserve and enhance the environment by restoring nesting feeding and resting areas for species. 4.1.4 Evaluation Criteria This section describes the information required by EC 1105-2-211 to be included in reports to ensure endorsement. 4.1.4.1 Economic Criteria The general economic criteria that applies in formulating and comparing alternatives are summarized as follows: Tangible project benefits must equal or exceed economic costs. The benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio is a measure of this criterion. The B/C ratio must exceed 1:1 to achieve economic justification. The scale of development should consider maximization of net benefits (benefits minus costs). The objectives cannot be attained by a more economical solution. Principles and Guidelines for Federal water resources planning require that, during plan formulation, a plan be identified that produces the greatest contribution to the National Economic Development (NED), This plan, called the NED plan, is defined as the plan providing the greatest net benefits as determined by subtracting annual 4-2 costs from annual benefits. The Corps of Engineers policy requires recommendation of the NED plan unless there is adequate justification to do otherwise. 4.1.4.2 Environmental Criteria The process in evaluating environmental considerations to formulate and compare alternatives is as follows: Alternatives will be evaluated for their potential environmental impact either beneficial or adverse. The relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of impacted resources will be determined. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources will be explicitly identified. Efforts will be made to avoid detrimental environmental effects; when adverse effects are unavoidable, feasible mitigating features will be included wherever justified. 4.1.5 Costs Costs are based on October 1995 price levels and include costs required for Planning, Engineering, and Design (PED), contract administration and construction management. Annual costs are based on a 7.625% interest rate , with an economic period of fifty years. 4.2 Alternatives The storm damage problems along the study area can be rectified by a number of solutions such as: (1) revetment, (2) periodic beach nourishment, (3) groins, (4) seawalls, and (5) detached breakwaters. Relocation of the existing road and economic developments is an undesirable and economically unjustified option. This feasibility study considered three alternatives to control the storm damages along the study area. These alternatives are as follows: (1) a T-groin with beachfill, (2) a 3,112-foot long steel sheet-pile seawall, and (3) a 2,504-foot long steel sheet-pile seawall. The basis for design of these selected alternatives are: protect Carlsbad Blvd. from storm damages through the reduction of overtopping and wave runup, and control the rate of erosion of the beach materials. 4-3 4.2.1 Plan I - T-Groin with Beachfill As shown in Figures 4.1a and 4.1 b, this plan consists of beachfill and a T- shaped groin to stabilize a beachfill, between the intake and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The beachfill is 2,700 feet long. The elevation of the beachfill is +10 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) and the width of the berm is 200 feet. This type of shore protection would reduce sand losses and provide a protective beach, and therefore, would reduce wave runup and the overtopping of Carlsbad Blvd. No renourishment is required. Therefore, only approximately 346,000 cubic yards of initial fill is necessary. The beach face slopes downward approximately I vertical on 20 horizontal from the berm crest to the natural nearshore bottom. A typical cross-section of the beachfill is shown in Figure 4.1 a, and a schematic is shown in Figure 4.1 b. The groin is about 350 feet long and the T-shaped end is about 200 feet long. The amount of rock required is about 26,400 tons. A typical cross-section of the groin is shown in Figure 4.1 c, and a plan view is shown in Figure 4.1 b. 4.2.2 Plan 2- A 3,112-Foot Seawall As shown in Figures 4.2a and 4.2b, this plan consists of a 3,112-foot long steel sheetpile seawall with concrete cap, starting approximately 400 feet downcoast of the south intake jetty of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and ending approximately 600 feet downcoast of the south outlet jetty of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, using 1500-pound stone as toe protection. The crest elevation of the seawall is approximately 5 feet higher than Carlsbad Blvd. Additionally, there will be approximately 9,750 tons of rock placed on the north revetment, starting at the south intake jetty and ending approximately 400 feet downcoast. A typical cross-section of the seawall is shown in Figure 4.2a, and a plan view is shown in Figure 4.2b. Atypical cross-section of the revetment is shown in Figure 4.2d. Detailed design computations and construction drawings of the seawall are given in Appendix C. The design was completed by the City of Carlsbad (using Woodward-Clyde Consultants) and was reviewed by the Los Angeles District's Engineering Division. 4.2.3 Plan 3- A 2,504-Foot Seawall As shown in Figures 4.2a and.4.2c, this plan consists of a 2,504-foot long steel sheetpile seawall with concrete cap, starting approximately 400 feet downcoast of the south intake jetty of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and ending at the north outlet jetty of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, using 1,500-pound stone as toe protection. This plan does not provide any protection to the 608-foot reach located south of the outlet jetties. This reach is relatively stable and not subject to damages. Additionally, there will be approximately 9,750 tons of rock placed on the north revetment, starting at the south 4-4 sor PERK. EL .10. lUCK FACE 110 350 GROIN - - RI..2 - I EZISTI1IC TTP1CAI. PIACII P10111.3 IL. • .0 10 I0• KILT Figure 4.1 a Plan 1 I A T-Groin with Beachfill - Typical Cross Section of Beachfihl and Typical Profile of Groin 4-5 Figure 4.1b Plan 1 - AT-Groin with Beachfill - Schematic (Datum is MSL which is +2.75 feet MLLW) 4-6 in I/i - zo Figure 4.1c Plan I -AT-Groin with Beachfill -Typical Cross Section of Groin 4-7 Present Limit - of Sidewalk .., Existing Curb and Gutter 12 42 / Elevation Varies - Slope 1% New 4 Slab on Grade to Complete Sidewalk Reinf Conc Cap .8.75' Two (2) Layer of 1,500 pound Stone Approx 4 it Thick Filter Cloth Wrap 4 at Each End Undisturbed Soil I Use 30' Long Sheet Piling Bethlehem steel PLZ-23 or Syrd Steel SPZ-23 or Approved Equal -. 5 1.11 6 inch Thick Quarry Run Material Underlain by Filter Fabric —11' 1188811810 Figure 4.2a Plans 2 and 3- A Typical Cross-Section of Seawall (Datum: MLLW) 4-8 Figure 4.2b Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawall - Schematic (Datum is MSL which is +2.75 feet MLLW) 4-9 Figure 4.2c Plan 3- A 2.504-Foot Seawall - Schematic (Datum is MSL which is +2.75 feet MLLW) 4-10 Top of Carlsbad Blvd Elev +16.75 MLLW Elevation 17.75 MLLW 6-ton Quarrystone Armor p. Exisiting Beach 64 Layer of C-Stone Elev -6.25 MLLW Bedrock 11e8a119M Figure 4.2d A Typical Cross-Section of Revetment 4-11 intake jetty and ending approximately 400 feet downcoast. A typical cross-section of the seawall is shown in Figure 4.2a and a plan view in Figure 4.2c. A typical cross- section of the revetment is shown in Figure 4.2d. Appendix C shows the design computations and the construction drawings for this plan. 4.3 Evaluation of Alternatives In this section, the three considered plans are evaluated using three main factors: (a) engineering performance, (b) cost and benefits, and (c) environmental consideration. Detailed analysis of the above evaluation factors is given in appendices (coastal, economic, and environmental). 4.3.1 Engineering Evaluation Plan I - A T-Groin with Beachfill The additional 200 feet of beach width will act as a first defense line against wave action and will dissipate some of the energy and runup in the flooding of Carlsbad Blvd. Table 4.1 shows the resulted reduction in runup elevations, as a result of Plani. Table 4.1 Runup Reduction, Plan I Returned Period (yr) Wave Runup (ft) Without Project With Project 2 18.2 14.9 5 19.5 16.2 10 20.4 17.0 25 21.2 21.0 50 21.7 21.3 100 22.2 21.7 200 22.7 22.2 4-12 It is expected that the shoreline along the study area will be reoriented due to the groin construction. The angle between the shoreline and the incoming wave crest will be reduced, resulting in reduction in the rate of longshore transport and subsequent reduction in the rate of shoreline recession. The net longshore transport rate affecting the study area is expected to be reduced from 270,000 cubic yards per year to about 130,000 cubic yards per year. It is also assumed that the study area will receive about 130,000 cubic yards per year from Agua Hedionda Lagoon maintenance dredging. Plan 2- A 3,112-Foot Seawall This plan is anticipated to have little impact on the longshore transport along the study area, since the seawall will control lateral erosion and would not interfere with the movement of the longshore transport. The seawall and its toe protection arrangement would limit shoreline erosion to the existing position. Runup analysis indicated that damages to the road, by excessive runup, will be minimal. Placement of 400 feet of revetment to the southern corner of the south intake jetty, would prevent any damages to segment of road. Plan 3- A 2,504 Foot Seawall This plan would have the same performance as for Plan 2. The only exception is in the length of the protected area (2,504 ft compared to 3,112 ft). 4.3.2 Cost Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 show a detailed cost estimate for Plans 1,2, and 3. Costs to construct the alternatives are detailed in the MCACES cost estimates shown in Appendix D. An interest rate of 7.625% and a project life of 50 years have been used in calculating the annual cost. To account for the uncertainties of estimating the unit- prices and construction quantities, a contingency of 25% has been applied to the calculation of cost items. The annual maintenance of the structures is assumed to run about 0.5% of the total first cost of construction. For the maintenance of the beach fill, it is assumed that the study area will receive on the average about 130,000 cubic yards per year from the sand bypass operation at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Thus, no beach fill replenishment is anticipated. The costs were estimated at the October 1995 price levels. The midpoint of construction is estimated to be November 1996 and the inflation factor for those dates and the time period is 4%. 4-13 Table 4.2 Cost Estimate for Plani. Table 4.2 Plan I - A T-Groin with Beachfill Contingency Unit Cost without ----------------Cost with Item Quantity Unit Price Contingency Amount % Contingency GROD 350 ft groin: A-12 Stone 2,800 tons $34.85 $ 97,576 $24,394 25 $121,970 A-7 Stone 2,800 tons $34.85 $ 97,576 $24,394 25 $121,970 B-i Stone 5,600 tons $31.35 $175,558 $43,890 25 $219,448 C-Stone 5,600 tons $25.38 $142,112 $35,528 25 $177,640 Excavation 10,000 cu yd $8.45 $84,549 $21,137 25 $105,686 Grouting 1 Job L.S. $208,326 $52,082 25 $260,408 SUBTOTAL (Cost of Groin) $805,697 $201,425 $1,007,122 200 ft T-ends: A-12 Stone 3,200 tons $34.85 $111,515 $27,879 25 $139,394 B-i Stone 3,200 tons $31.35 $100,319 $25,080 25 $125,399 C-Stone 3,200 tons $25.38 $81,207 $20,302 25 $101,509 SUBTOTAL (Cost of T-ends) $293,041 $73,261 $366,302 SUBTOTAL (Cost of 1 T-groin) $1,098,738 $274,686 $1,373,424 BEAHFILL Beachfill 346,000 cu yd $3.11 $1,075,393 $268,848 25 $1,344,241 Mobilization & Demob. 1 Job L.S. $57,690 $ 14,423 25 $72,113 SUBTOTAL (Cost of Beachfill) $1,133,083 $283,271 $1,416,354 SUBTOTAL (Beachfill + Groin) $2,231,821 $557,957 $2.789,778 PLANNING/ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION 8 % Planning, Engineering, and Design $178,546 $44,637 25 $223,183 2 % Engineering during Construction $44,636 $11,159 25 $55,795 7 % Construction Management $156,227 $39,057 25 $195,284 SUBTOTAL $379,409 $94,853 $474,262 TOTAL FIRST COST OF CONSTRUCTION $2,611,230 $652,810 $3,264,040 ANNUAL COST Annual Cost $207,334 $51,834 $259,168 Annual O&M Cost of Groins $6,823 $1,706 $8,529 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $214,157 $53,540 $267,697 Note: Replenishment = 0 4-14 Table 4.3 Cost Estimate for Plan 2. Table 4.3 Plan 2-A 3112-Foot Seawall Contingency Unit Cost without ----------------Cost with Item Quantity Unit Price Contingency Amount % Contingency Mobilization & Demobilization 1 Job L.S. $57,690 $14,423 25 $72,113 Sheet Pile Wall 3,112 in ft $483.40 $1,504,334 $376,084 25 $1,880,418 Concrete Cap 2,512 cu yd $284.66 $715,076 $178,769 25 $893,845 1500-lb Toe Rock 9,650 tons $31.21 $301,187 $75,297 25 $376,484 C-Stone 905 cu yd $44.14 $39,951 $9,988 25 $49,939 Filter Cloth 9,350 sq yd $3.85 $35,977 $8,994 25 $44,971 Other Items/Group 1 1 Job L.S. $84,593 $21,148 25 $105,741 Other Items/Group 2 1 Job L.S. $46,336 $11,584 25 $57,920 North Revetment 1 Job L.S. $595,670 $148,918 25 $744,588 SUBTOTAL COST $3,380,814 $845,205 $4,226,019 PLANNING/ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION 8 % Planning, Engineering, and Design $270,465 $67,616 25 $338,081 2 % Engineering during Construction $67,616 $16,904 25 $84,520 7 % Construction Management $236,657 $59,164 25 $295,821 SUBTOTAL $574,738 $143,684 $718,422 TOTAL FIRST COST OF CONSTRUCTION $3,955,552 $988,889 $4,944,441 ANNUAL COST Annual Cost -. . $314,074 $78,519_ $392,593 Annual O&M Cost - - $19,778 $4,944 $24,722 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $333,852 $83,463 $417,315 Note: Design of seawall was obtained from the City of Carlsbad. (See Appendix C) 4-15 Table 4.4 Cost Estimate for Plan 3. Table 4.4 Plan 3- A 2,504-Foot Seawall Contingency Unit Cost without ----------------Cost' With Item Quantity Unit Price Contingency Amount % Contingency Mobilization & Demobilization 1 Job L.S. $57,690 $14,423 25 $72,113 Sheet Pile Wall 2,504 in ft $486.91 $1,219,222 $304,806 25 $1,524,028 Concrete Cap 2,016 cu yd $284.76 $574,070 $143,518 25 $717,588 1500-lb Toe Rock 7,500 tons $31.35 $235,122 $58,781 25 $293,903 C-Stone 1,120 tons $25.38 $28,422 $7,106 25 $35,528 Filter Cloth 7.200 sq yd $3.85 $27,704 $6,926 25 $34,630 Other Items/Group 1 1 Job L.S. $84,593 $21,148 25 $105,741 North Revetment 1 Job L.S. $595,670 $148,918 25 $744,588 SUBTOTAL COST $2,822,493 $705,626 $3,528,119 PLMINXNG/ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION 8 % Planning, Engineering, and Design $225,799 $56,450 25 $282,249 2 % Engineering during Construction $56,450 $14,113 25 $70,563 7 % Construction Management $197,575 $49,394 25 $246,969 SUBTOTAL $479,824 $119,957 $599,781 TOTAL FIRST COST OF CONSTRUCTION $3,302,317 $825,583 $4,127,900 ANNUAL COST Annual Cost $262,207 $65,552 $327,759 Annual O&M Cost... - .., $16,512 $4,128 $20,640 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $278,719 $69,680 $348,399 Note: Design of seawall was obtained from the City of Carlsbad. 4-16 4.3.3 Economic Benefits Table 4.5 presents the annual cost, annual benefits, the Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (BCR), and the net benefits for the three developed plans. Plan I has the highest BCR of 1.94, while Plan 3 has a BCR of 1.76 and the highest net annual benefits of $266,000. Therefore, it is the National Economic Development (NED) Plan. Note: maximization of the net benefits determines the NED plan. Table 4.5 Economic Evaluation of Plans Plan 1 2 3 Total First Cost $3,264,000 $4,944,Q00 $4,128,000 Annual Const. Cost $255,000 $387,000 $323,000 Annual IDC Cost $3,000 $7,000 $5,000 Annual Maint. Cost $9,000 $25,000 $21,000 Total Annual Cost $267,000 $419,000 $349,000 Total Annual Benefits $518,000 $615,000 $615,000 Storm Damage $487,000 $615,000 $615,000 Recreation $31,000 $0 $0 Benefit-Cost-Ratio 1.94 1.47 1.76 Net Benefits $251,000 1 $196,000 $266,000 4.3.4 Optimization of Seawall Crest Elevation for Plan 3 One of the key design and planning factors which impacts the economics of a given plan, is related to the height of the seawall above known datum. In this section, an optimization analysis is presented to select a plan that maximizes the NED benefits. By varying the seawall crest elevation, an optimization process has been conducted to determine the optimal crest elevation of the seawall. Table 4.6 shows the results of the optimization process. The crest elevation has been varied from 2 to 9 feet above the road. Using the wave runup results shown in Table 6.6 of the Coastal Engineering Appendix, the residual road damage for each seawall crest elevation has been calculated and is shown in column 2 of Table 4.6. For each selected seawall crest elevation, the net benefits and the corresponding B/C ratio were computed and given in Table 4.6. Figure 4.3 shows the results of the net benefit versus the seawall crest elevations above the road (See Appendices A and B for more details). The analysis 4-17 Carlsbad Section 103 Study Seawall Crest Elevation Optimization 300 (ti 0 200 0 2 44.7 6 8 10 Wall Crest Above Road (ft) Figure 4.3 Carlsbad 103 Study - Optimization of Seawall Crest Elevation Recon - mended Plan 100 4-18 presented in Table 4.6 shows that a seawall crest elevation of 5 feet above the road elevation would maximize the net benefit. This design is close to the City of Carlsbad design which has a crest elevation of 4.7 feet above the road elevation. Table 4.6 Optimization of Seawall Crest Elevation (2504 -Foot Seawall) $610,850 Without Project Road Damage $10,690 Benefit of Revetment South $4,948 Interest During Construction Crest above Road Road Total Annual Net Road (ft) Damages ($) Benefit ($) Benefit ($) Cost ($) Benefit ($) B/C 2 177,918 432,932 443,622 321,622 122,000. 1.38 3 61,805 549,045 559,735 331,473 228,262 1.69 4 20,383 590,467 601,157 341,322 259,835 1.76 5 3,945 606,905 617,595 351,172 266,423 1.76 6 0 610,850 621,540 361,022 260,518 1.72 9 0 610,850 621,540 390,571 230,969 1.59 4.3.5 Environmental Considerations Beach disposal of sediments could potentially affect nesting areas of least terns, snowy plovers and other shore birds. However, this impact could be beneficial, since due to the extreme narrowness of the without project beach, the project could prevent erosion of the nesting sites, or create additional area. The creation of a gently-sloping beach would also benefit the grunion. The construction of the seawall and revetment would have no impact on benthic habitat. Bluff structures would not create or stabilize beaches and, therefore, would not benefit terrestrial resources. The seawall and revetment would reduce or eliminate the bluffs potential as a sand source, and as habitat for vegetation and wildlife. Due to its placement in an already developed area, adverse impacts to biological resources and water quality would probably not be significant. However, scour of the beach in front of the seawall is expected due to exposure to waves. 4-19 5.0 THE RECOMMENDED PLAN The recommended plan consists of constructing Plan 3. Plan 3 (2,504-foot seawall) provides maximum economic benefits, making it the NED plan for providing storm damage protection for that stretch of Carlsbad Blvd. located between the intake and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. From an environmental standpoint, the plan would not result in any significant adverse impacts. 5.1 Plan Description The recommended plan, shown in Figure 4.2c, includes the construction of a 2,504-foot long steel sheetpile seawall with a concrete cap, starting approximately 400 feet downcoast of the south intake jetty of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and ending at the north outlet jetty of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, using 1,500-pound stone as toe protection. Additionally, there will be approximately 9,750 tons of rock placed on the north revetment, between the south intake jetty and the beginning of the seawall. 5.2 Plan Accomplishment The major accomplishment of the implementation of the recommended plan will be to provide a first line of defense against wave action, thereby dissipating wave energy and runup along the project area. 5.3 Project Cost The estimated total first construction cost of the recommended plan is $4,128,000 (October 1995 price levels), including all costs to construct the seawall. A contingency of 25% was added to reflect the uncertainties brought about by many variables which affect mobilization and demobilization costs. The estimated total first construction cost of the recommended plan is summarized in Table 4.5. The estimated annual maintenance cost is $21,000. 5.3.1 Real Estate The City of Carlsbad. has received easement rights and other agreements from San Diego Gas and Electric and the State of California for construction and maintenance of the project. These lands are subject to erosion under without project conditions. Therefore, in accordance with Corps of Engineers Policy Guidance No. 11, dated 13 October 1988, "lands needed for the placement of project features that prevent the loss of the land itself has no value for crediting purposes". Appendix E presents the Real Estate. 5-1 5.4 Benefits The recommended plan's estimated average annual net economic benefits of $266,000 will provide increased revenue for the City of Carlsbad, as well as providing Storm damage protection to that stretch of Carlsbad Blvd. located with in the study area. . . . 5.5 Economic Justification The recommended plan is economically justified as shown in Table 4.6. With total annual benefits of $615,000 and average annual costs of $349,000, the recommended plan has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.76 -to-I. It provides net benefits of $266,000 and is the National Economic Development (NED) Plan. 5.6 Environmental Effects The following environmental analysis is a summary of the findings presented in the Environmental Assessment. If analyses indicate that significant impacts may occur, then mitigation methods will be considered. General Commitments: Prior to construction, the Los Angeles District/contractor will provide a I-month notification of the planned activities to the appropriate agencies and post information bulletins of scheduled work time and areas at the appropriate offices. Construction will occur between September and Mid-March. All construction materials will meet or exceed Corps of Engineers standards. I. Oceanography Impact: The construction site is located approximately 11 feet above Mean Higher High Water (MHHW). Oceanographic/water quality impacts will be insignificant (i.e. turbidity will be temporary and not significant). Shoreline impacts are not expected. The proposed project will not result in or be affected by unstable geological conditions-or changes in substructures. This action will notexpOse people or property to geologic hazards. The project will not destroy, cover or modify any unique geologic or physical features. There will be no increase in wind or water erosion of soils on or off-site, as a result of implementation, of the proposed project. The above assessment covers both the seawall and the revetment reaches. Mitigation: Not applicable Marine Resources Impact: The affected benthic habitat consists primarily of supra-tidal sandy habitat, and secondarily inter-tidal habitat. Destruction and disturbances will occur, and these impacts will be adverse, but not significant. It is anticipated that reconstructed areas will be fully colonized within a few months by species migration of the adjacent community and succession. It is expected that species colonization will be difficult to distinguish from that in the existing habitat within less than a year. Aside from the direct impacts, turbidity and noise impacts will occur over construction; however, the impacts will be temporary in nature. Impacts will not be significant. The Corps has determined that the proposed project as scheduled will not have an affect nor jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. Formal consultation pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not required for project implementation. Sensitive species impacts will not occur. Mitigation: Not applicable: Noise Impact: The proposed project will incrementally increase the noise levels in the project area, due to the use of construction equipment. This impact is short-term in nature, and will raise noise levels in excess of local standards. Commitment: Construction will be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and sunset, Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and sunset on Saturday, with no work on Sundays or holidays. All construction equipment shall use properly working mufflers and be kept in a proper state of maintenance to alleviate backfires. Air Quality Impact: Project emissions may temporarily cause exceedances in Nox and CO as compared to standards set by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD), Rules 1110, 1110.1, and 1110.2. NOx is predicted to increase by 12.5 pounds per cubic foot (ppcf), and CO, 13.2 ppcf. SDAPCD allows an increase of 10 ppcf per constituent. With implementation of appropriate measures, construction 5-3 related air impacts will not be significant. No long-term impacts are expected. Commitment: Compliance with Federal, State and local policies. To minimize short-term impacts, turbo-cooled exhaust recycling systems will be used on all construction equipment, and a three-degree adjustment in engine timing will be required on pile drivers and rock trucks. These measures will bring total emissions to less than 10 ppcf, an acceptable limit set by SDAPCD. Land and Recreation Uses. Impact: The proposed project will not conflict with zoning or general plan designations, nor will it conflict with adjacent, existing or planned land uses. It will not induce urban growth. Significant adverse impacts are not expected. Short-term recreation impacts (i.e. temporary loss of beach use) will occur during construction: however, these impacts are not expected to be significant. Although the completed project will maintain a beach width similar to the existing profile, it will enhance current recreational opportunities by providing a safer environment for the public. Commitment: Construction is scheduled to avoid the peak beach use season; work will occur between September and mid-March. Ground Transportation lmDact: The proposed project will temporarily increase local traffic. Traffic impacts will be adverse, but not significant. Commitment: Rock truck hauls will occur only between Monday and Friday. A flagman shall be provided to direct traffic (and people) in congested areas, if needed. Public and System Safety Impact: The proposed action does not involve the risk explosion or the release of hazardous substances, including oil, pesticide, chemicals or radiation in the event of an accident or disruption of conditions. It does not expose persons or the property to wildfire hazards, nor does it expose persons who occupy the neighboring sites to these dangers. The proposal will not interfere with an emergency response or evacuation 5-4 plan, nor will it use or dispose of potentially hazardous materials. The proposed project will have no adverse physical impacts on the following facilities: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and other recreational facilities, electrical and natural gas distribution lines, communication systems, water, sewer/septic tanks, storm water drainage, and solid waste and disposal facilities. In fact, the proposed project will increase the safety currently provided to the shoreline and neighboring infra-structure. Commitment: If such resources are discovered during construction, work will be suspended in the area until all necessary in the area until all necessary survey and testing work is complete and a remediation plan acceptable to the appropriate Federal/State resources is developed. Aesthetics Impact: Although equipment will cause temporary adverse aesthetic impacts during construction, these impacts will not be significant. Placement of the seawall will also have long-term impacts. Commitment: The City will decorate the seawall to complement the character of the area. The wall's design will also be covered with graffiti-proof treatment to maintain its integrity. Cultural Resources Impact: The project will not have an impact on a historic structure or archaeological site, given neither contains nor is located near such a resource. Commitment: If cultural resources are discovered during construction and cannot be avoided, work will be suspended in that area until properties are evaluated for eligibility for listing in NRHP in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). If properties are determined eligible for NRHP, effects of the proposed construction will be taken into consideration in consultation with SHPO; and ACHP will be provided an opportunity to comment in accordance with 36CFR800.1 1. 5-5 5.7 Plan Implementation 5.7.1 Project Purpose The project purpose is to provide storm damage protection to that stretch of Carlsbad Blvd. located between the intake and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 5.7.2 Cost Appropriation The proposed apportionment of first costs between Federal and non-Federal interest for the recommended plan is in accordance with the 1986 Water Resources Development Act. The Act requires non-Federal interest to provide a minimum of 35 percent of the first cost as their share of a Federal shore protection project. The non- Federal interest is also responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights of way, relocations, and disposal and borrow sites (LERRD5) that is required for construction and operation and maintenance of project features over the 50-year project life. The value of LERRDs provided by non-Federal sponsor may be credited towards the 35 percent non-Federal share of the project cost. In addition, the non-Federal sponsor is responsible for 100 percent of the operation and maintenance cost including LERRDs over the 50 year project life. Section 103 of the River and Harbor of 1962, as amended, presently limits Federal expenditures that can be approved by the Chief of Engineers under the Shore Protection Continuing Authority Program to a maximum of $2 million. Any cost apportioned to the Federal Government that exceeds $2 million must be borne by non- Federal interest. Table 5.1 Estimated Cost-Sharing of Federal Shore Protection Project for the Recommended Plan Plan 3- A 2,504-Foot Seawall Item Total Federal Non-Federal First Cost $4,1281000 $2,000,000 (48%) $2,128,000 (52%) Based on the National Economic Development (NED) plan, Plan 3 is the NED plan. Federal at 65% = $2,683,000 Maximum Possible = $2,000,000 56 5.7.3 Federal Responsibility The estimated total first cost of the project is $4,128,000 and the Federal share is $2,000,000 (statutory Federal cost limitation per project). In addition to its financial responsibility, the Federal Government would: (1) Design and prepare detailed plans and specifications, and (2) Advertise, award and administer construction contracts and provide inspection and other construction management activities through the completion of construction. 5.7.4 Non-Federal Responsibility The non-Federal sponsor of the project is the City of Carlsbad. Based on the cost-sharing requirements presented above, the estimated non-Federal share of the total first cost of the project is $2,128,000. In addition to non-Federal cost-sharing described above, the non-Federal sponsor is required to agree to perform or be responsible for additional local cooperation items as follows: Pay during the period of construction 35 percent of total project cost; Pay 100 percent of the actual cost of the Federal share that exceeds the Federal limit for projects under the authority of Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, presently established at $2,000,000. Provide all lands, easements and rights-of-way including suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas, and perform or assure the performance of all relocations determined by the Government to be necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project; Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project and anu project related betterment, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the Government or its contractors. Operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the entire project at no cost to the Government; Grant the Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon property that the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose of inspection and, if necessary, for the purpose of repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the Project. \ 5-7 Agrees to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs; (5) Not less than once each year the Non- Federal Sponsor shall inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded by the Project; Publicize flood plain information in the area concerned and shall provide this information to zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development in the flood plain and in adopting such regulations as may be necessary to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the Project; Perform prior to initiation of construction, and thereafter as determined necessary, environmental investigations to identify the existence of any hazardous substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 USC 9601-9675, in or under all lands, easements and rights of way necessary for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project; Assume complete financial responsibility for cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA regulated materials located in, on or under lands, easements, or rights of way necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project; and be responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and rehabilitating the project in a manner so that liability will not arise under CERCLA; Keep and maintain, books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to the project to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs; Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended by Title IV of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17) and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CRT Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and performing relocations for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act; and Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, public Law 88-352, and Department of Defense Directives 5500,11 issued pursuant thereto and published I Part 300 of Title 32, case of Federal Regulations, as well as Army Regulation 66-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted of Conducted by the Department of the Army? 5-8 5.7.5 Sponsorship Agreement Prior to the start of construction, the sponsor will be required to enter into an agreement with the Federal Government and satisfy State laws and all applicable regulations. The Local Cooperation Agreement will be prepared and negotiated with the City of Carlsbad during Preconstruction, Engineering and Design. 5.8 Procedures for Implementation Based on guidance presented in EC 1105-20211, dated 16 June 1995, the following will be followed towards obtaining project approval and proceeding to construction: The Draft Detailed Project Report and Draft Project Cooperation Agreement will be submitted to South Pacific Division for approval; Since a model agreement is not available for Section 103 projects, the Draft Project Cooperation agreement will be submitted to Corps of Engineers Headquarters for approval; Upon approval from the South Pacific Division, the Draft Detailed Project Report and Draft Environmental Assessment willbe sent to interested publics for review and comment; Upon receipt of Headquarters approval of the Project Cooperation Agreement and completion of public review, the non-Federal sponsor will be requested to provide a letter of intent indicating their willingness and ability to proceed with the project including execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement. The final -Detailed Project Report and Project Cooperation Agreement will be submitted to South Pacific Division for approval of the project by the Division Engineer; Subject to availability, Headquarters will provide initial plans and specifications funds at the request of the Division Commander when the Division Commander has approved the DPR and the sponsor agrees with its findings and recommendations and the PCA has been transmitted to Headquarters for approval; The Division Commander will notify the Congressional delegation of project approval. The Division Commander may delegate Congressional notification to the district commander. PCA's shall be executed, after project approval, applicable Federal environmental and regulatory requirements have been satisfied, and construction funds 5-9 are committed; District Commanders will notify State and local interests of project approval; After project approval and prior to PCA execution, and subject to availability of funds, construction funds are set aside (committed) in Headquarters until bids are opened and the division commander requests construction funding; Projects will be advertised for bids after PCA execution and certification by the district real estate element that all necessary lands are available, unless approved by the division commander in response to special circumstances which warrant earlier advertisement; After a responsive bid has been received, construction funds will be released when requested by the Division Commander; After the initial work construction work allowance, any subsequent request for construction funding due to an increase in construction costs will include an explanation of the change, and be accompanied by the Continuing Authorities Fact Project Fact Sheet, reflecting the increased cost; After the final inspection or other event marking the physical completion of the project, the Division Commander will notify Headquarter that the project is physically complete, endnote any outstanding problems. A final completion report will be prepared after the final audit and project closeout, indicating final costs, any remaining funds, and the date which the project was considered operational. 5-10 5.9 Schedule for Implementation The schedule for implementation of the project has been developed in accordance with Corps of Engineers project management and programming regulations and procedures. The major milestones of this plan are presented in Table 5.2. Progressing project implementation on this schedule is subject to availability of Federal and non-Federal funds, which must compete annually with other programs and priorities of the Federal, State, and local governments. The schedule is also dependent upon authorization of the project for construction. Table 5.2 Schedule to Complete Complete Draft Detailed Project Report (including Final EA) .............31 Jan 96 SPD Approval of Public Release of Draft Report ......................29 Feb 96 Public Review of Draft Report ....................................13 Mar 96 Complete Public Review .........................................3 Apr 96 Receipt of Local Sponsor's Letter Agreeing to PCA ....................10 Apr 96 Final Detailed Project Report and Draft PCA to SPD ...................19 Apr 96 Initiate Plans and Specifications ..................................24 Apr 96 Division Engineer Approves Project ................................20 May 96 SPD submits PCA to HQ for Approval ..............................20 May 96 Plans & Specifications Biddability,Constructability, Operability Review .....21 Jun 96 HQ Approval of PCA ...........................................28 Jun 96 Complete Plans and Specifications................................28 Jun 96 Plans & Specifications Approval by SPD ............................19 Jul 96 Request Commitment of Construction Funds ..........................31 Jul 96 HQ Commits Construction Funds...................................31 Jul 96 Complete Regulatory Requirements ................................31 Jul 96 Execute Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) ......................31 Jul 96 Final Certification of Real Estate ...................................31 Jul 96 Obtain Local Funds .............................................31 Jul 96 Advertise Construction Contract ................................ ... 1 Aug 96 OpenBids .....................................................1 Sep 96 Receive Federal Funds .........................................5 Sep 96 Award Construction Contract .....................................15 Sep 96 Initiate Construction ............................................20 Sep 96 Complete Construction ...........................................15 Mar 97 Construction Contract Physical Completion ...........................15 .Mar 97 Complete Final Close-Out Report .................................15 Jun 97 *Note: Environmental window restricts construction during the period 15 Mar to 1 Sep. 5-11 6.0 DISTRICT ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing findings, I recommend that Plan 3 described in Chapter 5 of the report be approved for construction under the authority of Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, as amended.. I further recommend that the Federal share of the total project cost be allocated in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and also in accordance with the Federal limitations under the authority of Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act, as amended Therefore, I recommend that the Federal share of the total first cost of the project, which is estimated at $4,128,000, be limited to $2,000,000. This recommendation is made with the provision that prior to implementation, non-Federal interest will, in accordance with the general requirements of the law for this type of project, agree to comply with the following requirements: Pay during the period of construction 35 percent of total project cost; Pay 100 percent of the actual cost of the Federal share that exceeds the Federal limit for projects under the authority of Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, presently established at $2,000,000; Provide all lands, easements and rights-of-way including suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas, and perform or assure the performance of all relocations determined by the Government to be necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project; Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project and anu project related betterment, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the Government or its contractors; Operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the entire project at no cost to the Government; Grant the Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon property that the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose of inspection and, if necessary, for the purpose of repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the project; Agrees to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs; (5) Not less than once each year the Non- Federal Sponsor shall inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded by the project; 6-1 Federal Sponsor shall inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded by the project; Publicize flood plain information in the area concerned and shall provide this information to zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development in the flood plain and in adopting such regulations as may be necessary to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the project; Perform prior to initiation of construction, and thereafter as determined necessary, environmental investigations to identify the existence of any hazardous substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 USC 9601-9675, in or under all lands, easements andrights of way necessary for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project; Assume complete financial responsibility for cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA regulated materials located in, on or under lands, easements, or rights of way necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project; and be responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and rehabilitating the project in a manner so that liability will not arise under CERCLA; Keep and maintain, books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to the project to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs; Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended by Title IV of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17) and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CRT Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and performing relocations for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act; and Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, public Law 88-352, and Department of Defense Directives 5500,11 issued pursuant thereto and published I Part 300 of Title 32, case of Federal Regulations, as well as Army Regulation 66-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted of Conducted by the Department of the Army." The recommendations contained herein reflect the polices governing formulation of individual projects and the information available at this time. They do not necessarily reflect program and budgeting priorities inherent in the local and State programs or the formulation of a national Civil Works construction program. Jerome J. Dittman Lieutenant Colonel Corps of Engineers Acting District Engineer US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District FINAL REPORT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SECTION 103 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGOCOUNTY, CALIFORNIA Environmental Assessment I. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 April 1996 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION LOS ANGELES DISTRICT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SHORELINE PROTECTION MEASURES AT CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA I have reviewed the attached Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the Carlsbad Shoreline Project. The proposed project has been designed to provide additional protection to the shoreline and neighboring infrastructure (i.e. Carlsbad Boulevard) between the inlet and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The proposed project consists of constructing a seawall between the jetties and placing additional rock on the existing northern revetment. Project construction is expected to occur between September 1996 and mid-March 1997 and will take between 150 and 180 days. Project actions have been determined to be similar to other types of actions that have been implemented along the coast of California and. comply with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (FCZMA) of 1976, as amended. A Negative Determination has been submitted in place of a Consistency Determination to the California Coastal Commission for project concurrence. All project coordination with respect to the FCZMA will be completed prior to construction. Project impacts on marine resources will be adverse, but not significant. No federally-listed species will be affected by project implementation. Therefore, formal Section 7 consultation is not required pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1969, as amended. Short-term adverse air impacts will occur during project construction; these impacts will not be significant. Activities will be in compliance with the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District policies as well as in Conformity with Section 176(c) (1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended. Air emissions will be under exclusion of the "De Minimis Emission Levels" of the CAA (40CFR93.153(b)). Other short-term impacts may include decreases in water quality, increases in noise pollution, and increases in traffic. These impacts will be temporary and not significant. Aesthetic impacts will cause both short and long term impacts. Short term impacts will be adverse, but not significant. To minimize long term impacts, the City will appropriately decorate the seawall following construction and apply a graffiti proof treatment to maintain its integrity. -2- A letter has been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer transmitting the Corps' effect determination on National Register or eligible properties. As no National Register listed or eligible properties are present, no cultural resource impacts are expected. All project coordination with respect to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800) will be completed prior to construction. I have considered the available information contained in this EA, and have determined the proposed project (Alternative 2) is the environmentally preferred plan. It will have relatively few adverse effects on the environment. In addition, the beneficial impacts and increased safety and shore protection will outweigh the identified short-term adverse affects. It is my determination that impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the existing environment or the quality of the human environment; therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. , AI ,Cj9 DATE (j erome'J. Dittman ieutenant Colonel Corps of Engineers Acting District Engineer FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CARLSBAD SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION LOS ANGELES DISTRICT APRIL 1996 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC REVIEW The Resources Agency Pete Wilson Douglas P. Wheeler Governor . Secretary of California California Conservation Corps • Department of Boating & Waterways • Department of Conservation Department of Fish & Game • Department of Forestry & Fire Protection • Department of Parks &. Recreation • Department of Water Resources April 15, 1996 Robert S. Joe U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ATIN: Mr. Russell Kaiser P. 0. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 Dear Mr. Kaiser: The State has reviewed the Environmental Assessment, Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project, San Diego County, submitted through the Office of Planning and Research. We coordinated review of this document with the California Coastal, and State Lands Commissions; the Air Resources, and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards; the State Coastal Conservancy; and the Departments of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation, and Transportation. The Department of Transportation, District 11, recàmmends "that construction activities be limited to outside peak periods to lessen impacts to commute traffic." For further information regarding traffic operations contact Fred Yazdan at (619) 688-6881. For questions regarding 1-5, contact Majid Kharrati at (619) 688-6729. Thank you for providing an opportunity to review this project. Sincerely, for Maureen F. Gorsen Assistant General Counsel cc: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (SCH 96034008) The Resources Building Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 653-5656 FAX (916) 633-8102 California Coastal Commission • California Tahoe Conservancy • Colorado River Board of California Ener&v Resources. Conservation & Development Commission • San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission State Coastal Conservancy • State Lands Commission • State Reclamation Board Printed on recycled paper The Surfrider Foundation San Diego County Chapter The Surii.er Founietian it a no". profit envircrunerval organi.u:oa dedicated to the pixection and e,thaaeaienr otthe ssr1ds waves and beaches tiuou&i o11cervatiom activisiii ieearc1i. and education April 1, 1996 M. Robert S. Joe Chief. Planning Division U.S Annv Corps of Engineers AT1N.: 6ESPL-PD-1N. Mr. Russell L. Kaiser PC) Box 2711 Los i:eles. Cclifornia 90053-2325 RE: Draft Environmental Assessment, Curls bad Shoreline Protection Project, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Joe: The San Diego County Chapter of the Surfrider Founckrdon (SDCC) has susra!ttjal concerns regartlin the above-referenced project. Its a wefl docurnezited fact that the harcleii:ng of the coastline results in the accelerated erosion of beaches. While the 50CC understands the necessity of the this project, we fee: that certain issues have not been adequately addressed in the Draft Environniental Assessmen: (DEA). These issues include the net loss of usable heath. and the long term effects of the seawall and associated liprap on the siufu:g resources in the irnn:edicite project vicinity. Regarding the fnrner. ha sed on the ±mensions provided in the DL.A, there wi1 he a tie: loss of 37,5& squnie feet o--'x sable beach area. This is a sigriiiicaiit aniount in an area of high beach use such as Carlsbad. California. The DEA does not propose any xnitiatioii for this loss. Beach nourishm-ent in addition to any currently pla:uied replexiislune::t should be added as mi:igation for the net loss of usable beach. or the project should he redesigned th in such a way as to not reed the riprap (i.e, deeper ii pilings). The issue. of 1oni terms effects to the surfing resources iii the immediate p:oiect vie ix:itv has not been addressed. At a niinànum, a baseline study of the current and historical surfing conditions iii the project vicinity should be completed in cider to have a reference point for future evaluation of long term effects. Please note that the (:olifoma Coastal Conunissioi (CCC.) has set a precedent in a similar matte: with regard to the value of surfabie waves. n the. Chevron, El Se.mindo mitigation case the CCC: concluded that if surfable waves nie degraded the daniage must he mitigated with in-kind iest 3ratian. The SD'--"C thank you for this cpportunity. I can be reached ci 6I9-942-865. Resoectfuliy. Christopher S. Speriglet Co-Chairman, San Diego County Chapter Surfiider Foundation San Diego Counts c::lwp;er P.O. Box 23(1754 Ezicüiitas, CA 92)23 619.792 9940 Natiomial C)ffc 122 S. El Ca:nino Real Box 67 San Clemente, CA 92572 714.492 870 COMMENT RESPONSES TO SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, LETTER DATED APRIL 1, 1996 Concern: The DEA does not adequately address the net loss of usable beach and the long term effects of the seawall and associated riprap on the surfing resources in the immediate project vicinity. Response: The project area shoreline is severely eroded and during winter erosion is essentially down to a cobble bed. The only sources of nourishment to this area is from periodic placement of dredged material from Aqua Hedionda lagoon, which is placed on the cobble beach area. The construction of the seawall and toe protection is not expected to have any significant adverse impact on the continued nourishment nor the performance of the placed material. Therefore, beach nourishment is not proposed as a feature of this project. Also, the proposed project is not expected to have an effect on surfing resources in the immediate project vicinity. Concern: The DEA does not propose mitigation for the net loss of 37,560 square feet of usable beach area. Response: To clarify this point regarding the lost beach area, it is should be noted that the 37,560 square feet relates to the area where the seawall and toe revetment will be placed. If the project is not built, this area will then erode to Carlsbad Boulevard and the beach will be completely lost in the near future. In regard to the material placed periodically, as mentioned above, the project is not expected to adversely effect the beach created by this material. Accordingly, the proposed project is expected to have a positive effect on maintaining the beach area between the jetties, and mitigation is not warranted. Concern: The issue of long term effects to the surfing resources in the immediate project vicinity has not been addressed. Response: In regard to surfing and surfing access, the proposed project as planned will provide stairway access to the shorefront beaches. As noted above, the project is expected to maintain the area in front of the road and seawall for recreation use, including surfing. No significant offshore impacts in wave climate are expected from the placement of the seawall or toe placement. The proposed project is not expected to result in significant, adverse impacts on surfing resources. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME RE C EIV El) 16 NINTH STREET D. BOX 944209 APR 031996 $ACRAMENTO CA 94244.2090 (9 16) 53-4875 REGULATORY BRANCH March 26, 1996 Colonel Michal R. Robinson District Engineer, Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers L P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 L_s° Dear Colonel Robinson: Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project. The project as proposed consists of the construction of a 2,504-foot-long seawall between the inlet and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon andthe placement of rock on an existing revetment south of the northern jetty structures. The seawall consists of steel sheet piling with a reinforced concrete cap. The seaward side of the seawall will be reinforced with two layers of stone placed over a six inch quarry run base. The project would have insignificant impacts to marine resources and habitats and the Department would not object to implementation of the project as proposed. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Richard Nitsos, Environmental Specialist, Environmental Services Division, Department of Fish and Game, 330 Golden Se, Suite 50, Long Beach, California 90802, telephone (;11) 590-5174. Sincerely, tohI)/L. Turner', Chief Enytronmenta1 Services Division cc: See next page United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 March 20, 1996 Colonel Michal R. Robinson District Engineer, Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 Attn: Russell Kaiser, Environmental Resources Branch Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Colonel Robinson: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is in receipt of the referenced document (DEA) dated March 1996. The Service has reviewed the DEA and offer the following comments. The proposed project consists of constructing a 2,504-foot long seawall between the entrance to Agua Hedionda and the Encinas Power Plant discharge channel. The seawall will be placed along the existing sidewalk along Carlsbad Boulevard. An additional 9,750 tons of rock will be placed on the existing revetment located immediately south of the northern jetty structures. The seaward-side of the seawall will be reinforced with two layers of 1,500-pound stone. Project construction will take approximately 150 days between September 1996 and mid-March 1997. The only comment the Service has to offer is that the Service's Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report dated December 1995 be included in the Final Environmental Assessment for this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact John Hanlon, Chief, Branch of Federal Projects, at (619) 431-9440. Gail)_-. Kobetich i1d Supervisor DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CARLSBAD SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION LOS ANGELES DISTRICT MARCH 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 Introduction 1.1 Proposed Project...... . . . . . .......1-1 1.2 Environmental Assessment Process. ....... . ...... 1-1 1.3 Relationship to Environmental Protection Statutes . ...... ............................ 1-1 SECTION 2 History and Purpose 2.1 Description of Project Area and Background History ...................................... 21 2.2 Study Authority/Federal Interest.................2-1 2.3 Purpose and Need.................................2-2 SECTION 3 Project Alternatives 3.1 Project Criteria . . ..... . . .............. . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 Alternatives Considered .........................3-1 3.3 Project Description..............................3-2 3.3.1 Methods and Staging Requirements ..... , 3-2 3.3.2 Notifications and Requirements............3-3 3.3.3 Project Duration and Timing...............3-3 SECTION 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 4.1 oceanography ..................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Affected Environment ............ . .......... 4-1 4.1.1.1 Bathy-metry ....................... 4 -1 4.1.1.2 Geology..........................4-1 4.1.1.3 Tides and Sea Level..............4-1 4.1.1.4 Currents ........................4-3 4.1.1.5 Cross Shore Currents ............4-4 4.1.1.6 Sediment Sources and Sinks.......4-4 4.1.1.7 Historic Shoreline Changes.......4-4 4.1.1.8 Sediment Budget .................. 4-4 4.1.1.9 Water Quality .................... 4-4 4.1.2 Environmental Consequences................4-6 4.1.2.1 Criteria.........................4-6 4.1.2.2 Alternative 1. .............4-6 4.1.2.3 Alternative 2 ....................4-8 4.1.2.4 No Action........................4-8 4.2 Marine Resources ..............................4-8 4.2.1 Affected Environment................. 4-8 4.2.1.1 vegetation & Wildlife............4-8 4.2.1.2 Other Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ........4-10 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences................4-16 4.2.2.1 Criteria.........................4-16 4.2.2.2 Alternative 1 .................... 4-16 4.2.2.3 Alternative 2 ....................4-19 4.3 Noise............................................4-19 4.3.1 Affected Environment...... .... 4-19 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences.. .. ..... .... 4-19 4.3.2.1 Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ...... 4-19 4.3.2.2 Alternative 1....... ...... 4-20 4.3.2.3 Alternative 2... ............ 4-21 4.4 Air Quality...... . . . . . .......4-21 4.4.1 Affected Environment.... .......4-21 4.4.1.1 Climate and Meteorology..........4-21 4.4.1.2 Existing Air Quality .............4-22 4.4.2 Environmental Consequences............... 4-22 4.4.2.1 Criteria ........................4-22 4.4.2.2 Alternative 1.. .......4-25 4.4.2.3 Alternative 2... ....... ...... 4-26 4.5 Land and Recreation Uses ........... ...... ....... 4-26 4.5.1 Affected Environment.... ....... ....... 4-26 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences.................4-26 4.5.2.1 Criteria. ....................... 4-26 4.5.2.2 Alternative 1 ....................4-26 4.5.2.3 Alternative 2 ...................4-27 4.5.2.4 No Action. ......• . ......• . ....... 4-27 4.6 Ground Transportation............................4-27 4.6.1 Affected Environment................. . .... 4-27 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences. ............. 4-27 4.6.2 .1 Criteria....... • .................4-27 4.6.2.2 Alternative 1.... ............ 4-28 4.6.2.3 Alternative 2........ . ........... 4-28 4.6.2.4 No Action... ......• . .......• . • . . 4-29 4.7 Public and System Safety .........• ...............4-29 4.7.1 Affected Environment ..............• ...... 4-29 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences.. • .......• . .... 4-29 4.7.2.1 Criteria ........................4-29 4.7.2.2 Alternative ]. .................... 4-29 4.7.2.3 Alternative 2 ...... .......•• .....4-30 4.7 .2.4 No Action Alternative....... 4-30 4.8 Aesthetics. ....... . ......... . . ......• . .......• • • 4-30 4.8.1 Affected Environment......................4-30 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences........ ...... 4-30 4.8.2.1 Criteria. . . . . ................... 4-30 4.8.2.2 Alternative l .................... 4-31 4.8.2.3 Alternative 2 ....................4-31 4.9 Cultural Resources. . . . • . . ....... • ...............4-31 4.9.1Affected Environment...... ........ . .......4-31 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences ........• . ....... 4-32 4.10 Summary of Environmental Compliance.............. 4-32 4 • 11 Project Summary. . . .......... . ....................4-33 SECTION 5 Prepares/Reviewers.... • . . . ..... . • • ........... • • ......5-1 SECTION 6 Acronyms ......... ......... • .......................... • 6-1 SECTION 7 References ............ . ................................. 7-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.3-1 Summary of Environmental Compliance. ..... 1-3 - Table 4.1-1 Study Site Extreme Wave Height Over 100 Years 4-3 Table 4.1-2 Study Site Water Quality Data ............4-6 Table 4.2-1 Federally Listed Species ....................4-11 Table 4.2-2 Special Status Species ....................4-14 Table 4.4-1 Del Mar, San Diego Air Quality Monitoring Summary...... ...... . . . . . . .....4-23 Table 4.4-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) ...........4-24 Table 4.4-3 San Diego Air Pollution Control District Threshold Levels with Projected Construction Emission Levels. .........4-25 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1-1 Study Area....................................1-2 Figure 2.1-1a Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad, California 2-3 Figure 2.1-1b Carlsbad Study Area .. ........................2-4 Figure 2.1-2 Detailed Project Area for Reach 3 .....2-5 Fiaure 3.2-1 Alternative 1. . . . .....34 Figure 3.2-2 Alternative 2 . ........ . . . . , ...................3-5 Figure 3.2-.3 Alternative 3 . • . • .....• ...................... 3-6 Figure 3.2-4 Detailed Project Designs for Seawall Construction. . • . • . • . . . • .....• ................3-7 Figure 3.2-5 Carlsbad - Study Area.........................3-8 Figure 4.1-1 Oceanside Littoral Zone.......................4-2 Figure 4.1-2 Map of Study Site of Bathymetry............... 4-5 Figure 4.1-3 Schematic Profile of Carlsbad - Reach 3 .......4-7 APPENDICES Appendix A - Consultation Letters Appendix B - 404 (b) (1) Evaluation Appendix C - California Coastal Commission Request for Negative Determination Appendix D - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Reports Appendix E - California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) SECTION 3. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Los Angeles District, proposes to provide additional storm damage protection to approximately 3,000-feet of shoreline between the inlet and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The project area is identified on Figure 1.1-1. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS This Environmental Assessment (EA) shall address potential impacts associated with implementing discretionary actions as they relate to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (Corps), policies and those of other entities. The Corps is the Lead Agency for this project. This EA is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, as amended. The NEPA requires federal agencies to consider environmental effects of their actions. .When those actions significantly affect the quality of the human environment, an agency must prepare environmental documentation that provides full and fair discussion of impacts. The EA process follows a series of prescribed steps. The first, scoping, has been completed with purpose to solicit comments from other federal and state agencies as well as the general public. The EA is then sent out for a 30-day public review period, during which written and verbal comments on its adequacy will be received. The fourth step requires preparation of a Final EA (FEA) that incorporates and responds to comments received. The FEA will be furnished to all who commented on the Draft and made available at request. The final step is preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact, a concise summary of the decision made by the Corps from among the alternatives presented in the FEA. 1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTES The Corps is required to comply with all pertinent federal and state policies; project compliance is summarized in Table 1.3-1. 1-1 1-2 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA AND BACKGROUND HISTORY The general project area is located 90 miles south of Los Angeles along the San Diego County coastline between Buena Vista Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon. It includes approximately seven miles of coast. Figure 2.1-1(a) depicts the overall project area. In January 1994, the Corps prepared the "Pacific Coast Shoreline Reconnaissance Report" to evaluate shoreline conditions between Buena Vista Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon. To assess the overall conditions of the project area, the coast was divided into five (5) reaches: Reach 1 included the coastal area between the northern city limit line of Oceanside and the city-installed seawall located south of Oak Avenue; Reach 2, the seawall and the Tamarack Street parking lot; Reach 3, the parking lot and the northern boundary of the Terramar housing development; Reach 4, the Terramar housing development; and Reach 5, the South Carlsbad State Beach (Figure 2.1-1(b)). The Reconnaissance Report concluded that a portion of Reach 3, between the inlet and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, needs immediate shoreline protection. This stretch of shoreline averages a beach width typically between 150 and 200 feet. The beach is covered with one to six-inch diameter cobbles covered by a thin layer of sand. During the summer, sand averages between one and three feet in thickness. During winter, sand is naturally transported offshore. During this time, winter storm waves have periodically overtopped and washed-out portions of Carlsbad Boulevard, resulting in road closures and costly repairs. Figure 2.1-2 identifies the specific project area recommended for additional storm damage protection. 2.2 STUDY AUTHORITY/FEDERAL INTEREST The federal authority for providing shoreline protection between Buena Vista Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon is found under Section 110 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, which was adopted by resolution of the House of Public Works and Transportation Committee on March 15, 1988. The "Pacific Coast Shoreline Reconnaissance Report" was prepared by the Corps in 1994 to assess the overall shoreline conditions under severe storm conditions and determine if federal interest is warranted in providing additional beach, shoreline, and/or protection to other public facilities. The Reconnaissance Report analyzed different storm events with and without project conditions, assessed potential damages to shoreline facilities, determined economic justification, and provided a benefit analysis for project alternatives. This report substantiated federal interest in providing shoreline protection along 3,000-feet of shoreline adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard in Carlsbad (Figure 2.1-2). 2-1 Following the presentation of th e report conclusions, the City of Carlsbad requested the Corps to consider providing additional protection to the shoreline near Carlsbad Boulevard under the Corps' Continuing Authorities Pr ogram (CAP), Section 103 (Beach Erosion) of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (PL 87-874), as amended (request letter enclosed in Appendix A). 2.3 PURPOSE AND NEED Federal authority directs the Chief of Engineers (CoE) to initiate studies to assess potential shoreline solutions that increase storm damage protection along the Carlsbad coast, where warranted. The Corps' Reconnaissance Report (1994) concluded that federal interest warrants further study of alternatives to immediately increase storm damage protection along the Carlsbad Boulevard shoreline between the inlet and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 2-2 Table 1.3-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Statute Status of Compliance National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, as amended The EA will be completed and submitted for public review. Upon review of the Final EA, the District Engineer will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact or require Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions preparation of an EIS & a ROD will be issued for this project. of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508) dated 1 July 1986 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7408 Compliance with San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Standards. A permit to construct will be obtained by contractor. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344 Environmental Protection Agency concurrence prior to construction for Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 403 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Consistency Regulations (15 CFR 930) Negative Determination will be obtained by the Corps for concurrence prior to construction. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq California Coastal Act of 1976 Joint Regulations (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior and Consultation is underway with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department Fisheries Service, & California Department of Fish & Game. of Commerce); Endangered Species Committee Regulations, 50 CFR 402 Interagency Cooperation Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, as amended Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661-666c Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703-711 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1413 Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm The proposed project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A letter has been sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 and 36 CFR 800: Protection of Historic (SHPO) with 'a determination that this project will not involve National Register Properties eligible or listed properties. The Los Angeles District is currently awaiting SHPO concurrence. Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 13, 1971 ,1 Figure 2.1-la PA IFIC COAST SHORELI I CALIFORNIA NE, C#RLSBAD-, Agua oz* Hedionda Figure 2.1-lb CARLSBAD STUDY AREA - 2-4 Pu 700 ft Norther 40( 3 AREAS Figure 2.1-2 Detailed Project Area for Reach 3 A 2-5 SECTION 3 - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 3.1 PROJECT CRITERIA The project goal is to provide additional storm damage protection along the shoreline between the inlet and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard. To accomplish this goal, Corps engineers and planners have established the evaluation criteria, including: federal economic justification, technical feasibility and effectiveness for providing shoreline storm damage protection, local and public acceptability, and potential environmental impacts. 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The following alternatives have been proposed to accomplish the goal of increasing storm damage protection along Carlsbad Boulevard: Seawalls & Revetments, T-Groin with Beachf ill, and/or No Action. Alternative 1: A 3,112-foot long seawall will be constructed and the revetment will be repaired to provide the additional storm damage and shoreline protection. Under this alternative, the seawall will be placed adjacent to the existing sidewalk to an elevation of about 20 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW). The seawall will protrude about 42 inches above the ground level and consist of a 30-foot steel sheet piling with a reinforced concrete cap. The seaward side of the sheet pile wall will be reinforced with two layers of 1,500-pound stone, underlain by a 6 inch thick quarry run. Approximately 9,750 tons of additional rock will also be set on the existing 400-foot revetment located immediately south of the north jetty, as depicted on Figure 3.2-1. This alternative is the locally preferred plan and was approved by the California Coastal Commission on 15 November 94. Alternative 2: Under this option, a 2,504-foot long seawall will be constructed and the revetment will be repaired similarly to that described above. These structures are identified on Figure 3.2-2 and also recommended for further analysis. Alternative 3: A T-groin with beachf ill is also proposed to provide additional storm damage and shoreline protection. Under this scenario, a 350-foot long T-groin will be laid as depicted on Figure 3.2-3. The T-shaped end will be about 200-feet in length. The beachf ill will cover about 2,700 feet of beach and will be placed between 10 feet above MLLW and 10 feet below MLLW. The proposed beach berm will be about 200 feet in width. Figure 3.2-3 also delineates the footprint of the beachf ill. Preliminary analyses indicate that short-term project impacts 3-1 will include oceanographic (water-quality) and biological disturbances. Long-term impacts will include the loss of soft- bottom inter- and sub-tidal habitat; possibly, rocky-bottom with established kelp beds; and may also include shoreline changes. As beach nourishment will likely be required over the long-term, additional oceanographic, biological and other impacts (i.e. air and noise) will be created with each nourishment event. Since the fill will create more beach and the groin may -provide additional fishing habitat, the groin may also pose navigation hazards for boaters and safety hazards for beach recreationists (i.e. surfers and swimmers). This alternative is eliminated from further consideration based on engineering constraints, environmental considerations, acceptability, and economic limitations. No Action. The No Action will not result in any rehabilitative work. For planning purposes, it is assumed that the shoreline will continue to erode. Over the long term, storm damage will be more susceptible and may result in additional property damage, repair costs, and safety concerns. 3.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION As discussed, the Seawall Alternatives presented above will be analyzed in more detail with the No Action. The Seawall Alternatives will provide required protection as well as site access. Approximately five recessed breaks will be placed between the seawall to allow beach access every 300 feet via vehicle access ramps and pedestrian stairways. When completed, the City will be decorate the seawall with approved art designs to add visual interest. To minimize vandalism, wall designs will be covered with graffiti proof treatment. Following is a more detailed project description for each of the proposed alternatives, including general construction practices and timing. 3.3.1 Methods and Staging Requirements Construction materials can be acquired from many sites and will occur from land. Rock will likely be acquired from local quarries. Construction will require use of heavy equipment and manpower to operate it. This equipment will likely include graders, bulldozers, trucks, a pile driver, and a crane. To implement either alternative, the site will be prepared for placement of the sheet metal, which may involve some site grading. Then, sheet metal will be placed with pile drivers. Following, the site will be prepared for placement of the re- 3-2 inforcement rock. While rock is being hauled to the site, the site will be graded to the appropriate levels, as identified on Figure 3.2-4. (Ground cover (i.e. beach/cobble layer) will be stored in the project area or on another approved site.) The rock will be placed seaward of the seawall by crane and recovered with the previously removed sand-cobble layer. The existing revetment will also be reset. Roughly 9,750 tons of additional rock will be placed on it. This procedure is expected to require a crew of 10 or less. The operation will use about 0.3 acre of beach for staging, used primarily for crew assembly and secondarily for some equipment storage. Two potential staging areas are identified on Figure 2.1-2. Working areas will be barricaded to prevent public access to the site. Although the seawall will be placed on the higher elevations of the beach, work areas may temporarily extend down to mean sea level (Figure 3.2-5). 3.3.2 Notifications and Requirements Prior to construction, the Corps/contractor will provide a 1-month notification of the planned activities to the appropriate agencies and post information bulletins of scheduled work time and areas at local mariner offices. Project areas and equipment will be appropriately marked and lighted. All construction materials will meet or exceed Corps standards. 3.3.3 Project Duration and Timing Construction is scheduled to occur between September 1996, and mid-March 1997. If Alternative 1 is implemented, about 180 days will be required for the construction window. It is estimated that sheet pile (i.e. pile driving) operations will take 110 days. Rock haul is projected at about 35 days. (It is assumed that 740 total rock haul trips will be required, with approximately 21 trips per day). Rock placement is anticipated at 70 days. If Alternative 2 is implemented, roughly 150 days will be required for construction. It is estimated that sheet pile (i.e. pile driving) operations will take 85 days; rock haul, 30 days; and rock placement, 60 days. 3-3 Figure 32-1 Alternative 3-4 Figure 3.2-2 Alternative 3-5 Figure 3.2-3 Alternative 3-6 ,Two (2) Layer of I i / 1,500 pound Stone Approx 4 ft Thick .1 +8.75 / Filter Cloth Wrap a. V 4 at Each End +5.75' di 6 inch Thick Quarry Run Material Underlain by Filter Fabric Figure 3.2-4 Detailed Project Designs for Seawall Construction 12" Present Limit of Sidewalk., Existing Curb and Gutter / Elevation Varies Slope 1% New 4" 4" Slab on Grade to Complete Sidewalk Reinf Conc Cap Undisturbed Soil Use 30' Long Sheet Piling Bethlehem steel PLZ-23 or Syrd Steel SPZ-23 or Approved Equal - —17 3-7 1 I I I I - - October 1991 October 1990 - CARLSBAD - STUDY AREA Typical Cross-Section of Seawall seawall ).- - •+6MSL +3 XSL - NSL - ......... MLLW )- construction work area + -3.4 - 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Range (ft Seaward of Range,. Line Monument) SECTION 4 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS This section defines the project area by establishing an inventory of baseline resources, including physical, natural, and sociological characteristics. The environmental consequences are presented for the Seawall Alternatives (Section 3.3) as well as the No Action if conditions are expected to change from the existing. The assessment is based on significance criteria consistent with other NEPA documents. If analyses indicate that significant impacts may occur, then mitigation is proposed to reduce the level to insignificance. 4.1 OCEANOGRAPHY 4.1.1 Affected Environment 4.1.1.1 Bathymetry The deep water toography of the Carlsbad area is shown on Figure 4.1-1. The study site is located on the central portion of the Oceanside littoral cell bounded by Dana Point and Point LaJolla. The bottom contours for this region are gently sloping and uniform. There is a submarine canyon, located at the 100 foot isobath, approximately 200 feet offshore of the project area, that provides terrain for strong deep water currents. 4.1.1.2 Geology The mean grain size of material on the shoreline varies from 0.15 to 0.44 mm (fine to medium sand). The grain sizes shift from smaller to larger sizes as seasons pass from summer to winter - this is attributable to increased wave energy attacking beaches during winter storms. Bedrock at the study site is located at 6.25 feet below MLLW, underlying silty sand (Corps, 1993). 4.1.1.3 Tides and Sea Level The study site is largely protected from deep ocean waves by the Channel Islands. Deep water waves can approach the Carlsbad area through three wave windows. These windows are represented by Figure 4.1-1. There is a southerly window between the coast of southern California and San Clemente Island, a westerly window between San Clemente Island and Santa Catalina Island, and a northerly window between the coastline of southern California and Santa Catalina Island. The extreme wave height data are presented in Table 4.1-1. As shown in the table, extreme wave heights increase from 10 feet (at one year frequency) to almost 16 feet (25 year frequency). 4-1 0 '' \;•&. . ,- \\\. ''... I — \SAN •::-.. CLEMENTE :4 u.XE0 PT, 00 ANONOFRE it tl pc,. p NORTHERNW So 50 ' c CIS 55 55 20 to o t¼ ;5\ Irr- c-Os ' - SSAO k OIL C 'S •'. ' -'•- \ Z SA$O'' EL MAR LOS PENA SQ WI LAGOON OCEANSIDE .CARLSBAD -16 <55.__ '%':.\:.::• JAL WESTERN WINDOW 33°3O NORTH H 33°20 "S S 10 SCALE IN MILES SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS 118°40' 1I8°30 Figure 4.1-1 Oceanside Littoral zone PT.I_'JOLLA - LA JOLLA 32°5O' I j 'FALSE POINT'S. I i I 118°I0 / t I 4-2 Table 4.1-1 Study Site Extreme Wave Height Over 100 Years Return Period (years) Significant Wave Height (feet) MLLW 1 10.0 10 13.5 25 15.9 50 17.9 100 20.0 Tides along the study area are of the mixed semi-diurnal type, consiting of two high and two low tides per day, whose magnitudes range from about 4.5 feet during mean high water (MHW) to less than a foot for mean low water (MLW). As a part of the Corps Reconnassance Study in 1994, the NOAA collected 7 months of data for the study site, and 18 years of measurements at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The MHW average for the site is 5.37 feet, while the MLW average was determined to be 0.93 feet. The Mean Sea Level was estimated to be 2.75 feet. The yearly mean sea level data at San Diego has been rising 0.7 feet per century (Flick and Canan, 1984). If current trends persist, then a sea level rise of 0.2 feet over the next 25 years can be expected. During El Nino episodes, the average sea level can increase another 0.2 feet. Storm surges can pose serious problems with local beach damage, especially when storms occur in succession. The offshore currents consist of longshore currents; these currents affect the mean seasonal circulation of the local water system. Long shore currents are driven by waves striking the shoreline obliquely. Typical summer swell conditions produce northerly drift currents, while the large winter storms produce southerly currents. According to a previous study by the Corps for Carlsbad (1994), the strength of the southerly drift during major storm events results in a net southerly longshore transport. The mean veloity of these currents are from 5 cm per second to 40 cm per second. Following storms, the peak velocity may rise as much as 20 cm per second. 4-3 Cross shore currents exist throughout the study area, especially during high surf. No quantitative information is available on these currents, or their effects on sediment transport. According to the Carlsbad Reconnaissance Study (Corps, 1994), there are a variety of sources which supply sediment into the littoral zone. For the study site, near shore currents provide a significant portion of reworked offshore sediment. As previously mentioned, there is an offshore submarine.. canyon located offshore of the project area which acts a local sediment sink. In 1946, the Carlsbad shoreline was documented to positioned 100 feet seaward reletive to its present location. The shoreline erosion rates for the study site are estimated at 1 foot per year. This assumption is based upon the finding of the Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study (Corps, 1986). Net southerly long shore transport is estimated to be 270,000 cubic yards per year (Corps, 1994). This rate is assumed to be uniform with respect to the entire Carlsbad littoral zone. 4.1.1.9 -Water quality Table 4.1-2 presents maximum transmissivity of the water present in the study site. Measurements indicate that the water has a high transmissivity, which is an indicator that the concentration of suspended matter in the study site is very low. These data were obtained from the state of CA Water Quality Control Regional Board. In addition, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform count are all within expected water quality standards. These data were obtained from a variety of sample site locations Figure 4.1-2). 4-4 Fiaure 4.1-2 '\\\ 60 \, 30 \T4 - c__)Kelp Beds \ ss 1 • ISO '.,tt\\ TrawiStation .. '.)f \ • Surfzone Station —S. - • —. 240. / '••>.\ \ C '\ \ 4 Nearahore Station I .,. •' I \ \ \ '. s• S4 \ •. ••'\ 0 Kelp Station I • N4 \ d-8oundary Station I T3 " A Gradient Station .1! ' 1 A Reference Station 4-5 Table 4.1-2 STATION DEPTH (in) TEMP (°C) SALINITY (ppt) TRANSMIS -SIVITY (%) pH DISS. OXYGEN (mg/L) GI 33.0 12.52 33.46 86.90 7.85 5.2 Zl 33.0 12.59 33.45 86.20 7.85 5.1 Z2 33.0 12.49 33.45 85.90 7.83 5.0 G2 27.0 12.65 33.45 86.60 7.85 5.2 ::Ri 24.0 12.59 33.46 88.5 7.84 5.1 4.1.2 Environmental Consequences 4.1.2.1 Criteria Oceanographic impacts will be considered significant if: sediments are unstable and/or subject to ground shaking or settlement; oceanographic processes are altered to the extent that there is an increase in the risk of property damage and hazard to public safety; there is a change in oceanographic parameters which decreases recreational use of the beach and/or ocean; water quality criteria in the California Ocean Plan are violated as a result of project operations; or the project causes raises pollutant concentrations to levels that have been documented to have negative biological effects. 4.1.2.2 Alternative 1 The construction site is located at 11 feet above MLLW. Mean High Water will occur at a plus 5.05 feet. This means the study site will be between mean sea level (3 feet above MLLW) and 6 feet above MSL (8 feet above MLLW) or about 15 feet above MHW (Corps, 1995). Eight feet above MLLW corresponds to the area within the supra-tidal zone (Figure 4.4-3). In otherwords, the construction site will be 15 feet beyond the farthest point that water will encroach upon the supra tidal zone and will occur primarily above the MLLW line. Oceanographic impacts are expected to be minimal. Oceanographic processes are not expected to be significantly interrupted by temporary construction (i.e., equipment) impacts. Although it is not expected, equipment may push some sediments into the water column by maneuvering tactics. These sediments will not significantly alter nearshore, cross, or longshore current 4-6 • • ai JCJ :1 I I. S IQ I —0 - 13 N Li • II'II.t.I:II 0 (MT1N •J) 013 Figure 4.1-3 Schematic ProfiIeof Carlsbad - Reach 3 • • 4-7 patterns. Sediments may cause temporary turbidity impacts on water quality. These impacts are expected to be negligible (Section 4.2.2.2). No significant adverse oceanographic impacts are expected. 4.1.2.3 Alternative 2 The distance between construction of the seawall and the location of MHW are similar to those'discussed in Alternative 1. Shoreline and water quality impacts will be similar to those described above. Overall impact potential will be less under this alternative, because the time frame for construction is estimated to be 30 days less than that for Alternative 1. No significant adverse oceanographic impacts are expected. 4.1.2.4 No Action Without the proposed changes, significant shoreline erosion may occur over the next few years. Erosion is projected at about 1 foot per year and may impact existing shoreline facilities within the next 5 years. Water quality will not be altered because the release of thermal water in deeper water will decrease the concentrations of cations in the sea water, increase the pH, increase the biological oxygen demand (BOD), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the system. 4.2 MARINE RESOURCES 4.2.1 Affected Environment 4.2.1.1 Vegetation & Wildlife The primary environment includes supra-tidal beach areas neighboring Carlsbad Boulevard. Secondary environs include the existing rocky supra-tidal and sandy inter-tidal habitats. The tertiary environment includes the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Beach Associated Community The supra-tidal beach is void of vegetation. Characteristic sandy beach organisms are expected to include sand crabs (Enierita analoga), bloodworms (Euzonus mucronata), and beach hoppers (Orchestoidea sp.). The supra-tidal rocky habitat includes the existing revetment near the north jetty; this habitat is also barren of marine vegetation. It is likely to support niches for different invertebrates, including crustaceans. 4-8 The inter- and sub-tidal areas likely consist of unconsolidated sediments. If vegetation is present, it is likely to include sea pansy (Renilla kollikeri) at shallower depths less than 20 feet, and sea pen (Stylatul elongata) at the greater depths. than 30 feet. If rocky substrate exists, it is likely to support different kelp species. The nearshore sandy areas are expected to support a common sand bottom community, including bean clams (Donax gouldi), polychaetes (Apoprionospio pygmaeus and Nemertea sp.) and amphipods (Mandibulophoxus uncirostratus). The water column supports planktonic organisms, which drift with the currents and include phytoplankton (primary producers) and zooplankton (animal component). Many species, including many of the invertebrates and fishes important to fisheries, spend the early stages of their life histories in the plankton. Planktonic communities are generally characterized by patchiness in distribution, composition, and abundance. Common sandy fishes are likely to include thornback rays (Platyrhinoides triseriata) lizard fish, (Synodus lucioceps), speckled sanddab (citharichthys stigmaeus), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), and walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum). Between March and September, grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) may also use the nearby beaches for spawning. These schooling fishes, which are members of the silvers ides family (Atherinidae), lay and bury their eggs on sandy beaches during nighttime spring tides with eggs hatching on the following spring tide. Peak grunion spawning activity occurs between April and June. If rocky habitat is present, common rocky fishes may include: Garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus), sargo (Anisotremus davidsonii), opaleye (Girella nigricans), black perch (Embiotoca lacksoni), rock wrasse (Halichoeres semicinctus), seniorita (Oxyjulis californica), half moons (Medialuna californiensis) and kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus). California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are also likely to be seen offshore. Several species of whales, dolphins and porpoises are also found offshore. The California gray whale (Escherichtius robustus) spends its summers in the Bering and Chukchi Seas and calves in the lagoons of Baj, California. The gray whale is occasionally observed offcoast during its seasonal migrations. The whales travel south between the last week in November and the first week in January, and they travel north between the second week of January and the first week of May (Dohi et al. 1981). Immature gray whales may not complete the entire migration and there is evidence suggesting that resident populations may exist in southern California. Gray whales have a low probability of occurring within the project area. 4-9 The project area supports loafing, foraging, and roosting for a variety of shorebirds and waterfowl. Brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), gulls (Lrus sp.), ruddy and black turnstones (Arenaria interpres and A. melanocephala, black oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani), and wandering tattlers (Heteroscelus incanus) may use the jetties for loafing. The California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) may forage in the harbor waters. A variety of shorebirds are expected to use the sandy-cobble beaches, including the long billed curlew (Numenius americanus), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis dominica), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), marbeled godwit (Limosa fedoa), sanderling (Calidris alba), and western sandpiper (Calidris mauri). Coastal Wetlands Community Agua Hedionda Lagoon supports nearly 150 species of estuarine and marine invertebrates, 65 species of fish, 65 species of birds, and 46 species of other animals. The lagoon also supports saltmarsh vegetation, including pickleweed, seablite, alkali heath and jaumea. Upland vegetation consists of California sage scrub, including California sagebrush, goldenbush, and black mustard. 4.2.1.2 Other Threatened. Endangered. and Sensitive Species Table 4.2-1 idehtifies federally listed species, their habitats, and probability of occurrence within the project area. 4-10 Table 4.2-1 Federally Listed Species Species Legal Habitat Probability Status of Occurrence Bald eagle FE Coastal environments; Low foraging in harbor and Haliaeetus SE river mouth areas ieucocephalus California brown FE Forage offshore waters and High pelican SE roost on structures Pelecanus occidentalis cal if oricus California least tern FE Sandy, unvegetated High Sterna antiliarum SE flats(nesting); shallow browni offshore waters(foraging) Light-footed clapper FE Salt marshes Medium rail SE Railus longirostris levipes Peregrine falcon FE Coastal environments; Low Falco peregrinus SE foraging in harbor and river mouth areas Marbled murrelet FT Coastal waters, bays. Low Brachryamphus Breeds inland on mountains marmoratus near the coast. Western snowy plover FT Sandy shoreline and salt Medium Chgaradrius . pan (nesting, foraging); alexandrinus nuvosus mudflat (foraging). Tidewater goby FE brackish or freshwater Low to Eucyciogobius newberri SE lagoons, or in shallow Medium water near the mouths of coastal streams Pacific pocket mouse FE Rare Perogna thus ion gimembris pacificus Salt marsh birds beak FE saltmarsh areas Rare Cordyianthus maritimus maritimus Codes for Legal Status: FE = federally-listed endangered species SE = state-listed endangered species FT = proposed for federal listing as a threatened species Sources: California Department of Fish and Game 4-11 The following information concerns the status of endangered species which may have a medium or higher probability of being found in the general vicinity of the project area. California Brown Pelican. The Federally listed endangered brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis calitornicus) is a year-round resident of the southern California coastline. It is most abundant on the mainland coast from August to November. Breeding occurs on several of the Channel Islands from June to October. The brown pelican is relatively common in the nearshore waters of the project area, particularly when schools of suitable fish prey are present. It usually forages in offshore waters greater than one mile from the coast; they typically roost on existing tanker ship buoys, breakwaters, rock groins, and piers in the nearshore waters. Brown pelicans are often very tolerant of human activity. Activities of the brown pelican in these waters are restricted to foraging, overflying, and/or temporary roosting. Brown pelicans have a medium to high probability of occurring within the project area. California Least Tern. The Federally and State listed endangered least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) is a small seabird. The tern migrates to southern and central California in the spring to breed, arriving in early to mid-April. Terns nest in coastal areas adjacent to shallow marine and estuarine habitats, where they forage on near surface swimming fish, i.e. topsmelt and anchovies. Eighty percent of foraging occurs within 3 miles of the nesting site. The terns usually depart for wintering grounds in August or early September after rearing of their young. The closest colonies are located at the Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos lagoons. In 1980, only 835 breeding pairs were estimated to be in southern California (Garret and Dunn, 1981). With intensive prior management and continuing efforts of many dedicated persons, the population expanded to over 2,250 pairs in 1993 (from publication CDFG census data). The least terns usually forage within a mile and a half of the harbor shoreline on surface fishes, such as topsmelt and anchovies, in nearshore waters and estuaries near the breeding colonies. They are intolerant of human activity at close proximity. Least terns have a medium to high probability of occurring within the project area between April and August. 4-12 Western Snowy Plover. The snowy plover (Charadrinus alexandrinus nivosus) is a Federally listed endangered species. Its coastal breeding population is severely depleted. This small shorebird nests on large expansive sandy areas and forages on sand flats or intertidal mudflats. The Western snowy plover nest sites typically occur in flat, open areas with sandy or saline substrates where vegetation and driftwood are usually sparse or absent. Nest site selection and pair bond formation occur in late March, and eggs of the first clutch are usually laid in early April. Nesting activities generally occur through July and into August. Plovers forage on invertebrates located in intertidal sandy areas above the high tide and along the edges of salt marshes and ponds. Studies in California, Oregon, and Washington indicate that the coastal breeding population has declined significantly in recent years (Page and Stenzel 1978; Wilson 1984). Fewer than 1,500 birds, and 28 nesting sites, remain in the three states. The subspecies of plover has disappeared as a breeding bird from most of California beaches south of Los Angeles, and development has eliminated the plover as a breeding species from many other coastal areas as well. Dune stabilization by introduced beach grass has modified much formerly open coastal sand flat habitat. Evidence exists that human activity (i.e. recreation, beach cleaning) is responsible for some of the coastal decline along with predation by animals, including dogs, cats, crows, foxes, and skunks. The Western snowy plover has a medium probability of occurring within the project vicinity. Light-footed Clapper Rail. The clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) is a year round resident that is know to nest in cordgrass stands at Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and Batiquitos Lagoon. Clapper rails' home ranges are estimated to range from 0.9 to 4.2 acres. They are generalistic feeders, foraging on mudflat invertebrates such as crabs and snails. Nesting occurs between mid-March and mid-August. The primary cause of the decline in population has been correlated with wetland disturbances and development. The light-footed clapper rail has a medium probability of occurring within the project vicinity. Tidewater Goby. The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), Federal threatened-endangered fish species, is usually found in the upper ends of brackish or freshwater lagoons, or in shallow water near the mouths of coastal streams. This species spend most of their life cycle in fresh water. Several populations of the tidewater goby are believed to exist in Agua Hedondia Lagoon (USFWS 1994). The tidewater goby has a low to medium probability of occurring within the project area. 4-13 Table 4.2-2 lists federal candidates and species of special concern that may occur in the project impact area. Table 4.2-2 Special Status Species Species Legal Status BIRDS Belding's savannah sparrow C2 Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Elegant tern C2 Sterna elegans Harlequin duck C2 Histionicus_histrionicus Long-billed curlew C2 Numenius americanus Reddish egret C2 Egretta rufescens White-faced ibis C2 Plegadis chihi Tricolored blackbird C2 Agelaius tricolor Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow C2 Aimophila ruficeps canescens Black Tern C2 Chilodonias niger Loggerhead shrike C2 Lanius ludovicianus California horned lark C2 Eromophila_alpestris_actia Western least bittern C2 Ixobrychus_exilis_hesperis Black rail C2 Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus 4-14 Species Legal Status Large-billed savannah sparrow C2 Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus Codes for Legal Status: C2 = Category 2 candidate for federal listing. C]. = Category 1 candidate for federal listing. Table 4.2-2 Other Special Status Species Species Legal Status MAMMALS Southern marsh harvest mouse C2 Reithrodontomys rnegalotis limicola REPTILES Southwestern pond turtle Cl Clemmys marmorata pallida San Diego banded gecko C2 Coleonyx variegatus abbotti Two-striped garter snake C2 Thamnophis hammondii INVERTEBRATES Oblivious tiger beetle C2 Plegadis chihi Cal brackish water snail C2 Tryonia imitator Glogose dune beetle C2 Coelus glogosus Salt marsh skipper C2 Panoquina errans Wandering skipper C2 Pseudocopaeodes eunus eunus PLANTS Coastal, dunes milk-vetch Astragalus tener titi 4-15 Species Legal Status Coast wallflower C2 Erysimum arnmophilum Prostrate lotus C2 Lotus nuttallianus Codes for Legal Status: C2 = Category 2 candidate for federal listing Cl = Category 1 candidate for federal listing 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 4.2.2.1 Criteria An impact to biological resources will be considered significant if: the population of a threatened, endangered, or candidate species is affected or its habitat is lost or disturbed; there is a net loss of value of a sensitive biological habitat including eelgrass beds, halibut nursery areas, seabird rookeries, or Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS); movement or migration of fish or wildlife is impeded; and/or there is a substantial loss in the population or habitat of any native fish, wildlife or vegetation. (Substantial loss is defined as any change in a population detectible over natural variability for a period of 5 years or more). 4.2.2.2 Alternative 1 The environment to be affected primarily includes the supra-tidal beach and secondarily inter-tidal beach and supra-tidal rocky habitats. Marine impacts will be associated with the seawall and rock placement activities. Seawall activities will result in a minimal loss of sandy-cobble habitat. Activities may result in temporary beach and possibly nearshore impacts. Sandy beach invertebrates such as beach hoppers and sand crabs will be crushed and/or decimated. These species are adapted to periodic disturbance and recovery is expected within months. 4-16 Although potential water quality impacts may include increased turbidity within an existing turbid area (surf zone), these impacts are not expected, because work will be conducted above the water line. If turbidity impacts occur, it will be in a rigorous environment of constantly shifting sand and water. Most of the sediments that may be pushed into the water column will consist of the larger, grained sand and cobble particles, which will sink rapidly. Sediments may be expected to remain in suspension less than 15 minutes and silt fractions, 30 minutes (Corps-LAHD 1992). Because very little turbidity is expected and most will be confined to the immediate locality, impacts will not be expected to affect plankton populations and/or benthic organisms. Fishes and marine birds that feed on benthic invertebrates may suffer a localized, short-term loss of food. Although fishes may temporarily avoid turbid areas, turbidity may impact visually foraging piscivorous seabirds by making it difficult for them to see their prey. Because the area of impact is such a small portion of the local marine habitat, the impact of loss of food on fish and bird populations is judged to be adverse but not significant. Turbidity will not impact common dolphin, harbor seal, sea lion, and/or whale populations. Although revetment work will occur on land and water impacts are not expected, rock placement will result in direct habitat disturbances. As mentioned, no vegetation exists on the revetment, and no impacts are expected. However, existing niches may be destroyed or disturbed for some invertebrate species. Species recolonization is expected to occur by neighboring species in a few weeks following construction. It is expected that species colonizing the rebuilt portions will be difficult to distinguish from that on the existing structures within a year or less. This temporary habitat disturbance will be an adverse impact, but not significant. Although impacts will be adverse for some species, the newly placed rock will serve as a resting area for some marine birds. All three species of cormorant, including gulls, double-crested cormorant (a California Species of Special Concern) and California brown pelicans (a State and Federal Endangered Species) may use the additional area for roosting. Aside from these direct habitat impacts, there will also be noise impacts. Data on noise effects on fishes are limited. Suzuki et al. (1980) have reported studies that showed that ship noise can affect fish behavior. These investigators believed that sounds produced by large or high speed vessels can frighten fish schools or cause them to change their migration routes. University of California, Santa Barbara divers at Naples Reef have noticed that fish scatter briefly as boats go over the reef (Davis, personal communication, 1994). The data suggest fish will be more likely to be startled by sudden staccato noises. Therefore, if construction noise vibrates through the land-water medium, mobile organisms (i.e. fishes, marine mammals, sea birds, etc.) may 4-17 avoid noise impacted areas. Potential species disturbances from construction are judged to be adverse, but nonsignificant. Of the federally-listed species identified in Section 4.2.1.2, only the California brown pelican, California least tern, Western snowy plover, light-footed clapper rail, and tidewater goby may occur within the project area with a medium to high probability. (Note: construction will occur between September and mid-March). Construction will not affect nesting habits of the brown pelican. Although construction may temporarily disturb daytime roosting opportunities; there are several other loafing areas available in the local area. Construction will not affect night time roosting opportunities. Although construction may create some turbidity in the immediate area, sediment settlement should occur within minutes. Turbidity is not expected to affect the foraging behavior of the pelican. It is likely that forage fish fed on by the pelican will avoid direct impact areas and will be available for capture elsewhere. Construction is not expected to impact overall foraging opportunities of the brown pelican. Least terns are known to nest in Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Construction is scheduled to avoid the breeding season; therefore, no .impacts will occur. Snowy plovers are not likely to nest in the project area, due to heavy influences of human use. Therefore, construction will not affect roosting and/or foraging opportunities. Construction is also scheduled to avoid the breeding season. Light-footed clapper rails are known to nest in Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Construction is scheduled to avoid the breeding season, and no impacts will occur. Tidewater goby impacts are not expected. Construction impacts will be land-based, not water-based. Supplemental information is provided on noise in Section 4.3.2.2. Because construction will occur between September and mid-March, the Corps has determined this alternative will not have an affect nor jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed threatened or endangered species. Formal consultation pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not required for project implementation. Because grunion use the lower portion of the beach for spawning activities and construction will not affect this portion of the beach, impacts on grunion are not expected. In addition, the proposed construction schedule will avoid the grunion spawning season. Sensitive species impacts are not expected with project construction. No significant adverse impacts are expected on marine resources. 4-18 4.2.2.3 Alternative 2 Although construction impacts will be similar to those described above, the project duration is expected to be 30 days less than for Alternative 1. Construction will occur between September and mid-March. Significant adverse impacts are not expected. 4.3 NOISE 4.3.1 Affected Environment The dominant land uses in the project area include recreational uses of the beach. The closest residential unit is about 1,000 feet from the northern construction area limit; the closest commercial/industrial units are approximately 500 feet from the southern limit. Dominant noise sources include waves, beach recreation activities, and vehicle noise on adjacent roads. The sound of wave action will vary with many factors including wave height, period, frequency, angle of attack, bottom profile, wind conditions, etc. One study performed by Chambers Group (1992) revealed average noise levels (Leq) from wave action ranging from approximately 56 to70 decibels on an A-weighted scale (dBA) for 10 minute periods at a distance of about 165 feet from the water's edge at low tide. The noise included both wave and wind activity. These noise levels can vary considerably more than presented depending on wave action and atmospheric conditions. Beach noise (dBA) is expected to vary between the 50s and 70s. 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences 4.3.2.1 Criteria Impacts will be considered significant if project-generated noise levels exceed city noise ordinances or noise regulations promulgated on the federal or state level. People are sensitive to the additions of extraneous noise in their environment. Increases in traffic-generated noise levels will be considered significant if the project traffic-related noise increases the road noise by at least 3 dBA, which is considered the minimum discernable change detectable by the human ear under controlled conditions. Finally, noise impacts will also be considered significant if project-generated noise levels exceed 70 dBA at any federally listed species colony site. This value was ascertained and confirmed with the CDFG during the preparation of the document "Noise Survey for the Construction and Operation of the International Wastewater Treatment and Outfall Facilities at the Tijuana River, San Diego, California (Chambers Group 1992)". 4-19 4.3.2.2 Alternative 1 Noise impacts will be produced by pile driving activities, traffic along the access route, and heavy earthmoving equipment. A pile driver will be used to set the seawall. This is anticipated to be the noisiest single piece of equipment used in project construction. The noise of a pile driver can exceed 100 dBA as measured at a distance of 50 feet. The closest residential receptor will be on the order of 1,000 feet, and the estimated Leq at this distance is 76 dBA. The closest commercial/industrial receptor will be on the order of 500 feet, with an Leq of approximately 80 dBA. The noise of a pile driver will essentially overpower the noise of any other construction equipment functioning in proximity at the same time. Noise generation will occur along any construction material haul routes and from employee commuting travel. Heavy equipment is typically moved onsite and remains for the duration of the project; it will not add to the daily traffic noise. Haul routes over major arterials, proposed state and federal haul routes (Section 4.7), will experience little additional noise intrusion because construction activities will be limited to daytime hours when reasonable volumes of traffic already exist on proposed roadways. Additional noise will be generated by employee commutes; approximately 10 workers will meet on a daily basis at the staging area. In order to cause significant adverse noise impacts, the noise level will have to increase by 3 dBA, which will essentially require a doubling of the current traffic levels. This is not expected by the addition of 21 truck trips per day in combination with employee commutes. Thus, little additional vehicle traffic noise is projected. Rock placement will produce a noise level of approximately 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. (This value, however, does not consider the noise of a pile driver, which can exceed 100 dBA.) The closest residential receptor will be on the order of 1,000 feet, with an Leq of approximately 59.5 dBA. The closest commercial/industrial receptor will be on the order of 500 feet, with an Leq of approximately 65 dBA. Other beach work (i.e. site grading) will also be expected to produce similar noise levels as that presented for the rock. Because noise impacts will occur during construction, construction activities will be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and sunset, Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and sunset on Saturday, with no work on Sundays or holidays, as dictated by the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. All construction equipment shall use properly working mufflers and be kept in a proper state of maintenance to alleviate backfires. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Planning Aid Letter (1994) (Appendix D), California least terns and light- footed clapper rails are known to nest in Agua Hedionda Lagoon. (Species nesting activities for these species occur between late- 4-20 March and late-August.) Because the proposed construction schedule (September to mid-March) avoids the nesting window of these species, no breeding or colony affects are anticipated. Although brown pelicans may forage or temporarily roost in the area, they do not nest in the immediate area. Although pelicans may avoid the immediate project area during working hours, there are several other areas in the local region that support both foraging and roosting opportunities. Construction noise will not affect breeding and/or nesting habits nor jeopardize the continued existence of the species listed above. Therefore, formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required. Significant adverse noise impacts are not expected. 4.3.2.3 Alternative 2 Impacts will be similar to those described above. Mitigation measures discussed above will also be implemented under this alternative. Significant adverse impacts are not expected. 4.4 AIR QUALITY 4.4.1 Affected Environment 4.4.1.1 Climate and Meteorology The climate in the project area is characterized by moderate summer temperatures, mild winters, frequent morning coastal stratus clouds, infrequent rainfall confined mainly from late fall to early spring, and moderate onshore breezes. The project area, being coastal, is protected from the worst of the air pollution problems by the daily sea breeze that brings in clean air and blows pollutants inland. For this reason, the coastal regions have better air quality than inland areas. Two meteorological parameters are important in assessing air quality impacts of changing patterns of emissions. These are the winds which control the rate and trajectory of horizontal transport, and the vertical stability structure which control the vertical depth through which the pollutants are mixed. Winds across the site travel in two distinct directions: a strong onshore wind by day which is strongest in summer, and a weak offshore wind which is strongest in winter when nights are long and the land becomes cooler than the ocean. In addition to the two characteristic wind patterns, there are two corresponding temperature inversions that trap pollution within shallow layers near the ground. The first is created when daytime onshore cool ocean air undercuts a massive dome of warm air within the Pacific high pressure system. This process creates marine/subsidence inversions that form a lid at about 1,000 feet or so above the surface over the entire airshed basin 4-21 regulated by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). These inversions allow for the mixing of pollutants near their source, but they trap the entire basin's emissions within the shallow marine layer. As the relatively clean marine air moves inland, pollution sources continually add contaminants from below without any dilution from above. Reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides combine under abundant sunlight to form photochemical smog. Smog levels increase steadily from the coast inland until the inversion is broken by strong surface heating and by thermal chimneys created along the heated slopes of the mountains surrounding San Diego. The second major inversion type forms during long, cloudless nights as cold air pools near the surface while the air aloft remains warm. The radiation inversions from this second type are very shallow and contribute to the "hot spot" potential near ground level sources, especially vehicular source concentrations. (A "hot spot" is a high concentration of pollutants trapped in a cooler air pocket with limited dispersion characteristics.) Regional trapping inversions occur on about 85 percent of all summer afternoons while ground-level radiation inversions are found on about 70 percent of all winter nights and early mornings. Both of these inversion types occur during all seasons and at all times of the day, but they are not as strong, persistent, or frequent as during their summer afternoon and winter morning dominant periods. 4.4.1.2 Existing Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends are best documented from measurements made by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The last available 5 years of monitoring data are summarized in Table 4.4-1. Based on the California Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are more stringent than the National Standards, the data show no long term decreases in local airshed quality. 4.4.2 Environmental Consequences 4.4.2.1 Criteria Air quality standards used to determine federal and state significance critieria are identified in Table 4.4-2. In San Diego County, air quality planning, enforcement, permitting, and other control functions are the responsibility of the SDAPCD. The district uses an emissions "budget" to insure that cumulative minor sources of air emissions remain within an allowable range of total emissions, and has a program of New Source Review (NSR) to insure that any significant new sources cause an equal or greater amount of emissions to be retired somewhere within the county. Significant impacts for air quality are subject to local county ordinances (Regulation IX, subpart MN). SDAPCD Significance values are listed in Table 4.4-3. 4-22 Table 4.4-1 Del Mar, San Diego Air Quality Monitoring Summary Number of days standards were exceeded and ma c levels during such violations Pollutant/Standard 1 1988 1 1989 1.1990 1 1991 1992 Ozone (03) 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm 30 36 23 28 19 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm 9 16 9 7 3 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.18 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.14 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-Hour > 20 ppm 8-Hour > 9.1 ppm N.M. N.M. N.M. N.M. N.M. Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,) 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm N.M. N.M. N.M. 0 N.M. Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 Sulfur Dioxide (SO,) 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) N.M. N.M. N.M. N.M. N.M. 24-Hour > 0.05 ppm Max. 24-Hour Conc. (ppm) Suspended Particulate Total Suspended Particles (TSP) 24-Hour > 100 ug/m3 24-Hour > 150 ug/m3 N.M. N.M. N.M. N.M. N.M. 24-Hour > 260 ug/m3 24-Hour > 375 ug/m3 Max. 24-Hour > max ug/m3 Lead (Pb) Measured every 6 days N.M. N.M. N.M. N.M. N.M. 24-Hour > max ug/m3 Sulfate (SO4) 24-Hour > 10 ug/m3 24-Hour > 20 ug/m3 24-Hour > 25 ug/m3 N.M. N.M. N.M. N.M. N.M. 24-Hour > 30 ug/m3 24-Hour > Max. Conc. ug/m3 Note: N.M. = Not Monitored at the above location 4-23 Table 4.4-2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS) California Standards Federal Standards Pollutant Averaging.t l'iint Conceiil rat ion Method Primary Second Method ary Same as Ethylene Ozone I Hour >0.09 ppm (180 ug/m3) Ultraviolet Photometry >0.12 ppm (235 ug/m5) Primary . Chemiluminescenc Std. e S Hour >9. I PPIU (10 mg/ms) Nan.dispersivc (10 mg/in') Same as Non-dispersive Carbon Infrared Primary Infrared __________________ Monoxide . > 20 PP" Spectroscopy >35 rnm Stds. Spectroscopy I Hour (23 in'/,u) (NDIR) (40 ino/,) (NDIR) >0.0534 Annual Aversee Gas Phase l)i11 Same as Gas Phase Nitrogen Chemilumi- (100 Lig/lfl) Primary Chem il urn inescenc > 0. 25. ppm Dioxide nescc nee Std. e I Hour (470 ug/m') - 0.03 ppm Annual Average (80 ug/m) - Sulfur Ultraviolet Pararosoaniline Dioxide 0.05 PP Fluorescence 0. 14 ppm 24 Flour (131 365 ug/m) - Annual Size Selective Geometric 30 ug/m3 Inlet High - - Suspended Mean Volume Sampler Particulate and Gravimeiric >150 Matter 24 Hour >50 u,,/m3 Analysis ug/m3 Same as Inertial Separation (PM- 10) Primary and Gravimetric Annual Stds. Analysis Arithmetic - - >50 ug/m3 Mean Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ug/m3 Turhidimetric - - - Barium Sulfate 30 Day Avcr:we 1.5 11,010 - - Calendar Atomic At Same as Absorption Atomic Absorption Quarter - :.1.5 ug/m3 Primary Std. Visihil itv In sufficient amount to reduce the Reducing I Observation prevailing visihilily to less than 10 - - - Particles miles when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent Prepared in accordance with applicable SCAQMI) Air Quality Data Cards and ARB Fact Sheet 38 (revised 7/88). 4-24 Table 4.4-3 San Diego Air Pollution Control District Threshold Levels with Projected Construction Emission Levels Chemical Sp. Calculated Calculated SDAPD or Particulate Emission Emission Threshold Levels Levels (with Values (without Control control Measures) measures) Nox 12.3 Lb/day 9.8 Lb/day 10 Lb/day CO 11.5 Lb/day 10.1 Lb/day 10 Lb/day Sox 8.5 Lb/day 7.8 Lb/day 10 Lb/day Particulates 9.3 Lb/day 6.7 Lb/day 10 Lb/day * These figures include emissions contributions from one truck making 25 trips per day, one pile driver, and one crane. Also included are an estimated 20 individuals commuting in separate automobiles 2 times per day, for a 180 day period. Emission values were averaged for the entire construction period. Emissions factors were computed from AP 42 Air Pollution Control Emissions Factors Manual, 1995. 4.4.2.2 Alternative 1 The construction project is expected to take 180 days. Calculations were based on the use of an all-terrain hydraulic crane (consisting of pile driver and crane) and one catapillar truck (used 10 hours per day for 180 days), and 30 private vehicles (10 used twice per day for 180 days, and 20 used twice per day) were used in the operation. .Based upon these assumptions, a standard BACT review and related benefit study were completed. Emissions and operations factors were determined from AP 42 and G-Grove Inc. manufacture's data sheets, which are approved methods for SDAPCD. Minor increases in suspended particulate dust will occur during construction of the seawall. Small increases in CO and Nox will occur, which will exceed SDAPCD threshold limits. Timing of each engine to about 4 degrees and using turbo-cooled exhaust recirculating systems will bring emissions to acceptable levels (Table 4.4-3) With proper control measures as discussed above, no significant air impacts will be generated during construction. 4-25 No significant adverse air impacts are expected. 4.4.2.3 Alternative 2 Construction methods for alternative 2 are similar to those of Alternative 1. Construction is expected to take 150 days, approximately 30 days less than Alternative 1. Using this method, about 597 less pounds of Nox and CO will emitted into the airshed compared to Alternative 1. Aside from the duration factor, other methods are similar for both alternatives. No significant impacts are expected. 4.5 LAND AND RECREATION USES 4.5.1 Affected Environment Much of the Carlsbad coastline has been developed for parking lots, and commercial and residential units. The project area consists of public beach, neighbored by Carlsbad Boulevard. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon exists east of Carlsbad Boulevard. The project area supports beach recreation activities, including sunbathing, swimming, snorkeling, surfing, and fishing. The coastal waters provide for recreation opportunities, including both boating and fishing. Some of the common sportfish caught by anglers include Pacific bonito, California barracuda, rockfish, sole, California halibut, and sandbass. The lagoon also supports recreational activities, especially boating, hiking, and bird watching. 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences 4.5.2.1 Criteria A significant impact will be based on permanent physical impacts related to compatibility. The project's compatibility with adjacent existing land and water uses will be judged based on a logical transition of uses. Impacts will also be considered significant if the project results in a permanent loss of existing recreational areas. 4.5.2.2 Alternative 1 Construction will occur in an area that is typically used for recreation purposes year-round and, make a small area around the project and staging areas unavailable for public access due to safety concerns. Construction has been scheduled to minimize potential public and recreation land use impacts and will not occur during the heaviest use season, April through August. 4-26 Proposed revetment repairs consist of rebuilding the structure to its predamage conditions. New rock to be set on the existing structure will be compatible' with existing stone. Construction activities will not restrict public access to other land uses that abut the proposed staging and/or construction areas. The completed project will maintain a beach width similar to the existing and provide more safety for shoreline structures than current conditions. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with adjacent existing land and water uses. Although short term adverse land/recreation use impacts will occur, these impacts are not expected to be significant. 4.5.2.3 Alternative 2 Impacts will be-similar to those' described above. Significant adverse use impacts are not expected. 4.5.2.4 No Action The shoreline currently provides insufficient levels of protection for neighboring facilities and infrastructure. In addition, future storms may progressively worsen the existing situation, resulting in fewer recreation opportunities with beach and road closures. These impacts may be significant. Mitigation is recommended to implement either of the proposed alternatives. 4.6 GROUND TRANSPORTATION 4.6.1 Affected Environment The Carlsbad project area is accessed by Carlsbad Boulevard (S21) via Palomar Airport Road (S12) from the south or Tamarack Road from the north via Interstate (I) - 5. 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences 4.6.2.1 Criteria Traffic impacts, will be considered significant if project traffic or construction activities result in a substantial safety hazard to motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians; or construction vehicles are not provided with adequate parking, necessitating the overcrowding of existing parking facilities or tieing up local roads. As consistent with other Corps projects, traffic impacts will also be considered significant if construction traffic exceeds 5.0 vehicles during the peak hour. 4-27 4.6.2.2 Alternative Construction will require the use of heavy equipment, and manpower to operate it. Traffic will be generated by work crews. The entire crew to operate this equipment is anticipated to be 10 people, and this small staff will not significantly add to the areal traffic levels. Although heavy equipment will be delivered to the site, these pieces of equipment will remain during construction activities; therefore delivery activities are not expected to change existing daily traffic averages. To minimize traffic impacts in the local region, state roads will be used to access the site (i.e. S21, S12, and 1-5) Rock delivery will also occur by a land-based operation via state and federal roads. It is anticipated that 21 truckloads will occur on a daily basis over about 35 days. Because most freeways operate under congested conditions (especially during rush hours), this volume of traffic will further add to the local congestion within the project area. However, 50 trips will not occur during peak hours, and significant impacts will not be produced during rock hauling. It is likely that a portion of Carlsbad Boulevard will have to be temporarily closed while trucks maneuver at the project area. A flagperson will be appointed to guide traffic (and people) in staging, loading and other construction areas to direct truck maneuvering needs and to prevent safety concerns (i.e., visibility of local motorists can be impaired). Because Carlsbad Boulevard is heavily used to access beach areas, especially on weekends, no rock truck hauls w111 be conducted on - Sundays to minimize traffic impacts and safety concerns. Traffic safety impacts will be adverse and cause temporary annoyances over the project duration, especially during the rock hauling period (about 35 days), but will not create significant impacts. Upon completion of construction, no additional vehicular traffic is anticipated with this project. Because the project will provide more protection for Carlsbad Boulevard, it will aid in the circulation and movement of goods and people that use Carlsbad Boulevard. Significant adverse traffic impacts are not expected. 4.6.2.3 Alternative 2 Impacts will be similar to those described above, however, total projected construction and rock hauling periods will be slightly shorter. Significant adverse traffic impacts are not expected. 4-28 4.6.2.4 No Action No additional wave/storm protection will be provided for Carlsbad Boulevard. Therefore, it is likely the existing situation will worsen as the shoreline continues to erode and may result in additional road closures. This situation may also expose the general public to increased safety risks. At worst case, loss of life may even occur., Mitigation is recommended to implement either of the proposed alternatives. 4.7 PUBLIC AND SYSTEM SAFETY 4.7.1 Affected Environment Adequate wave and storm damage protection is not currently provided for shoreline structures (Section 2). These conditions may place the general public at risk. A cursory review of available literature on known hazardous, toxic, and radial waste (I-ITRW) sites and underground storage tanks does not identify any sites within or adjacent to the proposed construction limits. 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences 4.7.2.1 Criteria Safety impacts will be based on both the potential for upset and the consequences of any project-related adverse events. The significance of a potential upset increases as either (or both) of these two parameters increase. By definition, adverse safety impacts result only from abnormal operation of a project. Safety impacts will also be considered significant if work creates a public health hazard or involves the use, production, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous materials that pose a threat to the general public through risk of explosion or release in the event of an accident or upset condition. 4.7.2.2 Alternative 1 Project construction areas impose potential safety concerns. To minimize these concerns, appropriate notifications will be given and active areas properly marked and temporarily closed. Only construction crews will be permitted access to work/staging areas. Safety impacts are not expected. The potential exists for equipment to leak fuel due to a mechanical or structural failure. The potential for a mechanical or structure failure is similar to that of other heavy equipment, which is extremely low. 4-29 At this time no known or potential HTRW sites have been identified at the project site. If such resources are discovered during construction, work will be suspended in the area until all necessary survey and testing is completed and a remediation plan acceptable to the appropriate Federal/State resource office(s) is developed. Construction will not result in the use, production, or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials; however, if activities involve moving, handling, or storing hazardous or toxic materials, these activities will be done in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations. Project implementation will result with adequate levels of protection provided to the existing shoreline and structures. No significant adverse public/system safety impacts are expected. 4.7.2.3 Alternative 2 Impacts will be similar to those described above. Adequate shoreline protection will be established by implementing this alternative. No significant adverse public/system safety impacts are expected. 4.7.2.4 No Action Alternative No additional wave/storm protection will be provided to the shoreline. It is likely the existing situation will worsen as the shoreline further erodes and exposes the general public to increased safety risks. Mitigation is recommended to implement either of the proposed alternatives. 4.8 AESTHETICS 4.8.1 Affected Environment The aesthetic character of the project area is composed of a recreation-oriented visual setting, dominated by public beaches and the lagoon. The area is maintained and projects an image to attract the recreation user. 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences 4.8.2.1 Criteria The project will significantly impact the aesthetics if a landscape is changed in a manner that permanently and significantly degrades an existing viewshed or alters the character of a viewshed by adding incompatible structures. 4-30 4.8.2.2 Alternative 1 Aesthetic impacts will occur in staging and construction areas. Because the staging area is adjacent to the construction area, impacts will be similar to construction impacts. Aesthetic impacts will occur during construction of the seawall and restoration of the revetment. Because equipment will be on the beach, the equipment will be dominant elements in the viewshed of an adjacent beach viewer. The viewshed's character will be altered by the introduction of these anomalous elements for the duration of the project, about 180 days. The seawall will alter the character of the existing viewshed, because it will protrude 42-inches above ground level. Although the seawall presents a potential to create an offensive view to the general public by nature of its existence, it is not expected to obstruct the ocean view of the public passing through the area by car or foot. In addition, the City will decorate the wall to minimize aesthetic impacts of the structure (Section 3.3). The wall's design will be covered with a graffiti-proof treatment to maintain its integrity. The rock that is -placed seaward of the seawall will be covered with a sand-cobble mixture. Because a rock revetment already exists, no long term impacts will beassociated with the proposed repairs. Aesthetic impacts will be adverse, but not significant. 4.8.2.3 Alternative 2 Overall, aesthetic impacts will be similar to those described above. However, the seawall will be approximately 600-feet shorter in length and less intrusive to the public viewer, and the construction duration will be shorter for this alternative, as compared to Alternative 1. Impacts will be minimized as discussed above. Impacts will not be significant. 4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.9.1 Affected Environment The project location was surveyed for cultural resources by a Corps staff archaeologist. Based on this survey, the Corps has determined that there is little likelihood for the presence of cultural resources. The beach has been subjected to repeated wave action that is alternately bringing fresh sediments onto the beach and causing heavy erosion. This wave action precludes the potential for any cultural remains to be existent. 4-31 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences If there had been any cultural resources within the footprint of the revetment, they would have been destroyed during the original construction. The revetment itself is less than 45 years old and is not under consideration for potential eligibility with the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The project as planned will not cause any impacts to cultural resources. 4.10 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Following is a summary of both general and resource commitments that have been developed to reduce the impact associated with construction of the proposed alternatives. Responsibility for each measure has been committed to by the Corps. The Corps will be responsible for implementing these commitments. General Commitments: Prior to construction, the LAD/contractor will provide a 1-month notification of the planned activities to the appropriate agencies and post information bulletins of scheduled work time and areas at the appropriate offices. Construction will occur between September and mid-March. All construction materials will meet or exceed Corps standards. Oceanography Commitments: Not applicable. Marine Resource Commitments: Not applicable. Noise Commitments: Construction will be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and sunset, Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and sunset on Saturday, with no work on Sunday or holidays, unless otherwise approved by the city. Air Quality Commitments: Compliance with county ordinances. Land/Water and Recreation Uses: Not applicable. Ground Transportation: Rock trucks permits from the City of Carlsbad. to direct traffic (and people) in will require haul route A flagman shall be provided congested areas, if needed. Public and System Safety: Equipment and working areas will be properly marked and notifications posted. Only construction crews will be permitted access to work/staging areas. If HTRW resources are discovered during construction, work will be suspended in the area until all necessary survey and testing work is complete and a remediation plan acceptable to the appropriate Federal/State resource office(s) is developed. Aesthetics: The City will decorate the seawall, pursuant to Section 3.3. The wall's design will also be covered with a graffiti-proof treatment to maintain its integrity. 4-32 Cultural Resources: Appropriate coordination and consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is being conducted. A letter has been sent to the SHPO transmitting the Corps' eligibility determination. Upon SHPO concurrence, the Corps will be in compliance with 36CFR800. If cultural resources are discovered during construction and cannot be avoided, work will be suspended in that area until properties are evaluated for eligibility for listing in NRHP in consultation with the SHPO. If properties are determined eligible for NRHP, additional SHPO consultation will be required, and ACHP will be provided an opportunity to comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11. 4.11 PROJECT SUMMARY The Proposed Seawall/Revetment Alternatives have been designed and scheduled to avoid, and minimize probable effects on the environment. Where avoidance can not be used and significant impacts may result, mitigation measures have been designed to minimize the impact upon the resources. Environmental commitments identified in Section 4.10 will be implemented over the project life. Through formal agency coordination and assessment of the proposed project impacts, it is determined that the proposed project alternatives will not have a significant impact upon the existing environment or the quality of the human environment, as documented in this EA. As a result, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. 4-33 SECTION 5 - PREPARERS/REVIEWERS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District - Preparers/Reviewers Name Degree Study Role Pam Castens M.A. - Geography Review Stephen M.A. - Anthropology Review Dibble Russell L. M.S. - Coastal Zone Environmental Manager! Kaiser Management/Oceanography Enviro. Resources Angelo M.S. - Civil Engineering Water & Air Quality Karavolis Richard B.A. - Anthropology Cultural Resources Perry. Ruth M.A. - Geography Review Villa lobos. 5-]. SECTION 6 - ACRONYMS ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation APCD Air Pollution Control District APE Area of Potential Effects ARB Air Resource Board ASBS Area of Special Biological Significance BACT Best Available Control Technology CARB California Air Resource Board CCC California Coastal Commission CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide CoE Chief of Engineers Corps U.S. Arm)' Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District cy cubic yard dBA decibel (A weighted scale) EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEA Final Environmental Assessment FONSI Findings of No Significant Impacts H ' Horizontal HP Horse Power HTRW Hazardous, Toxic. & Radial Waste MLLW mean lower low water mph miles per hour mcy million cubic yard NEPA National Environmental Policy Agency NHPA . National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOx nitrogen oxides NO2 nitrogen dioxide NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSR New Source Review 03 ozone ppm parts per million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration ROC reactive organic compounds SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SHPO State Historic Preservation Office sox sulfur oxides USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service V Vertical 6—]. SECTION 7- REFERENCES California Air Resources Board, 1992. Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Regulations Regarding the California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for the New 1996 and Later Heavy-Duty Off-Road Diesel Cycle Engines and Equipment Engines, January 9, 1992. Chambers Group, 1992. Final Noise Survey for the Construction and Operation of the International Wastewater Treatment Plant and Outfall Facilities at the Tijuana River, San Diego, California. Prepared for Department of the Army, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers. City of Carlsbad, Office of the City Manager, 1994. Project Request Letter. City of Los Angeles, Environmental Monitoring Division, 1991. Marine Monitoring in Santa Monica Bay Annual Assessment Report mt he Period July 1990 through June 1991 Environmental Monitoring Division Bureau of Sanitation Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles. Dohi, T.P., K.S. Norris, R.C. Guess, J.D. Bryant, and M.W. Honig, 1981. Cetacea of the Southern California Bight. Part 2 of Volume II. Herbich, J.B. and S.B. Brahme 1983. Literature Review and Technical Evaluation of Sediment Resuspension During Dredging U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station CDS Report No. 266. O'Connor, J.M., D.A. Neumann, and J.A. Sheik, Jr. 1977. Sublethal Effects of Suspended Sediment on Estuarine Fish Technical Paper U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (No. 77-3):90pp. Page, G.W., and L.E. Stenzel, 1981. The Breeding Status of the Snowy Places in California. Western Birds, 1:1-40. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1994. Pacific Coast Shoreline Reconnaissance Report. Department of the Army, Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994. Planning Aid Letter for Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection Studies for Oceanside and Carlsbad, California. 7-1 RESOURCE APPENDICES APPENDIX A CONSULTATION LETTERS ,~b -,~ 4,% kk,.4-~ r 4LIFO Ci t of Carlsbad December 7, 1994 Colonel Michal R. Robinson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, Ca. 90053-2325 Dear Colonel Robinson: I would like to thank your staff in the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their efforts in completing the Pacific coast Shoreline, Carlsbad Reconnaissance Study. This comprehensive study analyzed the potential damages which may be realized along Carlsbad's coastline during the occurrence of an intense storm event in addition to providing an evaluation on the effectiveness of various shoreline protection structures and beach building methods. The study further concluded that federal interest exists in providing storm protection to a 2,700 foot reach of Carlsbad Boulevard fronting the Agua Hedionda Lagoon (identified as Reach 3 in the report). As I now realize, the effort in the preparation of an analysis of this nature is extensive and your staff is to be highly commended for their professional work and thorough evaluation of the City's eroding shoreline. The Final Report also indicated that the next phase in the development of a beach protective project is for the City to enter into an agreement for the preparation of a Feasibility Study. However, this Feasibility Study phase is projected to take approximately 32 months to complete. Due to the imminent threat of damage to a principal thoroughfare (Carlsbad Boulevard) and the potential availability of State funds for assistance in construction of a shoreline protective structure along this stretch of roadway, the City believes that the seawall alternative proposed in the Reconnaissance Study should be pursued as the most effective and expeditious option. Because the length of the area affected is relatively short, the Continuing Authority Program appears to be the best approach. Therefore, this letter shall serve as a formal application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a Section 103 study of the area of Carlsbad's coastline adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. It is my understanding that the Continuing Authority Program will be conducted in two phases; the first phase being a reconnaissance study which is funded by the Corps of Engineers. It would seem fair to assume that a majority of this effort has been completed and can be extracted from the Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad Reconnaissance Study. The City further recognizes that we must fund 50 percent of the second phase, the feasibility study, and that as much as one- 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California, 92008-1989 • (619) 434-2821 5_.• .:;.---. .. half of this share may consist of in-kind services. It is the City's desire to submit the completed design plans for the seawall construction as well as the secured permits from the required regulatory agencies as in-kind services. This is submitted in an effort to reduce the overall costs as well as processing time. Additionally, the City can and will provide all necessary local cooperation and participation through the City's Beach Erosion Coniinittee and Engineering technical staff. I would like to take this opportunity to express the City's sincere appreciation for your attention to this matter. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (619) 434-2821 or Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4391. Sincerely, c: City Council Beach Erosion Committee Community Development Director City Engineer Associate Engineer Jantz tAJ(ETh United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE • - ECOLOGICAL SERVICES — - Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 August 2, 1993 Ms. Hayley Levan U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Branch P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 Re: Endangered Species Information for the Reconnaissance Study in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (1-6-93-SP-215) Dear Ms. Levan: This is in response to your letter dated July S. 1993, and received by us on July 14, 1993, requesting information on endangered, threatened and candidate species which may be present within the area of the referenced project in San Diego County, California. ie Federal lead agency under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, s amended (Act), has the responsibility to request a species list and to prepare a Biological Assessment if the project is a construction project which may require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)' If a Biological Assessment is not required, the lead Federal agency still has the responsibility to review the proposed activities and determine whether listed species will be affected. During the assessment or review process, the lead Federal agency may engage in planning efforts but may not make any irreversible commitment of resources. Such a commitment could constitute a violation of Section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act. If a listed species may be affected, the agency should request, in writing through our office, formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. A Federal agency is required to confer with the Service when the agency determines that its action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Conferences are informal discussions between the Service and Federal agency, designed to identify and resolve potential conflicts between an action and proposed species or proposed critical habitat at an early point in the decision making process. The Service makes recommendations, if any, on ways to minimize or avoid adverse effects of the action. These recommendations are advisory because the jeopardy prohibition of Section 7(a)(2) does not apply until the species is listed or the proposed critical habitat is designated. If the proposed species is listed or the proposed habitat designated, the Federal agency determines whether or not formal consultation is required. The conference f process fills the need to alert Federal agencies of possible steps that an agency might take at an early stage to adjust its actions to avoid jeopardizing a ley Lovan :Pr0P05ed species. Informal consultation may be used to exchange information and resolve conflicts with respect to listed species prior to a written request f o r f o r m a l consultation. It should be noted that candidate species have n o p r o t e c t i o n u n d e r the Act. Therefore, the lead Federal agency is not requi r e d t o p r e f o r m a Biological Assessment for candidate species nor to consult w i t h t h e F i s h a n d Wildlife Service should it be determined that the project may a f f e c t c a n d i d a t e species. They are included for the sole purpose of notifying Fed e r a l a g e n c i e s in advance of possible proposals and listings which at some t i m e i n t h e f u t u r e may have to be considered in planning Federal activities. I f e a r l y e v a l u a t i o n of your project indicates that it is likely to adversely i m p a c t a c a n d i d a t e species, you may wish to request technical assistance from this o f f i c e . Should you have any questions regarding the species listed on t h e f o l l o w i n g pages, or your responsibilities under the Act, please call Susan W y n n o f m y s t a f f at (619) 431-9440. Sincerely, Peter A. Stine Acting Field Supervisor Construction Project" means andy Federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment designed primarily to result in the building or erection of man-made structures such as dams, buildings, roads ,j pipelines, channels, and the like. This includes Federal actions such as permits, grants, licenses, or o t h e r forms of Federal authorizations or approval which may result i n construction. 0. syley Lovan Listed, Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species That may occur in the Area of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (1-6-93-SP-215) LISTED SPECIES Common Name Scientific Name Status Birds Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus E Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucoceohalus E Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalts E Light-footed clapper rail RaU.us longirostris levft,es E California least tern Sterna antiflarum browni E Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T Plants Salt marsh bird's beak Cordylanthus maritttnus asp. maritinius E PROPOSED SPECIES Fish Tidewater goby Eucvclogobius nevberryi PE CANDIDATE SPECIES Mammals Pacific little pocket mouse Peroznatbus longimeinbris vacificus 2 Southern marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontoniys megalotis limicola 2 Birds Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor 2 Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow Atinoohila ruficeps canescens 2 Black Tern Chilodonias niger 2 Reddish egret Egretta rufescens 2 California horned lark Eroniophila alpestris actia 2 Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus 2 Western least bittern Ixobrychus exi]ts besperis 2 Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludoviclanus 2 Black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus 2 Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldinz 2 Large-billed savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus 2 White-faced ibis Plegadis chlhi 2 Elegant tern Sterna elegans 2 Reptiles Southwestern pond turtle Cleinnivs inarmorata pallida 1 San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx varieEatus abbotti 2 Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis haminondli 2 .ayley Lovan Invertebrates Ca. brackish water snail Tyronia imitator . 2 Oblivious tiger beetle Cicindela latesinata obliviosa 2 Globose dune beetle Coelus globosus 2 Salt marsh skipper Panoauina errans 2 Wandering skipper . Pseudocopaeodes eunus eunus .2 Plants Coastal dunes milk-vetch Astragalus teneT var. titl. 1 Coast wallflower Erysimum amlnoDhlium 2 Prostrate lotus Lotus nuttalUanus 2 (E) - Endangered (T) - Threatened (PE) - Proposed for listing as endangered - Category 1: Taxa for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient bi019gica1 information to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. - - Category 2: Tama for which existing information indicates that listing may be warranted, but for which substantial biological information ( to support a proposed rule is lacking. APPENDIX B 404 (b) (1) EVALUATION THE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES INTRODUCTION. The following evaluation is provided in accordance with Section 404 (b)(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95- 217). Its intent is to succinctly §tate and evaluate information regarding the effects of discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the U. S. As such, it is not meant to stand alone and relies heavily upon information provided in the environmental document to which it is attached. Use of the "Documentation" category is for expansion of discussions only when necessary or for references and citations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. (Referenced and described briefly as follows:) The location of the study site is located between the inlet and outline jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Carlsbad Boulevard. A (eneraLD.escription: [Section 3.2-3.3 of the attached EA.] The proposed project consists of constructing a 2,504 foot seawall between the jetties and setting additional rock on the existing revetment. The seawall will be placed adjacent to the existing sidewalk at an elevation of 20 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW). The seawall will protrude about 42 inches above ground level, consist of a 30 foot steel sheet piling, and have a reinforced concrete cap on the top. The seaward side of the seawall will be reinforced with two layers of 1500 pound stone. About 9,750 tons of additional rock will be placed on the revetment. The operation is expected to require 0.3 acres of beach for staging. Construction equipment to be used and methods are discussed in Section 3.3 of the attached EA. B Authotity_and...2utpose: Federal authority for this project is provided under the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), and Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962. [Section 2.2 of the attached EA.] The purpose of this report is to provide shoreline protection for the Project area between Agua Hedionda Lagoon (inland and outline jetties) and Carlsbad Boulevard. C fleneraLflescr.iption....oLDiedged or FilLMaterial: [Section 3.2 of the attached EA.] See section hA. HI FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS. A Substrate_elevati.oft..and.slope Approximately 9,750 tons of niaterial will be used in the construction of the seawall. About 1500 pounds of rock will be used in the re-enforcement of the seawall itself, on the seaward side. Quarry stone will be the rock type used in the construction of the seawall. B PhysicaLeffects..onJs4arine...Environrnerit The environment to be affected primarily includes the supra-tidal beach and secondarily inter-tidal beach and supra-tidal rocky habitats. Marine impacts will be associated with the seawall and rock placement activities. Seawall activities will result in a minimal loss of sandy-cobble habitat. Species inhabiting these areas are adapted to periodic disturbarcce and recovery is expected within months. Although potential water quality impacts may include increased turbidity within an existing turbid area, these impacts are not expected, because work will be conducted above the water line. Because very little turbidity is expected and most will be confined to the immediate locality, impacts will not be expected to affect plankton populations and/or benthic organisms. Fish and marine birds that feed on benthic invertebrates may suffer a localized, short term loss of food. Although fish may temporarily avoid turbid areas, turbidity may impact visually foraging piscivorous seabirds by making it difficult for them to see their prey. Because the area of impact is such a small portion of the local marine habitat, the impact of the loss of food on fish and bird populations is judged to be adverse, but not significant. Turbidity will not impact common dolphin, harbor seal, sea lion, and /or whale populations. Although revetment work will occur on land and water, impacts are not expected. Rock placement will result in direct habitat disturbances. It is expected that species colonizing the rebuilt portions will be difficult to distinguish from that on the existing structures within a year or less. This temporary habitat disturbance will be 2 an adverse but not significant impact Aside from these direct habitat impacts, there will also be noise impacts. If construction noise vibrates through the land-water medium, mobile organisms may avoid noise impacted areas. Potential species disturbances from construction are judged to be minimally adverse, but not significant. Of the federally-listed species identified in Section 4.2.1.2, only the California brown pelican, California least tern, Western snowy plover, light-footed clapper rail, and tidewater goby may occur within the project area with a medium to high probability. Because construction will occur between September and mid-March, the Corps has determined this alternative will not have an affect nor jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed threatened or endangered species. Formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not required for project implementation. Sensitive species impacts are not expected with project construction. C FSfecLorLWater_Cir.c.ulation, FlllctuatiQn, nd a1 i nity No significant impact on salinity, pH, water chemistry, clarity, color, odor, taste, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients are expected to occur during construction. In addition, no eutrophication is expected to occur (Section 3.3 of attached EA). 1) FffecLon...CntrenLPattern&.ancLCitculati.oa... The potential of discharge or fill on the following conditions were evaluated: Construction activities are not expected to changes water flow patterns, water velocity, stratification, or the local hydrological regimes. (Section 3.4 of attached EA). Construction activities are not expected to change the tidal or river stage regimes in the study area (Section 3.4 of attached EA). No action is necessary to minimize any such change in the above parameters due to the proposed action. F. SuspendecLPatticu1ate/TiirhidityJeterminations at theJDispcsal Site. No effects on turbidity levels, suspended sediment levels, the ability of light to penetrate the water column, and dissolved oxygen are predicted to occur for the proposed action. In addition, no increase in toxic and organic metals and pathogens are anticipated, as no significant amounts of hydrocarbon fluids or other wastes are to be introduced into the ecosystem. No significant effect on the productivity of suspension/filter and sight feeders are expected to occur as a result of the proposed action within the study site. No actions are necessary to minimize the impacts of the proposed action on these biota (Section 4.2 of attached EA). F PrDpQsed_DisposaLSite..Determin2rinnc The Corps has determined that the proposed project is entitled to 404(f) exemption; 401 water quality certification is, therefore, not required. Section 404(0(1) exempts the discharge of dredged or fill material from certain activities. The exempt activities include discharges "for the purpose of mailitenance, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures such as dikes, levees, groins, riprap..... The proposed project is not expected to introduce any new known or suspected pollutants into the water column, based upon a review of the current water quality assessment of the study site. Table 1gives a comparative listing of relevant documentation/criteria with respect to contaminant determination in the study site. Table I Contaminant Criteria for proposed study site activity Physical characteristics Hydrography in relation to known or anticipated sources of Yes No contaminants Results from previous testing of the material or similar material in the vicinity of Yes No the project . Known, significant, sources of contaminants (e.g. pesticides) from land Yes No runoff or percolation Spill records for petroleum products or designated (Section 311 of CWA) hazardous Yes No substances Other public records of significant introduction of contaminants from industries, Yes No municipalities or other sources Known existence of substantial material deposits of substances which could be released in harmful quantities to the aquatic Yes No environment by man-induced discharge activities Other sources (specify) Yes No 4 (_fletetmination_oLCumulatiMe_Effects of Disr1osl or Fill on theAquatic Ecosystem No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. An evaluation of the appropriate information in Section II F indicates that there is no reason to believe that the proposed dredge or fill material is a carrier of contaminants. H fletermination_o.LSecondar.EffectsQn1heAquatic...Ecosystem.. No such secondary impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. IV FINDING OF COMPLIANCE. The proposed activity does not appear to: 1) violate applicable state water quality standards or effluent standards prohibited under Section 307 of the CWA; or jeopardize the existence of Federally listed endangered or threatened species or their habitat; and violate requirements of any Federally designated marine sanctuary. The activity will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the U.S. including adverse effects on human health, life stages of organisms dependent on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability, and recreational, aesthetic, and economic values. A--A- Adaptation oLthe...Section_404b(i)_G uidelinesicuhis_Evatuation No significant adaptations of the guidelines were made relative to this evaluation. B Evaivation_of_&vai.lab.iIity_of1racticableAl.ternathe&.taihe Proposed Discharge S1e...whichwoulthhaveJessAderseJmpacLo,ruhe.Aquatic..EcQsystem All available practical alternatives for reconstruction and modification were evaluated. The proposed action is the most cost effective and least environmentally damaging. C Compliance_with Appl.icabie...State_Water_Quality..Slandards The proposed project will comply with State Water Quality standards. 5 D Copliance..withApplicabieIoxi Fffluent_Standard or Prohibition tinder Sectiin_1OLtheC1eaniNaterAcL No toxic materials are expected to be generated by this project, outside the waste oils from possible spills from machinery. P. compl.iancewitIuheEndangerecLSpecies Act of 1971 No federally protected species will be affected by the proposed action (Ref. III B). P C.ompl iance..withSpecifiedirotectiorLMeasures for Marilme...Sanctiiaries Designate&bylheivlarin&Pr.otection,Research,_and_Sancluaties Act of 1972 No sanctuaries will be affected by the proposed project. (_P.Maluati.orLoLExtenLoLflegradaliorLoLthe Waters of the-United-States No significant degradation of municipal or private water supplies, special aquatic sites, or plankton resources will occur. The project will have a short-term affects upon fish and invertebrates due to limited turbidity effects. 14 Appr.opriate.and1racticaLStep&..TakerUoJ4ini.mize...Po1enhial Adverse-Impacts oLtheflischarg&on1he..AquaticEcosystem No significant degradation of water resources will occur from the activities of the proposed project. I (biide1ixes1or Proposed Disposal Site(s, for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material- This project is in compliance with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, with the inclusion of appropriate conditions to minimize pollution or adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem. Prepared by: Name Date Position 7 APPENDIX C CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION REQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DETERMINATION DRAFT September 6, 1995 Office of the Chief Environmental Resources Branch Mr. Peter Douglas Executive Director California Coastal Commission Attn.: Mr. Larry Simon 45 Fremont, Suites 1900 and 2000 San Francisco, California 94105 Gentlemen: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (Corps), submits this Statement of Negative Determination for the proposed shoreline protection project located at Carlsbad. The proposed project consists of placing a seawall adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard between the inlet and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and placing new rock on the existing revetment, as outlined under Alternative 2 in the enclosed Environmental Assessment (EA). The proposed project is similar to a previously approved. project covered under the consistency determination 6-94-91, pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976, as amended. Therefore, a Statement of Negative Determination is appropriate for this project in compliance with NOAA regulation 930.35(d)(2) which states "a Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) is not required for Federal activity ... which is the same or similar to activities for which consistency determinations have been prepared in the past ... The Corps has concluded that preparation of a CCD is not required for the specified project. Your prompt action on this Statement of Negative Determination is appreciated as soon as possible, due to schedule constraints. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell L. Kaiser, Environmental Manager, at 213-894-0247. Thank you for quickly expediting this matter. Sincerely, Robert S. Joe Chief, Planning Division Enclosure APPENDIX D FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION REPORTS SENT 6y.:xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-96 ; 8:42AM ; 6196745388-' 213;# 1 .. United States Department of the FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Colonel Michael R. Robinson District Engineer, Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 rrA N 4. D42 (D December 20, 1995 Att.: Russell L. Kaiser Environmental Resources Branch Re: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Colonel Robinson: Please find enclosed the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Ràport (CAR) for the referenced project in fulfillment of the FY 95 Scope of Work Agreement (E86 95 0078) dated September 5, 1995, between our respective agencies. The Fish and Wildlifb Service (Service) submitted a Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in October 1992 for comments and concurrence. We received concurrence from the Corps on November 29, 1995. This CAR. constitutes the report of the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Gale Bustillos, Project Biologist, or John Hanlon, Chief Branch of Federal Projects, at (619) 431-9440. Sincerely, C. Kobetich Supervisor Enclosure cc: CDFG, Region 5, Long Beach, CA (Mt.: R. Nitsos) NMFS, Long Beach, CA (An.: R. Hoffman) SENT BY:xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-98 ; 8:42AM ; 6198745388-4 213# 2 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT for the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project, Carlsbad San Diego County,California Preparedfor the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District by the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish, and Wildlife Service Region 1 Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, California Gale Bustillos Project Biologist and Author John Hanlon Chief, Branch of Federal Projects December 1995 SENT 6YXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-96 5:43AM ; 619674588-' 213;# 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................I LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................... LISTOFTABLES ...........................................................jj COMMENTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES .......................................iii INTRODUCTION..........................................................i DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA ...........................................2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ................................................ . . 3 DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................3 Terrestrial Habitat ..................................................... 3 MarineHbjtt.........................................................3 wiicm'e...................................... .............................................................. 4 Invertebrates ....................................................4 Fish ..........................................................4 Birds .........................................................5 Mammals......................................................5 senjitiveSpecies ......................................................s Fish..........................................................5 Birds........................................................... IMPACTS OF PROJECT ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..........................6 Terrestrial Habitat ......................................................6 Mali= Habitat ......................................................... 6 Wildlife............................................................. Fish...........................................................7 Birds..........................................................7 species......................................................7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................7 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................8 I SENT BY:xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-96 8:44AM ; 6196145388-' 213;# 4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1, Location Map of Carlsbad Study Area ....................• ............10 Figure 2. Detail of Reach 3 ...............................................11 Figure 3. Detailed Project Designs for Seawall Construction.......................12 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: List of avian species known, or reasonably expected to occur within the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project Study Area . ...................... 13 11 SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-96 8:44AM 6196745388-' 213;# 5 REPLY TO ATTENTION OP: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS NOEL(S DISTRICT, CORPS OF £NUINEENI P.O. SOx 1711 LOS 4'sGLLes. CUFORN$Ason-am November 24, 1995 Office of the Chief Environmental Resources Branch Mr. Gail Kobetich Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attention: Mr. John Hanlon 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Kobetich: Thank you for your submittal of the Draft Coordination Act Report (DCAR) for the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project at Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. We appreciate the opportunity to review the DCAR and concur with the conclusions presented in the report. As documented in both the DCAR and the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA), the recommended plan will avoid and/or minimize project impacts to a level that is not considered significant nor will it have an effect or jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed threatened or endangered species. Formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required for project implementation. The Corps will also include the DCAB. as an enclosure to the D.EA prior to public release. We look forward to the receipt of the Final CAR. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact either Ms. Pamela Castens, Chief, Environmental Planning Section, at 213-894-2314 or Mr. Russell L. Kaiser, Environmental Manager, at 213-894-0247. Sincerely, r, Robert S Chief Planning ivision SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-96 ; 8:44AM ; 6196745388-. 213;# 6 UNIT BTA1IB DEPARTMENT QP COMMIRE NatlunIl Oceanic and Atmeapherlc Administration NATIONAL MARINE FIIRIE5 SERVICE Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suits 4200 Long Bosch California 508024213 TEL (310) 980.4000; FAX (310) 980.4018 DEC 14 190 F/SW021:RS11 Mr. Gail C. Kobetich Field Supervisor Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92005 Dear Mr. ICobetich: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Report for the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project. I concur with the conclusions of the Report that no significant impacts to marine resources will result from the project. If you have any questions, please contact Hr. Robert Hoffman at (310) 980-4043. Sincerely, Hi -Soltero / Regio al Director Printed on Recycled Paper (Awi JAN- 8-96 NON 7:45 US FWS FAX NO. 6194319624- P.01 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—Tui RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON. GovMOr )EPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME no NINTH STREET ..O. BOX 944209 SACRAMENTO. CA 94244-2090 (916) 653-4875 December 19,199S Mr. John Hanlon Chief, Branch of Federal Projects U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Ms. Gale Bustillos Dear Mr. Ranon: -, Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the Draft Coordination Act Report for the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 2,504-foot long seawall between the southern inlet jetty to Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the northern outlet jetty from the San Diego Gas and Electric power plant. The Department concurs with your conclusion and recommendations for the proposed project. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Richard Nitsos, Environmental Specialist, Etiviromnental Services Division, Department of Fish and Game, 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50, Long Beach, California 90802, telephone (310) 590-5174, Sincerely, - /L Th14'4-t John L. Turner, Chkf Environmental Services Division W. ?vlr, ?i.ctlard Nitsos Department of Fish and Game Long Beach W. Robert Hoffman National Marine Fisheries Service Long Beach SENT By:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-96 ; 8:45AM ; 6196745388-' 213;8 7 LACDA Water Conservation and Supply Study at Santa Fe and Whittier Narrows Dams Los Angeles County, California COMMENTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES California Department of Fish and Game Concurrence with DCAR, Richard Nitsos, pars. comm. on December 13, 1995. V SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 2— 7-96 ; 8:45AM ; 8196745388-i 2134 8 INTRODUCTION. This document constitutes the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (CAR) prepared by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) regarding potential effects to fish and wildlife resources by the proposed construction of it 2,504-foot long seawall between the inlet jetties to Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the outlet jetties from the San Diego Gas and Electric Encina Power Plant located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. This is in fiulfillntent of the Fiscal Year 1995 Scope of Work (E86 95 0078) between the Service and the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers (Corps) dated September 5, 1995 The Services analysis of this project and recommendations are based on information provided in 1) the project description in the Scope of Work (SOW), 2) the Planning Aid Letter for Storm Damage Reductionand Shoreline Protection Studies for Oceanside and Carlsbad, California (March 1994), 3) field work and site visits by Service personnel on October 6 and October 13, 1995, 4) information contained in the Service's files and library, and 5) the Service's best collective professional judgement. This report constitutes the report of the Department of the Interior as required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 : 2— 7-96 : 8:46AM ; 6198745388 213;# 9 DESCRiPTION OF PROJECT AREA The project is located at Carlsbad State Beach between the mouth of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Encina Power Plant discharge canal in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, approximately 35 miles north of the City of San Diego (Figure 1). The strip of land separating Agua Hedionda Lagoon from the ocean is bisected by Carlsbad Boulevard. The project site is a low, narrow barrier beach composed of sand and cobbles. The condition of the beach is affected by the jetties at the entrance to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The predominant littoral drift is to the south. The jetties and the entrance channel intercepts the littoral material moving southward, thereby starving the beach south of the entrance channel. The climate of coastal southern California is characterized by wann, thy summers and cool, relatively wet winters. Typical winter temperatures range from 400. 60°F, while 65°-95°F can be expected during the summer months. Precipitation consists almost entirely of winter rainfall, averaging about 15 inches per year in the area. Average annual wave height is 3.5 feet with occasional 10. 12 foot breakers (Corps of Engineers 1970). The site lies in the middle of the Oceanside Littoral Cell which has a predominate southward sediment transport (Corps of Engineers 1986, Ingmanson and Wallace 1973, Inman 1984). However, nearcoast currents are weak and can flow either north or south at any time of the year (State of California 1977). Historically, sediments have been supplied to the beaches in this area from four rivers: San Mateo Creek, San Onofre Creek, Santa Margarita River, and San Luis Rey River (State of California 1977). However, flood control dams, other structUres, and in-river sand and gravel operations have reduced sediment bearing flows, depriving the beaches of an adequate supply of sand (Simons, Li and Associates 1985, Corps of Engineers 1986, Corps of Engineers 1997a). Beach erosion problems are further aggravated along the Oceanside and Carlsbad shoreline due to the construction of Oceanside Harbor in 1942 as the jetties and breakwater interrupted the dowxtcoast littoral drift that carried sand to the city beaches. Other structures include the various groins and jetties along the Oceanside and Carlsbad reach. Such are the historical factors that continue to influence and aggravate the erosion problems on the beach of the proposed project site. The project site is predominantly a sandy-cobble beach. The width of the San Diego County beaches changes with the seasons, During the fall and winter the beaches are narrow as sand is typically moved offshore, often exposing the underlying beach cobbles. During the spring and. summer sand is redeposited on the beaches by low energy waves, thereby widening the beaches. At the time of the site visits in October 1995 the average beach width was approximately 100 feet and exposed cobbles were evident. Immediately outside the study area, to the south, the beach is backed by sandstone cliff's overlain by marine terrace deposits (Corps of Engineers 1987b). To the north, the City of Carlsbad has constructed a sea wall along the base of the developed cliffs. Private houses and public roadways 2 SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 : 2— 7-96 ; 8:46AM ; 6196745388-' 213;#10 Una the tops of the cliffs both north and south of the study area. A large public access parking lot is situated just north of the inlet jetties. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The proposed project consists of constructing a 2,504-foot long seawall between the jetties at the entrance channel to Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the jetties of the Encina Power Plant discharge canal and setting additional rock on the existing revetment located immediately south of the southern jetty of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon entrance channel (Figure 2). The seawall will be placed adjacent to the existing sidewalk to a top elevation of about 20 Net above mean lower low water (MLLW). The seawall will protrude 42 inches above the sidewalk consisting of a 30-foot steel sheet piling with a reinforced concrete cap. The seaward side of the steel sheet pile seawall would be protected with two layers of 1,500-pound stone, underlain by a six inch layer of quarry run stone (Figure 3). In addition, approximately 9,750 tons of rock will be set on the existing 400- foot revetment located immediately south of the south jetty to Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Figure 2). Approximately five recessed breaks will be constructed every 300 feet in the seawall for beach access. DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Service addressed the biological resources of the project area in our Planning Aid Letter dated March 31, 1994, for Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection Studies for Oceanside Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, The proposed project area is a small segment of a much larger project. The habitat in the proposed project area was historically composed of coastal strand vegetation. However, due to thç construction of roads and parking areas, past stabilization projects, and heavy public use of the area, little of the native terrestrial habitat remains today. The only terrestrial vegetation found was in the highly disturbed fenced off areas on either side of the south jetties and along a heavily impacted hillside just south of the proposed project area. The only shrubs seen during the field visits of October 6 and 13, 1995, were goldenbush (Isocoma iienziesil), a common early successional plant in disturbed areas, two introduced. ornamental species, gazania (Gazania scap longia) and limonium (Limonium perezil), and a low-growing variety of atriplex (Ariplex sp.). Spring annuals were not evident at this time of year. The two primary types of marine vegetative communities that occur within the study area include algae and phytoplankton. Bradshaw at al. (1976) identified 26 species of marine subtidal algae in Agua Hedionda Lagoon, including three species of kelp. Four separate kelp beds occurred along SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-98 ; 8:47AM ; 6196745388-4 213411 the shoreline of the study area (San Diego Coast Regional Commission 1974). Phytoplankton form the base of the marine food chain and live within theeuphotic zone of the ocean. Since these plants are reliant upon sunlight for energy, they are highly sensitive to changes in turbidity. Invertebrates Invertebrates comprise approximately 90 percent of all animal species in the world and are the most abundant animals in intertidal and subtidal ecosystems. In coastal and estuarine systems, invertebrates perform essential roles in various ecological interactions, including prey, predators, water purifiers, grazers, decomposers, and biological control agents. While relationships are often unclear, it appears that these interactions generally enhance the stability of the ecosystem. The stability is weakened when large-scale reductions occur in the complexity and diversity of species richness and interactions (May 1973, Usher 1986). Among the aquatic invertebrates that occur in the project area, worms, barnacles, clams, starfish, anemones, axnphipods, snails, and crabs are the most numerous. During the field visits of October 6 and 13, 1995, shells of mussel (Mytilus sp.), scallop (equipectin sp.), chama (Chama sp.) and tube snail (Al= sp) were washed up along the waterline. Fish Various fish communities would be expected to occur in the marine intertidal, marine subtidal, and estuarine habitats in and around the project area. Based on a literature survey, a minimum of 63 species of fish either occur or could reasonably be expected to occur (Bradshaw et al. 1976, Southern California Edison Company 1978) in the study area. Nearshore fish populations not only play a vital role in marine ecosystems but also serve as the prey base for some avian species, including the Federal endangered California least tern. It, along with numerous other piscivorous birds, forage for small fish in shallow nearshore waters, mostly just outside the surf zone. Some of the preferred prey species that occur in the project area include northern anchovy (graulis mordax), topsmelt (Atherinops afilnisl and jacksmelt (Atherinopsis califbrniensis). The abundance and distribution of these fish species also influences the distribution and reproductive success of California least terns. During the site visit of October 6, 1995, five white croaker (Cienyonemutilneatus) had been caught by fishermen fishing off the south outlet jetty. Other species caught by the fishermen from that same point on other days, included shark, spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculatofasciatus), and California corbina (Zdenticirrhus undulatus). 4 SENT BY:Xercx Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-96 ; 8:48AM ; 6196745388-' 213412 Birds Based on a literature search and comparisons of known range, distribution, and apparent suitable habitat 140 species of birds could reasonably be expected to occur in the study area (Table 1). The majority of these species are considered common residents or migrants. The California least tern and brown pelican are Federal endangered species and the western snowy plover is a Federal threatened species. California least terns are known to nest on the sandy beaches and islands within Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos lagoons. The California least terns use the lagoons and shallow coastal waters in the study area for foraging. The reproductive success of least terns is closely associated with the availability of prey near breeding areas. During site visits of October 6 and 131 1995, sanderlings (Calidns sp.), a marbled godwit Ujinosa fedoa) and whets (Catoptrophorus semipalinatus) were seen foraging in the receding waves and along the beach. Mammals The only mammals seen at the site during the field visits on October 6 and 13, 1995, were California ground squirrels (permophilus beecheyi). Due to the lack of suitable habitat no threatened, endangered or sensitive species of small mammals are expected to occur at the project area. However, no recent mammal surveys have been conducted in the study area. Fish The California grunion (Leuresthes tennis) spawns on sandy beaches during spring and summer high tides between March and August. The Cafifornia grunion is recognized as a sport fish, The fish come to shore in large numbers to lay their eggs in the wet sand during the high tide. The eggs remain near the surface of the sand to allow for oxygen exchange and to prevent the hatchlings from getting trapped too deep or buried. With the return of the next series of high tides, the eggs hatch and the young emerge and swim off to deeper water. Because of these habitat requirements, grunion reproductive success can easily be influenced by human activities along the shoreline during the spawning season. Birds The California least tern, peregrine falcon, and brown pelican are Federal endangered species, and the western snowy plover is a Federal threatened Species. All four species occur or may occur in or near the project site. California least terns are known to nest on the sandy beaches and islands within Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos lagoons. The terns use the lagoons and shallow coastal waters in the project area for foraging. The reproductive success of the California least tern is closely SENT BY:xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-96 8:48AM ; 6196745388-4 213413 associated with the availability of prey near breeding areas. Should construction activities cause turbidity in the local marine and lagoon waters near the study site, this could negatively impact foraging opportunites. The Brown pelican (Pelecanus nccidentalis) is a Federal endangered species that occasionally roosts on both the inlet and outlet jetties at Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the discharge canal. These birds faced extinction in the early 1970's because they were sensitive to chemical pollutants absorbed from the forage fish. The pollutants affected calcium metabolism and resulted in thin- shelled eggs that broke before the chicks were able to hatch. Western snowy plovers have been known to breed on sandy beaches and around the lagoons. They are highly sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season and may abandon their nests in response to nearby human activity. Snowy plover nests are very cryptic and easily stepped on or otherwise disturbed by unaware sunbathers. The coastal beaches also serve as important foraging grounds to migrating and resident snowy plovers during the winter months. The plovers are insectivorous and often rely upon the decaying vegetative debris lying along the beaches that attracts their prey. Their affinity for sandy beaches, need for vegetative cover, and high sensitivity t.o disturbance, is in direct conflict with recreational beach use and associated management practices. IMPACTS OF PROJECT ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No short term direct impacts to fish and wildlife are expected to occur from the proposed project construction. However, long-term impacts to the California grunion could occur from the loss of suitable sandy beach material if this seawall becomes a deflector of oceanic waves and the beach is scoured away. The purpose of the seawall is to keep wind-blown sand off of Carlsbad Boulevard and to prevent oceanic overwash to a limited degree. However, the proposed seawali could actually accelerate beach erosion resulting from the scouring action of reflected wave energy during storms. The wall would minimize the deposition of beach sand and cobbles on Carlsbad Boulevard, Since no rock or sand is proposed to be placed in the water and the seawall is well above the water, no impacts to marine habitats are expected. SENT By:xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-96 ; 8:49AM ;. 6196745388-e 213414 Fish The California grunion which spawns on sandy beaches from March through September could be impacted if the seawall becomes a wave energy deflector and scours away the beach. Birds Since all construction activities would be conducted above the water, no impicts to birds are expected. The heavy recreational use of the project area precludes any bird nesting. No sensitive species are expected to be impacted from the proposed project nor during construction activities. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The project area consists of a heavily used recreational beach. No Federal endangered, threatened, or sensitive species of plants or animals would be affected by the City of Carlsbad's shoreline protection project. In addition, no other fish and wildlife would be adversely affected. The Service concludes that no mitigation would be required if the project is constructed as proposed. SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-96 ; 8:49AM ; 6198745388-' 213415 FIJ4.1:] Bradshaw, I., B. Browning, K. Smith, and J. Speth. 1976. The Natural Resources of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Unpublished report prepared for the Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Corps of Engineers. 1970. Beech Enosion Control Report, Cooperative Research and Data Collection Program of Coast of Southern California, Cape San Martin to Mexican Boundary, Three Year Report 1967-1968-1969. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Corps of-Engineers. 1986. Southern California Coastal Processes Data Summary. CCSTWS 86-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Corps of Engineers. 1987a. Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report. CCSTWS 87-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Corps of Engineers. 1987b. Coastal Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region. CCSTWS 87-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Ingmanson, D.E and W. J. Wallace 1973. Oceanography: An Introduction. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont, California. Inman, D. 1984. Summary Report of Man's Impact on the California Coastal Zone. Unpublished report prepared for the State of California - the Resources Agency, Dept. of Boating and Waterways. May, R.M. 1973. Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey. San Diego Coast Regional Commission. 1974. Life in the Sea, the Marine Environment of the San Diego Coast. San Diego Regional Commission, California. Simons, Li and Associates, Inc. 1985. Final Report - Analysis of the Impacts of Dams on Delivery of Sediment from the Santa Margarita River, California. Project No. CA-COE-04. Southern California Edison Company. 1978. Annual Operating Report, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Volume IV, Biological, Sedimentólogical, and Oceanographic Data Analysis, 1978. Unpublished Tepofl prepared for Southern California Edison Company by Brown and Caldwell, Lockeed Center for Marine Research, and Marine Biological Consultants. 8 SENT BY:xerox Telecopier 7021 2— 7-96 ; 8:50AM ; 6196745388-. 213416 State of California. 1977. Assessment and Atlas of Shoreline Erosion Along the California Coast. State of California - the Resources Agency, Dept. of Navigation and Ocean Development. Usher, M.B. 1986. Wildlife Conservation Evaluation, Chapman and Hall, London, England. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Planning aid letter for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection studies for Oceanside and Carlsbad, California. Provided to the U.S. Army corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad (Calif) Field Office, 17pp. SENT BYXerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2— 7-96 8:50AM ; 6196745388- 213417 10 SENT 8Y:xerox Telecopier 7021 2— 7-96 ; 851AM 6196745388-i 213;#1B Figure 2. Detail of Reach 3 SENT 8Y:xerox Telecopier 7021 2- 7-98 ; 8:51AM 6196745368-i Figure 3. Detailed Project Designs for Seawall Construction Ievazian varies Sope 1% 4.a.75 Present Umit -y curb am GAM fo Niw 4'Slab on Grade CompIe SIdswak Rnf Cone Cap Undisftirbad Soil Use 30' Lon Sheet PWng Berdsim sel PLZ-23or SyidSteelSPZ- or 1Two (2) Layer of / 1,500 pound Stang• I Apprx4ftThtck Ffler Cloth Wrap 4 at Each End V owl B irwh Thick Quarry Run Matrts Underlain by Fltar Fabric --17' 12 SENT By:xerox Telecopier 7021 2— 7-96 ; 6:52AM 6196745368-' 213420 Table 1. List of avian species known, or reasonably expected to occur within the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project Study area. species Common Name (Scientific Name) status1 Brown pelican (Pelicanuc Qgpidntalic) peregrine falcon (Falco pereariuua) H Snowy plover (r!harathiuc nivocua) T Semipalmated plover (Charadritic cetriia1matua) Killdeer (haradriuc vociføua) Lesser golden plover (PluvialiB deinica) Black-bellied plover (P1uvia1is cquatarola) Spotted sandpiper (ctitiS macularia) Ruddy turnitona (Aranaria iterpren) Black turnatone (Aranaria malanocephala) Band.rling (ca1{drie ala) Dunlin (Calidria alpina) Baird's sandpiper (calidria bairdii) Red knot (alidrio gutua) western sandpiper (calidri tnauri) Stilt sandpiper (Micropalana himaritopi.a Pectoral sandpiper (galidris melanotoc) Least sandpiper (a1idris uti11a) Willet (at0- Wandering tattler (1eterosc4uc ifloaflus) Dowitchers (Limnodronua spp.) Marbled gedwit (Linaa f agog) Long-billed curlew (Nuinaniuc ameriean.ia) Whimbtsl (Ntimenitis arpue) Lessor y.l].ow].aga (Trinca flavipes) Greater y.11owl.gs (Tringa inelanolauoa) Herring gull argantatue) California gull (Larus califorriicus) New gull (Larus p.ts) Ring-billed gull (us dalawarensis) Glaucous-winged gull (LaruS glaucescens) Neerman' e gull (barns hearnami) Western gull (Laruc occidental") Bonaparte's gull (baruS philadelthia) Herring gull (Larus argtatus) California gull (Lana califorrilotis) Now gull (Laruc caa) California least tern (rna antillarum broini) H Elegant tern (Sterna gqans) Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) Forstsr's tern (Sterna forsteri) Common tern (Sterna biriid) Royal tern (Sterna maxima) Rock dove (luntha livia) American crow (cnrvua bhvynchoa) Common raven (rvne corax) urop.an starling (Sturnus gS.âA) 13 SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 2- 7-96 ; 8:52AM ; 6196745388 213421 Table 1. (continued) Species Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Brewer's blackbird (Euphaaua eiya002ettha1u) Mouse finch (ca1p04at1ua mexiaiu) Mouse sparrow (Passer dnmeticua) 1 Status; E refers to species which are listed as endangered by the respective government agencies. T refers to species that are listed as threatened by the respective government agencies. 14 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES CARLSBAD FIELD OFFICE 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 March 31, 1994 Colonel Robert VanAntwerp U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 Re: Planning Aid Letter for Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection Studies for Oceanside and Carlsbad, California. Attn: Haley Lovan Dear Colonel VanAntwerp: This is in fulfillment of the FY94 Scope of Work (SOW) between our agencies requesting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provide a Planning Aid Letter (PAL) regarding the potential effects to the fish and wildlife resources by the implementation of several alternatives for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection in Oceanside and Carlsbad, San. Diego County, California. The SOW outlined the proposed project and alternatives. Our information is preliminary in nature and is provided as technical assistance to aid in your planning process. The PAL describes: 1) the biological resources within the proposed project and study areas based on a literature review and a brief field visit; 2) an analysis of the proposed alternatives and their possible effects on biological resources within the project and study areas; 3) preliminary avoidance and mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the biological resources; and 4) preliminary Service recommendations regarding the proposed alternatives. This PAL is intended to assist with the preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a feasibility study. This letter is for planning purposes only and does not constitute the report of the Secretary of Interior within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). If a Federally listed species may be affected, the lead Federal agency or Federal permitting agency for this project must request formal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ACT) in writing through our office. "Informal consultation" may be used to exchange information and resolve conflicts with respect to listed species prior to a written request for formal consultation. The Service's analysis of this project and recommendations are based on information provided in the 1) scope of work (SOW) project description, 2) preliminary information in support documents for the SOW provided to the Service on December 8, 1993, 3) a field survey conducted by the Service's staff, 4) various scientific papers, technical reports, and letters; 5) information contained in the Service's files and library, and 6) tIe Service's best collective professional judgment. We hope that the above analysis proves useful and we look forward to continued exchange during the planning process of this project. If you have any questions regarding our comments please contact Mark A. Pavelka of my staff at (619) 431-9440. SLflrely, Ao-P Le:~ Ga C. Kobetich Field Supervisor I PLANNING AID LETTER Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection Carlsba4 and Oceanside, San Diego County. California Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Los Angeles, California Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, California Field Supervisor Gail C. Kobetich Federal Projects Supervisor John Hanlon Author Mark A. Pavelka March 1994 & U TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .1 Description of Proj ec Alternatives . 1 Methods and Materials ..........................4 Results ..................................4 Environment Without the Project General Description ..................4 Vegetation .........................5 Invertebrates .......................6 Fish ............................6 Reptiles and Amphibians .................7 Birds ...........................7 Mi,mls .........................12 Environment With the Project ..................13 Discussion and Conclusions ......................14 Summary and Recommendations ......................15 Literature Cited ...........................16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area Location Map ...................2 Figure 2. Oceanside and Carlsbad Reaches and Sub-reaches ........3 41 INTRODUCTION This constitutes a Planning Aid Letter (PAL) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the preliminary assessment of project impacts"for the Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection, Oceanside and Carlsbad Reaches, Reconnaissance Study, San Diego County, California. A map showing the location of the project area and vicinity is presented in Figure 1. Our information is preliminary in nature and is pzovided as technical assistance to aid in your planning process. It describes: 1) the biological resources within the proposed project1 and study2 areas based on a literature review and field survey; 2) an analysis of the proposed alternatives and their possible effects on biologiil resources within the project and study aeas; 3) preliminary avoidance a4 mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the biological resources; and 4) preliminary Service recommendations regarding the proposed alternatives. The proposed project has been divided into two study reaches distinguished by local government jurisdictions (Figure 2). The Oceanside reach extends approximately four miles along the coast from Oceanside Harbor south to Buena Vista Lagoon. The Carlsbad reach begins at Buena Vista Lagoon and extends southward for approximately 7 miles to Batiquitos Lagoon. The Carlsbad reach has been further divided into 5 sub-reaches (Figure 2). DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Five structural and non-structural alternatives are identified by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the Oceanside reach. The proposed alternatives are 1) revetments, 2) sea walls, 3) offshore breakwaters, 4) groins, and 5) beach replenishment. A no action alternative is not discussed with respect to the Oceanside reach. Eight alternatives, structural and non-structural, are described by the Corps for the Carlsbad reach. The alternatives are 1) beachfill in sub- reaches 1 and 2, 2) a groin system with beachfill in sub-reaches 1 and 2, 3) an offshore breakwater system in sub-reaches 1 and 2, 4) a 600-foot long revetment in sub-reach 1, 5) beachfill in sub-reach 3, 6) a groin system with beachfill in sub-reach 3, 7) an offshore breakwater system in sub- reach 3, 8) a 2,400-foot long seawall/revetment in sub-reach 3, and 9) extend the northernmost inlet jetty at Agua Hedionda Lagoon approximately 200 to 400 feet, to -12 feet mean sea level. 1Project Area - the area that will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Direct impacts are described here as the effects for which some aspect of the construction of the proposed project results in the direct destruction or replacement of the environmental resource(s). 2Study Area - the area that includes the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project. Indirect impacts are described here as the eventual loss of the resource(s) through a process of deterioration or replacement of environmental resources indirectly caused, or triggered by some aspect of the proposed project. 1 -06 IPA PEAK j wi A.. V.' J - r ' 9' Sta to 14 -MCI - - I - 7 c:meectms'y//fk , .t.-_ - - 97 - — - \7. 20 ,. — —4get °- i .. •'•. ,r4ianLJIs/sey.'Rr • • •1 •-_ j+ 21 _ varr .0c N51DE 7 uti 0ceanside :' •. : •. . - •.-- .— . cafisaaa 1L lL. .. 1 '-' •'.- . QakJy — "C 3ach ea PROJECT LI14ITS Cud Cud - St Boca k I I I 1 ' Scale 1:250.000 — 5 10 15 20 Statute Miles Figure 1. Location of project area for the Storm Damage Reduction and Shoreline Protection Reconnaissance Study, Oceanside and Carlsbad Reaches, San Diego County, California. 170- ________________________ L ;_•, k I \ \\ /&L — - I EN S. • •: 0. 19 IT S t. 'I I f• ;_ I I i,ii_J! 4- - ' F a - tb.. t.i I ' •i1; - ' uiL1tL- B ' 17 Ij I _____________ • tiI;rr.•04M.11 -. ••i•- .., •1 3176 It 'ql ( -. .-• . - •' ! a,i;.. / f,J;1L& 1IijLI.eiJ/: 14 al .--..-,3 r I Vv 04 '(i 4' •:fL _ rrn7i ro /,;;_ giire 2. Oceanside and Carlsbad reaches and sub-reaches. 46 The alternatives are not mutually exclusive and the Corps indicates that a final, preferred alternative would probably contain features from several of the alternatives listed. ICZ A :IA:ZL.L This Planning Aid Letter was prepared by Mark A. Pavelka, Project Biologist, under the supervision of John Hanlon, Federal Projects Coordinator, and Gail C. iCobetich, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, California. The Service's analysis of this project and recommedations are, based on information provide4 in the 1) scope of work (SOW) 'oject description, 2) preliminary information in support documents for th' SOW provided to the Service on December 8, 1993, 3) a field survey conducted by the Service's staff, 4) various scientific papers, technical reports, and letters; 5) information contained in the Service's files and library, and 6) the Service's best collective professional judgment. RESULTS Environment Without the Project 1. General Description The cities of Oceanside and Carlsbad are located along the northwestern coast of San Diego County, California, approximately 60 miles north of the Mexican border. Within the borders of these two cities there are approximately 12 miles of city-owned beaches. Historically, sediments have been supplied to these beaches from four rivers, San Mateo Creek, San Onofre Creek, Santa Margarita River, and San Luis Rey River (State of California 1977). However, flood control dams and other structures which have restricted flows bearing sediment, and modifications in the coastline profile have deprived the beaches of an adequate supply of sand (Simons, Li and Associates 1985, Corps of Engineers 1986, Corps of Engineers 1987a). Additional sediments have historically flowed from three lagoons in the study area, Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos (Inman 1984). Human developments, including roads and fill for structural projects, have severly restricted the flow from two of these lagoons and only Agua Hedionda remains permanently open to tidal flushing. The Oceanside and Carlsbad reaches are located in the middle of the Oceanside Littoral Cell with a predominate southward sediment transport (Corps of Engineers 1986). However, nearcoast currents are weak and can flow either north or south at any time of the year (State of California 1977). It is estimated that the annual net movement of sand' from the Oceanside study area due to littoral transport mechanisms is 215,000 cubic yards downcoast (Corps of Engineers 1970). Beach erosion problems were intiated with the construction of Oceanside Harbor in 1942. The jetties and breakwater interrupted the downcoast littoral drift that carried sand to the city beaches. To counter sediment depletion and beach erosion, up to 3,615,000 cubic yards of sand has been a placed annually on Oceanside beaches (Corps of Engineers 1970). Additional sand is supplied to Oceanside beaches by the Oceanside Harbor sand bypass system, when it is functioning. The beaches in this study that are currently covered with sand end from Oceanside Harbor south through sub-reach 3 of the Carlsbad reach. Beach widths in these areas range from approximately 1. to 100 feet. The beaches are currently covered with cobble in sub-reaches 4 and 5 of the Carlsbad reach. There is a small amount of rocky intertidal habitat off the coast of the Carlsbad reach. Except for the northernmost 1 mile of beach, the bches in the study area are backed by 10 to 10O foot high mesas of sandstoM silt stone, and mudstone overlain by' marine terrace deposits (Corps 59f Engineers 1987b). Private houses, public roadways, and a State Park line the tops of most of these bluffs. Some of the areas with private homes are protected with rip- rap along the shoreline. The climate of coastal southern California is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, relatively wet winters. Typical winter temperatures range from 40-60F, while 65-95°F can be expected during the summer months. Precipitation consists almost entirely of winter rainfall, averaging about 15 inches per year in the area. Tidal levels in the study areas have a mean range of 3.7 feet and a diurnal range of 5.3 feet. Average annual wave height is 3.5 feet with occasional 10-12 foot breakers (Corps of Engineers 1970). 2. Vegetation The proposed project area has essentially two vegetation types: coastal strand and marine habitats. The mudflat, salt pan, marsh, and open water habitats within the three lagoons, Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos, and at the estuaries of the Santa Margarita and San Luis Rey Rivers, also lie within the study area and could potentially be affected by the proposed projects. High levels of public recreation on the beaches coupled with periodic losses of sandy substrates due to erosion have impacted these vegetation communities. However, since no recent surveys of the vegetation conimunties have been conducted in the study area, it is not possible to estimate extent of these impacts or the distribution of remaining sensitive species. Coastal strand vegetation is typically sparse throughout the study area. This is probably due to the high levels of human use and periodic erosion of the sandy, substrates. Based on a literature search and comparisons of known range, distribution, and apparent suitable habitat, one Federal category 1 species, coastal dunes milk vetch (Astragalus tener va. titi), and two Federal category 2 species, aphanisma (ADhanisma blitoides) and prostrate lotus (Lotus nuttallianus), could reasonbly be expected to occur in the project area. Common coastal strand species expected to occur in the project area include sand verbena (Abronia rnaritima), sea rocket (Cakj].e marjtiina), sand-burr (Ambrosia chamissonia). and hottentott fig 5 (Caroobrotus edults). Non-native plants such as Arundo donax, iceplant, and various ornamentals commonly occur along the margins of the beach (pers. obs.). :a:ac iiasthat occur i:hin the study area include algal and phytoplanktonic. Bradshaw et al. (1976) identified 26 species of marine subtidal algae in Agua Hedionda Lagoon, including three species of kelp. Four seperate kelp beds have also been known to occur along the shoreline of the study area (San Diego Coast Regional Commission 1974). Phytoplankton form the base of the marine food chain and live within the euphotic zone of the ocean. Since these plants are reliant upon sunlight for energy, they are highly sensitive to changes in turbidity. No reenc surveys of marine vegetatto in the study area have been conducted.' 3. Invertebrates Invertebrates comprise approximately 90 percent of all animal species in the world, and are the most abundant classification of animals in inter- and subtidal ecosystems. In coastal and estuarine systems, invertebrates perform essential roles in various ecological interactions, including prey, predators, water purifiers, grazers, decomposers, and biological control agents. Many species of birds are highly dependent upon them as forage (Smith 1980). While relationships are often unclear, it appears that these interactions generally enhance the stability of the ecosystem. The stability is, however, weakened when large-scale reductions occur in the complexity, diversity, and redundancy of species richness and interactions (May 1973, Usher 1986). Based on a literature search and comparisons of known range, distribution, and apparent suitable habitat, six Federal category 2 species of invertebrates may occur within the study area. Four of these species, the sandy beach tiger beetle (Cincidela hirticollis gravida), globose dune beetle (Coelus globosus), oblivious tiger beetle (Cicindela latesignata obliviosa), and penisular range shoulderband (He1mintho1vDta traskiae coelata), prefer habitats along beach fronts and on sandy hummocks. The other two species, mimic tyronia (Tyronia imitator) and the salt marsh skipper (Panociuina errans), prefer estuarine habitats and may occur within any of the three lagoons. Aquatic invertebrates expected to occur within the study area include worms, barnacles, clams, mussels, urchins, starfish, anemones, amphipods, snails, crabs, and lobster. Most of these invertebrates have specific habitat requirements which range from rocky intertidal, to sand beaches, to benthic soft bottoms. No Federal listed endangered or threatened marine invertebrate species have been identified in the study areas. However, no recent invertebrate surveys have been conducted in the study area. 4. Fishes Different fish communities would be expected to occur in the marine intertidal, marine subtidal, and estuarine habitats of the study area. 6 Based on a literature survey, a minimum of 63 species of fish either occur (Bradshaw at al. 1976) or could reasonably be expected to occur (Bradshaw at al. 1976, Southern California Edison Company 1978, Corps of Engineers 1990) in the study area, including the Federal listed endangered tidewater g3b7 (!c::obius newberryl). Tidewa:ar ;bys are often washed 'prom the lagoons into the ocean during high water and storm events. The gobys then move douncurrent in the nearshore waters and disperse into other lagoons. The offshore kelp beds and the tidal systems of the lagoons in the study area are important in the life cycle of a number of coastal marine fish species including the diamond turbot (Hvsoi,setta guttulata) and California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). Nearshore fish popuations not only play a vital rolge in marine ecosystems but also serve as te prey base for some avian specs, including the Federal listed endangered California least tern which forages for small fish in shallow nearshore waters (mostly just outside the surf zone). Some of the preferred prey species that occur in the study area include northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), topsmelt (Athertnops affinis), and jacksmelt (Aeherinops californiensis). Factors which affect the abundance and distribution of these fish species can also influence the distribution and reproductive success of least terns. California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis), a sport fish species, is known to breed along the Oceanside beaches each year between March and August. The fish come to shore in large numbers to spawn, laying their eggs in the beach sand. The eggs must remain near the surface.of the sand to allow for oxygen exchange and to prevent the hatchlings from getting trapped too deep or buried. Because of these habitat requirements, grunion reproductive success can easily be influence by human activities along the shoreline. No Federal listed endangered or threatened species of fish have been identified in the study area. However, no recent surveys of the fish resources have been conducted in the study area. Amphibians and Reptiles Based on the known range and distribution, the Federal listed endangered San Diego horned lizard (Phrvnosoma coronatum blainvillet), the Federal proposed endangered arroyo toad (Bufo microscavhus caitfornicus), and two Federal candidate 2 species, the orangeehroated whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus hviervthrus) and the western spadefoot toad (ScaDhioPus hammondii), could be reasonably expected to occur within the study area. Because the study area encompasses five large estuarine lagoons, there is a potential for numerous other species of amphibians and reptiles. However, no recent hqpetologica1 surveys have been conducted in the study area. Birds Based on a literature search and comparisons of known range, distribution, and apparent suitable habitat 140 species of birds could reasonbly be expected to occur in the study area (Table 1). Table 1. List of avian species known, or reasonably expected to occur within the Oceanside/Carlsbad Shoreline Stabalization Study area. Species Co=on Name (Scientific Name) Status1 Federal I'tate Co=on loon (Gavia mimer) Pacific loon (Gavia acifica) Red-throated loon (Gavia stellata) Clark's grebe (Aechmonhorus clarkil) Western grebe (Aecbmophorus occidentalis) Horned grebe (Podicei,s auritus) Eared grebe çEodiceps nigricoflis) Pied-billed gr'e'be (Podilvmbus nodicens) American white pelican (Pelicanus ervhtrorhvnchos) Brown pelican (Pelicanus occidentalis) E E Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) Brandt's cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus) Magnificent frigatebird (Fregata inawnificens) Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) American bittern (Botaurus lentizinosus) Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) Green-backed heron (Butorides striatus) Great egret (Casmerodius albus) Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) Snowy egret (Egretta thula) Tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor) Black-crowned night-heron (Nvcticorax nvcticorax) Northern pintail (Anas acuta) American vigeon (Anas americana) Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) Green-winged teal (Arias crecca) Cinnamon teal (Arias cyanootera) Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) Mallard (Arias platyrhyrichos) Cadwall (Anas strenera) Lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) Greater scaup (Aythya niarila') Oldsquav (Clangula hyeinalis) Redhead (Aythya americana) Ring-necked duck (Aythya collarts) Canvasback (Aythya valisneria) Brant (Branta bernicla) Canada goose (Branta canadensis) Bufflebead (Bucei,hala albeola) Common goldeneye (Buceihala clangula) Snow goose (Chen caerulescens) White-winged scoter (Melanitta fusca) Surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) 8 Table 1. (continued) Species Common Name (Scientific.Name) Status Federal tate Coon merganser (Mergus merganser) Ruddy duck (Oxvura jainaicensis) Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) Cooper's hawk (Accii,iter cooierti) Sharp-shinned hawk (Acciiter striatus) Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) Northern harrr (Circus c'yaneus) Black-shouldered kite (Elanus caerulens) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Merlin (Falco columbarius) Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) Peregrine falcon (Falco i,eregrinus) E E American kestrel (Falco sparverius) American coot (Fulica americana) Common moorhen (Callinula chloropus) Sora (Porzana caroling) Virginia rail (Rallus limicola) Light-footed clapper rail (R. longirostrus levipes) E E Snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) T Semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) Lesser golden plover (Pluvialis dominica) Black-bellied plover (Pluvialis spuatarola) Black-necked stilt (Himantous mexicanus) American avocet (Recurvirostra americana) Spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia) Ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) Black turustone (Arenaria inelanocephala) Sanderling (Calidris alba) Dunlin (Calidris alpina) Baird's sandpiper (Calidris bairdii) Red knot (Calidris canutus) Western sandpiper (Calidris maurt) Stilt sandpiper (Micropalana hitnantopus) Pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) Least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) Villet (Catotrophortis semipalinatus) Common snipe (Gallinago gallinago) Wandering tattler (Heteroscelus incanus) Dowitchers (Limnodromus spp.) Marbled goduit (Limosa fedoa) Long-billed curlew (Nuxnenius americanus) .3 Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) Red phalarope (Pha1arous fulicaria) Table 1. (continued) Species Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Federal itate Red-necked phalarope (Phalarotrns lobatus) Wilson's phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) Lesser yellowlegs (Trinza flavii,es) Greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) Herring gull (Larus argentatus) California gull (Larus californicus) Nev gull (Larus canus) Ring-billed gill (Larus delawarensis) Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens) Heerman's gull (Larus heermanni) Western gui]. (Larus occidenta],is) Bonaparte's gull. (Larus ihiladelDhia) Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactvla) Black skimmer (RynchoDs niger) Parasitic Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus) California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) Caspian tern (Sterna casøia) Elegant tern (Sterna elegans) Forster's tern (Sterna forsteri) Co=on tern (Sterna hirundo) Royal tern (Sterna maxima) Rock dove (Columba ljvia) Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) Common ground dove (Columbina i,asserina) Greater roadrunner (Ceococcyx californianus) Barn owl (Tyto alba) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Great horned owl. (Bubo virinianus) White-throated swift (Aeronautes saxatalis) Vaux's swift (Cbaetura vauxi) Belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans) Black phoebe (Savornis nigricans) Horned lark (Ereniohila alpestris) Cliff swallow (Hirundo yrrhonota) Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Co=on raven (Corvus corax) Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) American pipit (Anthus rubescens) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanoceøhalus) 10 Table 1. (continued) Species Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Federal State Common yellowthroat (Geothivois trichas) Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sanduichensis nevadensis) Balding's savannah sparrow ( beldini) . 2 Large billed savannah sparrow (L. 1. rostratus) 2 Song sparrow (Melosniza melodia) Lincoln's sparrow (Melosniza lincolnit) White-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leuconhrv) House finch (garnodacus mexicanus) House sparrow'(Passer dotnesticus) 1 Status: E refers to species which are listed as endangered by the U respective government agencies. I refers to species that are listed as threatened by the respective government agencies. 2 (Category 2) refers to species which may be warranted for listing as Federally endAngered or threatened, but sufficient information is not currently available to make a determination. (Category 3) refers to species that have proven to be more abundant or widespread than previously believed and/or those that are not subject to any identifiable threat (USFWS 1991). The majority of these species are considered common residents or migrants. However, four species, the California least tern, light-footed clapper rail, peregrine falcon, and brown pelican, are Federal listed endangered, and one, the western snowy plover, is Federal listed threatened. California least terns are known to nest on the sandy beaches and islands within Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos lagoons. The terns use the lagoons and shallow coastal waters in the study area for foraging. The reproductive success of least terns is closely associated with the availability of prey near breeding areas. The light-footed clapper rail is a secretive resident of southern California coastal wetlands and has been found in the marsh areas of each lagoon in the study area. The principle cause of decline in this species has been the destruction and degradation of coastal wetland habitat. Zembal and Massey (1988) determined that the seasonal formation of inland lakes at coastal estuaries with closed ocean inlets drown out foraging substrate and force clapper rails to upland fringes where they are exposed to predators. Portions of each marsh that are not periodically inundated dry out resulting in the loss of the forage base and alteration of marsh characteristics. Western snowy plovers have been known to breed on the sandy beaches and in areas around the lagoons. They are highly sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season and may abandon their nests in response to nearby human activity. Snowy plover nests are very cryptic and easily stepped on or otherwise disturbed by unaware sunbathers. The coastal beaches also serve 11 not only as breeding areas but also as important foraging grounds to migrating and resident snowy plovers during the winter months. The plovers are insectivorous and often rely upon the decaying vegetative debris lying along the beaches that attracts their prey. Their affinity for sandy beac3, •r -- r. -arid hi;h sensitivity to disturance, is in direct conflict with recreational beach use and associated management practices. A comprehensive survey of the avifauna in the study area, and an investigation into their use of the local resources would be necessary to evaluate any proposed projects. 7. Mammals Based on a literature search and comparisons of known range, distribution, and apparent suitable habitat 18 species of mammals could reasonbly be expected to occur in the study area (Table 2). Table 2. List of mammalian species known, or reasonably expected to occur within the Oceanside/Carlsbad Shoreline Stabalization Study area. Species Common Name (Scientific Name) Federal Status1 Opossum (Didelhis virginiana) Ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus) Brush rabbit (Sylvilazus bachmani) Desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) S.D. Black-tailed jackrabbit (Letus californicus bennettit) 2 California ground squirrel (Sermophilus beechevi) Dusky-footed voodrat (Neotoma fuscines) San Diego pocket mouse (Perofnathus fallax fallax) 2 California pocket mouse (Perognathus californicus) Western harvest mouse (Reithrodonl:omys megalotis) Deer mouse (Peronivscus rnanjculatus) California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) Brush mouse (Peromyscus bovlei) California meadow mouse (Microtus californicus) Coyote (Canis latrans) Gray fox (Urocvon cinereoarzentues) Red fox (Vulnes fulva) Raccoon (Procyon lotor) Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) Stripped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Spotted skunk (Spilogale Dutorius) Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Pacific Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) E California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 1 Status: E refers to species that are listed as endangered by the Federal government. 2 (Category 2) refers to species which may be warranted for 12 Table 2. (continued) listing as Federally endangered or threatened, but sufficient information is not currently available to make a determination. The number of mammalian species expected to occur in the study area is low due to the high levels of human activity and disturbance. However, the Federal listed endangered Pacific pocket mouse (Peronathus longiinembris pacificus) may occur in the area based on the species known historic range and distribution. No recent mammal surveys have been conducted in the study area. Environment With the Project YR The Corps has presented five "action" alternatives in the Oceanside reach, eight "action" alternatives in the Carlsbad reach, and no "no action" alternatives in either project area. If any of the alternatives are implemented, both short- and long-term effects are likely to occur within the project and study areas and other coastal and estuarine habitats. Short-term direct impacts such as wildlife mortality, displacement, and disturbance throughout the construction period would be expected to occur, though impossible to quantify. Species utilizing the reaches could already be suffering from displacement due to concurrent County, State, and Federal projects. Long-term impacts would vary depending on the alternative implemented. All proposed alternatives would, however, lead to increased disturbance in the reaches due to increased human activities. High levels of disturbance will reduce the amount of habitat available to some sensitive species. Beach replenishment without containment may conflict with current "restoration/enhacement" projects in the study area leading to reduced tidal flushing in the coastal lagoons and extirpation of some sensitive species. The additional sand will also cover intertidal and some subtidal rocky habitats and may reduce the viability of offshore kelp beds. An introduction of groin structures along the beaches would prevent sediments from depositing on beaches south of the project area. This would create new problems necessitating additional beach stabilization projects throughout the southern half of the Oceanside Littoral Cell. Groin structures would also hamper the natural dispersal mechanisms of tidewater gobys by restricting their downcurrent movement. Lastly, groins provide shelter for von-native predatory species such as feral cats and Norway rats (Rattus norveEicus). Feral cats are capable of depredating and significantly impacting sensitive species in adjacent habitats. Although revetments and seawalls would prevent erosion of the coastal bluffs, they would accelerate the loss of beach sediments throughout the project area resulting from the scouring action of reflected wave energy during storms. The loss of these sandy beaches may result in the 13 extirpation of several endangered and sensitive species from the project area. Erosion of the coastal bluffs also provides a source of beach material to the longshore drift. Many of the local sand sources have been lost due to flood control structures such as debris basins and sand and g?avai. :ti:r.s in th :oastal streams and rivers. Revetments atd seawalls would further reduce the natural beach nourishment processes. These structures would also result in a direct loss of habitat and potentially sensitive species along the coastal bluffs. A series of offshore breakwaters would serve to reduce wave energy impacts on the beach and slow the shoreline erosion process, however, beach erosion and loss of shoreline habitat would continue at a decelerated rate. Offshore breakaters may also affect the distributn of nearshore fish populatons that serve as prey for terns and other sbirds. The potential effects of the proposed breakwaters on the local kelp communities are unknown. Finally, the breakwaters would result in a direct loss of soft bottom and possibly rocky subtidal habitats. Discussion and Conclusions The coastal beaches and estuaries in the study area are dynamic systems that support a high diversity of plant and animal species. Any project that attempts to prevent the natural processes of a coastal system will have local and regional impacts on the species which depend upon a dynamic system. In southern California, modifications to the coastline have caused significant negative impacts on the nearby wildlife and habitats and have caused a cascade of downcoast problems, each necessitating another remedial project. For these reasons, nonstructural alternatives that seek to restore and emulate the natural processes are preferable to structural alternatives. Although several Federal listed endangered and threatened species are known to occur throughout the study area, there is very little information available regarding the biological, resources in the proposed project site. Surveys of the flora and fauna in the study area need to be conducted and the importance of the area to sensitive species assessed. Water turbidity can significantly influence the foraging success of many bird species, including the California least tern and brown pelican. Some methods used to transport and deposit beach fill could result in increased turbidity and reduced foraging success. The placement of fill along the shoreline will also bury and kill many of the invertebrates which form the prey base for shorebirds. Therefore, those methods of fill which reduce the potential for increases in nearshore turbidity and minimize the amount of shoreline,, buried during each fill activity would be preferred. Habitat loss and degredation could be offset by the establishment of a natural reserve along a suitable portion of the beach, such as the sand spit at the mouth of the San Luis Rey River. Alternatively, a cooperative effort could be pursued with the California State Parks Department in establishing a natural reserve near the mouth of Batiquitos Lagoon. 14 ( Summary and Recommendations There is very little information available regarding the biological resources in the proposed project site. Biological surveys conducted in the lagoons and other carts of the study area are not recent. In keneral, the Service is concerned about the potential loss or degredation of habitat and the increase in human activities and disturbance. In order to minimize impacts to biological resources in the study area, the Service recommends that: - all impacts to threatened and endangered species be avoided. - formal constltation pursuant to section 7 Of..the Endangered Species Act of 1973, a aended, be initiated if thr4tened or endangered species may be affected, direãtly or indirectly, by any project alternative(s). - project implementation be scheduled t0 avoid the breeding periods of California least terns and grunion. - the flora and fauna in the project area be surveyed prior to the implementation of the proposed projects and a monitoring program should be established to evaluate the long-term impacts and benefits realized. - the Corps initiate a study quantifying the importance of nearshore waters in the study area to California least terns and other endangered and threatened species. The results should be interpreted in reference to the potential impacts of each proposed alternative. - beach nourishment projects be designed to minimize the area where sediments are placed thereby reducing impacts to coastal invertebrates. This could be accomplished through the use of diked impoundments and allowing the natural processes to distribute the sediments throughout the study area. - the Corps identify the area where sediments will be obtained for proposed beach nourishment projects and include this area into any impacts analysis. - the Corp pursue those alternatives which are non-structural and either restore or compliment the natural processes in the project area. - the corps consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service to identify and monitor potential impacts to kelp bed resources throughout the project area. - the cities, in cooperation with State Parks, establish a beach reserve for sensitive wildlife displaced by the project and subsequent increases in human activity. - 15 - the Corps map the profile of the ocean floor throughout the project area. The bottom profiles should be monitored to examine the changes and impacts due to the proposed projects. Literature Cited Bradshaw, J. B. Browning, K. Smith, and J. Speth. 1976. The Natural Resources of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Unpublished report prepared for the Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Southern California Edison Company. 1978. Annual perating Report, San Onofre Nuclea9 Generating Station, Volume IV'iological, Sedimentologicul, and Oceanographic Data Axia1is, 1978. Unpublished report prepared for Southern California Edison Company by Brown and Caldwell, Lockeed Center for Marine Research, and Marine Biological Consultants. Corps of Engineers. 1970. Beach Errosion Control Report, Cooperative Research and Data Collection Program of Coast of Southern California, Cape San Martin to Mexican Boundary, Three Year Report 1967-1968- 1969. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Corps of Engineers. 1986. Southern California Coastal 'Processes Data Summary. CCSTWS 86-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Corps of Engineers. 1987a. Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report. CCSTWS 87-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Corps of Engineers. 1987b. Coastal Cliff Sediments,' San Diego Region. CCSTWS 87-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. May, P.M. 1973. Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey. San Diego Coast Regional Commission. 1974. Life in the Sea, the Marine Environment of the San Diego Coast. San Diego Regional Commission, California. Smith, K.C.V. editor. 1973. Insect and Other Arthropods of Medical Importance. British Museum, London, England. Simons, Li aiad'Associates, Inc. 1985. Final Report - Analysis of the Impacts of Dams on Delivery of Sediment from the Santa margarita River, California. Project No. CA-COE-04. State of California. 1977. Assessment and Atlas of Shoreline Erosion Along the California Coast. State of California - the Resources Agency, Dept. of Navigation and Ocean Development. 16 Inman, D. 1984. Si,i,umy Report of Man's Impact on the California Coastal Zone. Unpublished report prepared for the State of California - the Resources Agency, Dept. of Boating and Waterways. Usher, M.B. 1986. Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. Chapman and'Hal1, London, England. 17 APPENDIX E CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CEQA REQUIREMENTS This report is intended to fulfill State CEQA requirements for the Proposed Project Action (Alternative 2), which is addressed in more detail in the enclosed Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Carlsbad Shoreline Protection Project, Carlsbad, California, in conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The following environmental review corresponds with and responds to questions on the appended initial study checklist. In addition, a comparison is made between the impacts of the proposed alternatives, and the impacts addressed in the EA. GENERAL COMMITMENTS: Prior to construction, the LAD/contractor will provide a 1-month notification of the planned activities to the appropriate agencies and post information bulletins of scheduled work time and areas at the appropriate offices. Construction will occur between September and mid-March. All construction materials will meet or exceed Corps standards. EARTH (Section 4.1 of EA) The proposed project will not result in or be affected by unstable geological conditions or changes in substructures. The action alternatives will not expose people or property to geologic hazards. The project will not destroy, cover or modify any unique geologic or physical features. There will be no increase in wind or water erosion of soils, on or off-site, as a result of implementation of either of the proposed alternatives. Mitigation: Not applicable. AIR (Section 4.4 of EA) Existing air quality in the project area has slightly elevated concentrations of Nox and CO, which currently exceed standards set by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD), Rules 1110, 1110.1, and 1110.2. No other pollutants, such as SOx, CO2 or particulates exceed these standards. Project emissions will likely contribute to the current NOx and CO exceedances; NOx is predicted to increase by 12.5 pounds per cubic foot (ppcf), and CO, 13.2 ppcf. Construction activities will result in temporary adverse air impacts; air impacts will not be significant. No long term impacts are expected. Commitment: Compliance with federal, state and local policies. To minimize short-term impacts, turbo-cooled exhaust recycling systems will be used on all construction equipment, and a three 1 degree adjustment in engine timing will be required on pile drivers and rock trucks. These measures will bring total emissions to less than 10 ppcf, an acceptable limit set by SDAPCD. WATER (Section 4.1 of EA) Oceanographic/water quality impacts will occur; impacts will be temporary and not significant. Sediment impacts are not expected. Mitigation: Not applicable. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Section 4.2 of EA) The affected benthic habitat consists primarily of supra-tidal sandy habitat, and secondarily inter-tidal habitat. Direct habitat destruction and disturbances will occur, and these impacts will be adverse, but not significant. It is anticipated that reconstructed areas will be fully colonized within a few months by species migration of the adjacent community and succession. It is expected that species colonization will be difficult to distinguish from that in the existing habitat within less than a year. Aside from the direct impacts, turbidity and noise impacts will occur over construction; however, these impacts will be temporary in nature. Impacts will not be significant. The Corps has determined the proposed project as scheduled will not have an affect nor jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed threatened or endangered species. Formal consultation pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not required for project implementation. Sensitive species impacts will not occur. tion: Not applicable. S. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES (Section 4.9 of EA) The project will not have an impact on a historic structure or archaeological site given the site neither contains nor is located near such a resource. Commitment: If cultural resources are discovered during construction and cannot be avoided, work will be suspended in that area until properties are evaluated for eligibility for 2 listing in NRHP in consultation with the SHPO. If properties are determined eligible for NRHP, effects of proposed construction will be taken into consideration in consultation with SHPO; and ACHP will be provided an opportunity to comment in. accordance with 36CFR800.11. ENERGY/NATURAL RESOURCES The proposed project will not use abnormally high amounts of fuel or energy. It will not increase demand on existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy, nor will it increase the rate of use of any natural resources or preclude the extraction on natural resources. Mitigation: Not applicable. AESTHETICS (Section 4.8 of EA) The proposed project will have temporary adverse aesthetic impacts during construction, but not significant. Placement of the seawall will also have long term impacts. Commitment: The City will decorate the seawall, pursuant to Section 3.3. The wall's design will also be covered with a graffiti-proof treatment to maintain its integrity. S. LAND USE (Section 4.5 of EA) The proposed project will not conflict with zoning or general plan designations, nor will it conflict with adjacent, existing or planned land uses. It will not induce urban growth. Significant adverse impacts are not expected. Mitigation: Not applicable. 9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION (Sections 4.6 of EA) The proposed project will temporarily increase local traffic. Traffic impacts will be adverse, but not significant. Commitment: Rock truck hauls will occur only between Monday and Friday. A flagman shall be provided to direct traffic (and people) in congested areas, if needed. 3 RECREATION (Section 4.5 of EA) The proposed project will enhance current recreational opportunities by providing a safer environment for the public; this will be a beneficial impact for the local area. Commitment: Construction is scheduled to avoid the peak beach use season; work will occur between September and mid-March. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY (Section 4.7 of EA) The action does not involve the risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances including oil, pesticide, chemicals or radiation in the event of an accident or disruption of conditions. It does not expose persons or the property to wildfire hazards. Nor will expose persons who occupy the site to these dangers. The proposal will not interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan, nor will it use or dispose of potentially hazardous materials. In fact, the proposed project will increase the safety currently provided to the Harbor area. Commitment: If such resources are discovered during construction, work will be suspended in the area until, all necessary survey and testing work is complete and a remediation plan acceptable to the appropriate Federal/State resource office(s) is developed. NOISE (Section 4.3 of EA) The proposed project will incrementally increase the noise levels in the project area, due to the use of construction equipment. This impact is short term in nature, and will not lead to exposure of people to noise levels in excess of local standards. Commitment: Construction will be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and sunset, Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and sunset on Saturday, with no work on Sundays or holidays. All construction equipment shall use properly working mufflers and be kept in a proper state of maintenance to alleviate backfires. LIGHT AND GLARE The proposed project will not produce light and/or glare impacts. Commitment: Not applicable. 4 14. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The proposed project will have no adverse physical impacts on the following facilities: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and other recreational facilities, electrical and natural gas distribution lines, communication systems, water, sewer/septic tanks, storm water drainage, and solid waste and disposal facilities. Commitment: Not applicable. FINDINGS: Recommended CEQA findings for Alternative 2, as outlined above and present in detail in the EA, is determined to adequately satisfy all requirements of CEQA. 5 C,,iiro.wiental Review S Project Rfevenct V ------- - $ACD: A. *ave of Proponent: tAh e/s/r 2/çLN 4c/ - B. Address and Phone Rjer of Proponent: C. Date of Checklist Submittal: 2.9 _4IAJu.t 75 OiECrL1ST Of ENY1RCMEKTAL IMPACTS: - Envir'm,v,ental Resource tm,acts 2. Earth Will the proposal result In-or be TES TT1ted FATBE KO 4, Biological Resources VIII the TrS PiAYBE RO by: proposal mutt in: A. Unstable earth conditions or in - _ A. Change in the diversity of species.- changes in geologic substructures? or number of any species of plants or I. Disruptior.s, oispl.ceeints, animals (including tests. shrubs. grass. Paction or overcovering of the soil? -- - - crops. uticroflora. aquatic plants, Change in topography or ground - _ birds, land animals, reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organism. surface relief features? insects or .icrofauna)? 0. The destruction, covering or - , B. Reduction of the ni,ers of any - - modification of any unique geologic unique, aesthetically significant. or physical features7 rare or endangered species of plants I. Any increase in wind or water or animals? erosion of soils, either on or off C. introduction of new species of - - the site? plants or animals into an area, or in F. Changes in deposition or erosion a barrier to the normal replenishment of beach sands, or changes in silt.- - or migration of existing species? tion, depesition or erosion which o. Reduction in acreage of any - - may codify the channel of a river or agricultural crop? stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, initt or lake? fish E. Deterioration of exlstin9 a*. or wildlife habitat? i . - - G. Exposure of people or property to - - geologic hazards Such as earthquakes. landslides. mueslides, ground S. Cultural/Scientific Resources Will the proposal result in aniTieration - - failure, or stellar hazards? of a significant archaeological or 2. Air Will thC prpcsal result in: historical site, structure, object or building. paleontological site. A. Increased air emissions or de.- - - or other important cultural/scienti- fic resource? teriorat4gn of a u 'cier.t air uali!4. iOA.. B. The cr ion c. objection.% Ic odors? - 6. - Natural Resources Vill the proposal C. Alteratior of air movement.result in: moisture or te:nperature. or any change A. increase in the rate of use of In climate, either locally or regionally? any natural resource? - D. Exp,sure of persons to locally - ,ç D. Substantial depletion of any elevated levels Cr air pollution? nonrenewable natural resource. inclu- - ,•• ding agricultural soils or open space? 3, Water Will the pr000sal result in: 7. )<. Aesthetics Viii the proposal result A. Changes In currents, or the course in the obstruction of any scenic vista - or directior if water roverents, in or view open to the public, or will the ei fresh waters? iiCi $nnf. Ww.C& proposal result in the creation of an he in ebsrpt on rates. drainage patternS, or the rate and aesthetically offensive site open to Public vi}6'iY '-'°' sev va'4 amount of surface water runoff? till the C. Alterations to the course or flow ;rO of flood waters? . - A. Use of substantial .amounts of fuel - - D. Change ir. the amount of surface water - - or energy? in any water body? B. increase demand upon existing sources - .E. Discharge into surface waters, or - , of energy, or require the development of ir any alteation of surface water Quality; of energy? includin; bt not lteiteI to temperature. Socioeconomic Impacts di55l,eC oxygen or turbidity? F. Alteration of the dirctiun or rate 9. - Land Use 11111 the proposal result in: f f; o ground waters? - A. Conflict with zoning or general plan - C. Cr.a-ce in the Quantity or quality of - - 25 designations for the property.? Conflict group,: -ate-S. either through direct with adjacent, existing or - - additions o witnCrca!s. or through planned land uses? interce;tien of an aquifer by Cuts or Inducement of urban growth? ezcave:iocis? H. Sutsantizi reduction in the amount 10. Transportation/ Circulation Will the - of wCttr otherwise available for public - - proposal result in: A. Generation of substantial additional water s,pplies? I. Esocsirt of people or property 50 vehicular movement? water TeLteC nazords such as - Effects on existing Parking facilities flooei,c n ?in,,i .,...., or deirand for new oark1no7 US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District FINAL REPORT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SECTION 103 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Volume II Appendices U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 April 1996 CARLSBAD SECTION 103 DETAILED PROJECT REPO R T Appendices Volume II April 1996 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DETAILED PROJECT REPORT, SECTION 103 FINAL REPORT, APRIL 1996 APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A - Coastal Engineering Appendix Appendix B - Economic Appendix Appendix C - Woodward-Clyde Consultants Seawall Design Appendix D - MCACES Cost Estimate Appendix E - Real Estate Appendix US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles Distnct FINAL REPORT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SECTION 103 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD,. CARLSBAD -SAN DIEGO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Appendix A Coastal Engineering Appendix U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles California 90012 April 1996 COASTAL ENGINEERING APPENDIX CARLSBAD 103 FEASIBILITY STUDY August 1995 Page 1.0 GENERAL ..............................11 1.1 Introduction .........................1-1 . . 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Previous Studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .....1-1 1.4 Previous Studies by Others ..................1-3 1.5 Existing Projects / Shoreline Features ............1-3 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Geographic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Bathymetry ...........................21 2.3 Regional Coastal Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 3.0 CLIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 General Climatic Conditions .................3-3. 3.2 Storms and Pressure Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 4.0 OCEANOGRAPHY ............................4-1 4.1 Tides and Water Levels ....................4-1 4.1.1 Tides ........................41 4.1.2 Water Levels .....................41 4.2 currents ...........................4-2 4.2.1 Offshore currents ...................4-2 4.2.2 Longshore Currents ..................43 4.2.3 Cross-shore Currents .................43 4.3 Waves ............................4-3 4.3.1 Exposure .......................44 4.3.2 Local Seas and Swell .................4.4 4.3.3 Storm Waves .....................44 4.4 Historic Coastal Storm Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 4.4.1 History of Storm Damage and Beach Erosion ......4-5 5.0 LITTORAL PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1 Littoral Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1.1 Oceanside Littoral Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1.2 Carlsbad Subreach ..................5-3. 5.2 Sediment Sources and Sinks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2.1 Streams, Creeks, and Drainages . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2.2 Coastal Bluffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2.3 Beach Erosion . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2.4 Sediment Sinks ....................5-2 5.3 Existing Structures, Beach Fills, and Dredging History . . 5-3 5.3.1 Existing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5.3.2 Beach Fills and:Dredging History . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5.4 Erosion and Accretion Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 5.4.1 Historic Shoreline Changes ..............s -s . . 5-5 5.4.2 Historic Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Longshoxe Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 5.6 Sediment Budget .......................5-, 5.6.1 Historic Sediment Budget ...............5-7 5.6.2 Sediment Budget for Future Without Project ..... 5-8 6.0 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1 Project Area Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.2 Sediment Transport Along Carlsbad Coastal Area ........6-1 2. 6.2.1 Historic Data 6-1 6.2.2 Shoreline Trends ...................6-1 6.2.3 Storm and Future Without Project Profiles ......6-2 6.3 Wave Runup Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 6.3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 6.3.2 Methods of Wave Runup Calculation . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 6.3.3 Statistical Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 6.4 Coastal Storm Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 6.5 Estimates of Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 6.5.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 6.5.2 Wave Height - Damage Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 6.5.3 Damage analysis to Coastal Facilities ........6-8 7.0 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.1 Planning Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.2 Preliminary Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.2.1 Beach Fill ......................7-1 7.2.2 Groin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.2.3 Seawall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2 7.3 Description of Alternate Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5 7.3.1 Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill ........ ... 7-5 7.3.2 Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawall . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5 7.3.3 Plan 3 - A 2,504-Foot Seawall ............7-5 7.4 Assessment of Alternate Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5 7.4.1 Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 7.4.2 Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawall . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7 7.4.3 Plan 3 - A 2,504-Foot Seawall ............7-B 7.5 Costs of Construction and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 7.5.1 Unit-Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 7.5.2 Construction Materials, Quantities, and Costs . . 7-8 7.5.3 Maintenance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 7.6 Optimization of Seawall Crest Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9 8.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 ii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.3. San Diego Tidal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 Table 4.2 Oceanside Harbor Extreme Wave Heights . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 Table 5.2. Annual Coastal Bluff Sediment Contribution ..........5-2 Table 5.2 Major Coastal Structures Effecting Longshore Transport . . . . 5-3 Table 5.3 Beach Fills and Relevant Dredging Within Carlsbad Study Area . 5-4 Table 5.4 Summary of Volume Change/Shoreline Values at Carlsbad . . . . 5-6 Table 5.5 Oceanside Longshore Sediment Transport Estimates .......5-6 Table 5.6 Net Sediment Transport Rates - Oceanside Littoral Cell . . . . 5-7 Table 61 Beach Recession at Carlsbad Coastal Area ...........6-3 Table 6.3 Water Elevation Statistics at Carlsbad Coastal Area .....6-6 Table 6.4 Wave Runup Statistics at Carlsbad Coastal Area ........6-6 Table 6.5 Revetment Damages - Present and Future Without Project . . . . 6-8 Table 6.6 Carlsbad Blvd. Damages - Present and Future Without Project . 6-9 Table 7.1 Carlsbad Reach 3 - Maximum Scour at Vertical Seawall .....7-3 Table 7.2 Plan 1 - Road Damage - With Project Beach Fill ........7-6 Table 7.3 Plan 1 - Revetment Damage - With Project Beach Fill .....7-7 Table 7.4a Plans 2 and 3 - Carlsbad Blvd. Damages . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7 Table 7.4b Plans 2 and 3 - Revetment Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7 Table 7.5 Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill - Cost Estimate ......7-10 Table 7.6 Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawall - Cost Estimate ........7-10 Table 7.7 Plan 3 - A 2,504-Foot Seawall - Cost Estimate ........7-11 Table 7.8 Carlsbad 103 Study - Optimization of Seawall Crest Elevation . 7-11 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1 Location Map of Carlsbad Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 Figure 2.2 Bathymetry of Carlsbad Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 Figure 4.1 Statistical Distribution of Higher High Water at San Diego . 4-6 Figure 5.1 Comparison of Profiles by Location from Oceanside Harbor to Carlsbad Submarine Canyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 Figure 5.2 Summary of Historic Sediment Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 Figure 5.3 Future Without Project Sediment Budget . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11 Figure 6.1a Five Reaches of Carlsbad Coastal Area . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10 Figure 6.1b Reach 3 of Carlsbad Coastal Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11 Figure 6.2 Schematic Profile of Carlsbad Reach 3 - Study Area .....6-12 Figure 6.3 Profile CB720 - Analysis of Shoreline and Volume Changes by ISRP ...............................6-13 Figure 6.4 Profile C3760 - Analysis of Shoreline and Volume Changes by ISRP ................................614 Figure 6.5 Profile CBSOO - Analysis of Shoreline and VolumeChanges by ISRP...............................6-15 Figure 6.6 Profile CB830 - Analysis of Shoreline and Volume Changes by ISRP ...............................6-16 Figure 6.7 Profile OS900 - Analysis of Shoreline and Volume Changes by ISRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17 Figure 7.1 A Seawall - Cross Section . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 7-12 Figure 7.2a Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill - Schematic .......7-13 Figure 7.2b Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill - Typical Cross Section of Beach Fill and Typical Profile of Groin . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14 Figure 7.2c Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill - Typical Cross Section of Groin .............................7-15 Figure 7.3a Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawal]. - Schematic . . . . . . . . . 7-16 Figure 7.3b Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawall - Typical Cross Section . . 7-17 Figure 7.4 Plan 3 - A 2,504-Foot Seawall - Schematic . . . . . . . . . . 7-18 Figure 7.5 Carlsbad 103 Study - Optimization of Seawall Crest Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19 iii 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Introduction The City of Carlsbad is located about 90 miles south of Los Angeles in San Diego County, California. Carlsbad has a shoreline of about 6 miles and is located to the south and downdrift side of Oceanside Beach and Oceanside Harbor. Tinder Section 103 of the Continuing Authorities Program, this appendix summarizes the coastal processes within the Carlsbad coastal area and presents a range of alternatives to mitigate potential storm damage and coastal flooding. 1.2 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this coastal engineering analysis of oceanographic and coastal phenomena at Carlsbad is to assess the problem of storm damages to the causeway section of Carlsbad Boulevard/State Highway 21 between the intake and oulet jetties of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. This assessment is used to identify the coastal storm hazard and develop alternate plans to reduce damages. Evaluation of these plans includes an analysis of hydrodynamic effects, impacts on coastal processes, the basis for design, and preliminary cost estimate for each alternate plan. 1.3 Previous Studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1.3.1 U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1980. "Survey Report for Beach Erosion, San Diego County, Vicinity of Oceanside, California," September, 1980. Though the authorized study area was the 7.2-mile shoreline between the Santa Margarita River and Agua Hedionda Lagoon, the erosion occurring between Buena Vista Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Lagoon was considered insufficient as to justify consideration for improvement. 1.3.2 U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1984. "Appraisal Report, Small Navigation Project, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad, California," December 1984. The purpose was to develop the information required to decide whether there was a Federal interest in dredging the shoaled area in the Agua Hedionda Inner Lagoon in order to maintain recreational activities. The result of an initial economic analysis indicated a benefit/cost ratio of 0.8 to 1.0. The report recommended that a reconnaissance report should be made to provide detailed information for the determination of the feasibility of dredging the shoaled area. 1.3.3 U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1989. "Section 103 Small Project, Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," February 1989. The study area was the causeway section of Carlsbad Blvd. fronting Agua Hedionda Lagoon between the intake and outlet jetties. The report developed and evaluated several preliminary alternative solutions and identified the groin system alternative as the most feasible one with a benefit/cost ratio of 1.1 to 1.0. The report recommended that funds should be provided for continuation of studies to the Reconnaissance Study phase. 1.3.4 U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1990. "Section 103 Small Project, Carlsbad Beach Erosion Control Reconnaissance Study, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," May 1990. This report (a) provided the current status of the Carlsbad Beach Erosion Reconnaissance Study; (b) addressed the problem of storm damages to the causeway section of Carlsbad Blvd. between the intake and outlet jetties; (c) gave an estimate of potential damage savings, recreation benefits, and equivalent project first costs. However, no project cost data were developed for comparison with the potential benefits, because the Study was discontinued at the request of the local sponsor prior to plan formulation for the alternative solutions. 1.3.5 U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1990. "Sediment Budget Report, Oceanside Littoral Cell," CCSTWS 90-2, Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study, November, 1990. The MSL (mean sea level) shoreline retreated at an average rate of 1 ft/year from Central Oceanside to Batiquitos Lagoon. The result was obtained from compilation of all the data: the NOS maps (1888 to 1982), aerial photos (1938 through 1988), and 10 Corps profiles taken at 26 range lines between 1954 and 1988. 1.3.6 U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1991. "State of the Coast Report, San Diego Region," Volume 3. - Main Report, Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study. Final - September 1991. This report summarized the results of the (CCSTWS) for the San Diego Region. The following has been obtained for the information of changes in the mean higher high water (MHHW) shoreline: (a) during the first two phases (1940-1960 and 1960-1980), there were minor changes with occasional small accretions, (b) during the third phase (1980-1990), the shoreline is experiencing erosion rates which range from about 1.6 ft/year near the southern reach of the Carlsbad shoreline, 6.5 ft/year at Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and 10 ft/year near Buena Vista Lagoon. "These erosion trends could be the result of the increased storm activities during the period 1980-1988 and may be corrected by enhancing the ongoing nourishment activities such as increasing the present rates and the possible use of a relatively coarser sand (0.25 mm). A combination of sand nourishment and some structural solutions, such as groins, offshore breakwaters and revetments, is a viable solution the prevailing erosion problems along this important San Diego coastal reach." 1.3.7 U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1994. "Reconnaissance Report, Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California." January 1994. This study concluded that there was a potential for significant storm damages to existing public and private development along three of the five reaches of the shoreline in the City of Carlsbad. There were two feasible plans to reduce storm damages and provide incidental recreation for Reach 3 which were in the Federal interest based on existing policy and guidelines. These two plans both consisted of groin systems with beach fill providing protection to Carlsbad Boulevard. The report recommended that the study should proceed into the Feasibility Phase. 1.3.8 U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Paper H- 78-8, Coastal Processes Study of the Oceanside, California, Littoral Cell. 1978. This study concluded that the gross longshore transport rate at Las Flores, Oceanside, and Encinitas was approximately 800,000 cy/yr, 1.2 million cy/yr, and 1.8 million cy/yr, respectively. Also, an estimated 100,000 cy/yr net of littoral drift was estimated to be moving southerly past Oceanside, California, with a net volume increase in southerly direction south of the vicinity of Oceanside. The report also suggested a continuous sand bypassing system as a partial solution to the erosion problem. 1.3.9 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Interim Survey of Oceanside Harbor, Oceanside (Camp Pendleton), California, House Document No. 76. 1965. Report recommended the adoption of the Oceanside Harbor by providing federal maintenance dredging of channels and turning basins, and the maintenance of a 1,000-foot south jetty, a 710-foot north groin, and about 1,200 feet of stone revetment. Maintenance dredging was predicted to be required on a biennial basis with removal of an average of 200,000 cy/yr. Placement of dredge material on the beach below the Oceanside pier to replenish downcoast beaches was recommended and found to be in conformance with the needs of the beach erosion control project. 1.3.10 U. S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Survey Report for 1-2 Navigation, Oceanside Harbor, Oceanside, (Camp Pendleton), California. 1963. This is the District Engineer's report which accompanied the Chief of Engineers report described above. 1.3.11 U. S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, General Design of Shore Protection Works near Oceanside, California. 1960. This memorandum presented the design basis for a 1.3 million cy protective beach fill which was placed between the San Luis Rey River and Loma Alta Creek, and for the combined groin and jetty constructed at Oceanside's Municipal Harbor. The report described maintenance to include replenishment of a protective beach at suitable intervals and maintenance of the groin. At the time of the project document study, protective beach maintenance was estimated to be 25,000 cy/year, anticipated to be supplied through normal periodic maintenance of the Camp Pendleton Harbor (Del Mar Boat Basin). 1.3.12 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Oceanside, Ocean Beach, Imperial Beach, and Coronado, San Diego County, California, Beach Erosion Control Study, House Document No. 399. 1957. Recommended a project consisting of placing a 900,000 cy protective beach fill at Oceanside, generally 200 feet wide and 10,000 feet long from the vicinity of 9th street to Witherby Street, at one- third federal cost. The views of the Beach Erosion Board concurred with the District Engineer's opinion that jetties constructed at Camp Pendleton Harbor as a wartime measure in 1942 were primarily responsible for the erosion problem at Oceanside. 1.4 Previous Studies by Others City of Carlsbad. 1989. "City of Carlsbad Proposal for the Carlsbad Beach Erosion Study and Coastal Shore Protection Project," April 1989. This report recommended as a feasible solution a 2,200-foot long concrete-capped sheetpile seawall with revetments at both the north and south ends of the causeway section of Carlsbad Blvd. between the intake and outlet jetties. Tekmarine, Inc. conducted a series of semi-annual beach profile surveys for the City of Carlsbad during the 1987 to 1991 period. The most recent report is: Tekmarine, Inc. 1992. "Semi-Annual Beach Profile Surveys and Analysis for October 1991," submitted to City of Carlsbad, California, March 1992. This report concluded that two major factors have been influencing the beaches near Carlsbad study area: wave climate and sand supply. Reflecting the impact of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) beach nourishment program during December 1990 through April 1991, the profiles along the Carlsbad shoreline experienced general accretion and the volumetric gains in the accreted profiles were concentrated mainly above MLLW. When compared with the survey of October 1990, the shorelines of October 1991 indicated seaward advance of about 44 ft within Carlsbad, but a retreat of about 35 ft within South Oceanside. Also, it was concluded that over the past several years, the shoreline at: - Oceanside Blvd. showed a distinct trend for erosion. - Tamarack Ave. and Acacia Ave appeared to be quasi-stable during this period. - "All other shorelines in Carlsbad exhibited a trend of advance." 1.5 Existing Projects / Shoreline Features There is no existing federal shore protection or beach erosion control project at Carlsbad, however, previous beach erosion control projects at Oceanside and the periodic placement of dredge material from Oceanside Harbor 1-3 on Oceanside beach adds sand to the beach system of Carlsbad. Beginning from the north and working south, the following projects and shoreline features have been identified along the coastal vicinities of the Carlsbad study area: Del Mar Boat Basin (Camp Pendleton Harbor) was constructed by the Navy in 1942, approximately 10 miles updrift of Carlsbad. This original construction consisted of two short jetties and dredging of a basin in the low ground between the mouths of the Santa Margarita and San Luis Rey rivers. In 1957 and 1958, the Del Mar Boat Basin jetties were extended by the Department of the Navy to their current alinement. The South jetty/groin of Oceanside Harbor was constructed to a length of approximately 1,000 ft in 1961. This was performed by the Corps of Engineers as a combined federal beach erosion control project and a locally desired and financed element of the proposed Oceanside Harbor. A protective beach fill of 3.375 million cy was deposited on the beach at Oceanside between 1962 and 1963. The borrow site for the beach fill were the approach channel to the Del Mar Boat Basin and the future Oceanside Harbor. A 400 feet long south groin along the north bank of the San Luis Rey river was constructed in 1961 and was extended by 500 ft in 1968. Riprap placed along a 1000 ft long stretch at Wisconsin Avenue at Oceanside in 1949. Additional riprap placed near Wisconsin Ave. in 1950-1952. Two groins constructed at Wisconsin Ave. and one groin 1000 ft south in 1952. A weir at Buena Vista Lagoon was constructed by the local interest to keep water in the lagoon at low tide. Private seawalls and revetments have been constructed and repaired throughout the Carlsbad coastal area where the beaches back private houses. The reach of shoreline is situated between Buena Vista Lagoon and Pine Avenue. Public seawall - from Oak St. to Agua Hedionda Lagoon in 1986. Intake and outlet jetties at Agua Hedionda Lagoon were constructed in 1954. The intake jetties are about 300 ft long. Construction of the cooling water system for the power plant also included dredging of about 4 million cubic yards of sand which were placed on the Beach fronting Agua Hedionda Lagoon. A short rock groin immediately south of the outlet jetty at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Beach between intake and outlet jetties at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The most southern man-made features in the Carlsbad coastal area are situated between Cannon Road and Cexezo Drive. Virtually all of this section of the shoreline is armored by either revetment or gunite. South Carlsbad State Beach. The Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project has been conducted in mitigation for the Port of Los Angeles expansion. about 1.9 million cubic yards of sand dredged from the lagoon have been placed on the South Carlsbad State Beach between 1994 and 1995. Also, two 100-foot jetties have been constructed at the mouth of the lagoon. 1-4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING 2.1 Geographic Setting The City of Carlsbad is located about six miles downcoast of the City of Oceanside and the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, San Diego County, California, as shown in Figure 2.1. The total length of its shoreline is 7 miles with its northern boundary with the City of Oceanside at Buena Vista Lagoon and its southern boundary with the City of Encinitas at Batiquitos Lagoon. The shoreline consists of narrow sand and cobble beaches fronting nearshore bluffs in the north and south reaches. The central reach shoreline is a low lying barrier spit, approximately 3,500 feet long, fronting the Aqua Hedionda tidal lagoon. The SDG&E power plant is located along the shores of the lagoon and withdraws its cooling water from the lagoon. 2.2 Bathymetry The deep water bathymetry offshore of Carlsbad is shown in Figure 2.2. Carlsbad is located in the central portion of the Oceanside littoral cell bounded by Dana Point in the north and Point La Jolla in the south. As can be seen in Figure 2.2, the bottom contours throughout much of this cell are gently curving and uniform. The nearshore contours at Carlsbad are relatively straight and parallel, except where Carlsbad submarine canyon approaches the shoreline. The head of this canyon is located at approximately the 100-foot isobath. Nearshore slopes are steeper south of the canyon. 2.3 Regional Coastal Processes Regional coastal processes include the transport, deposition and erosion of sediment, the impacts of sediment sources and sinks on these processes, and the short and long term effects of coastal storms on the coastline. Waves and wind create the primary coastal currents that transport sediment in the coastal zone. Due to the alignment of the coastline relative to incident wave approach, the net transport of littoral drift along Carlsbad and Oceanside coastal area is from north to south. The presence of coastal structures such as groins and breakwaters of the Oceanside Harbor complex and the jetties of the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon results in the disruption of sediment transport, creating a variety of localized shoreline effects. Sediment sources to this area on a regional scale include local creeks, storm drains, and local cliffs. Three tidal lagoons are located Along the Carlsbad shoreline: Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and Batiquitos Lagoon. The former and later separate Carlsbad from adjacent cities. These lagoons effect coastal processes through their tidal exchange across the littoral current, disrupting the continuous longshore flow of sediments and acting as sinks and possible sources of sediment. In a typical :tidal lagoon system, inlet and outlet shoals play a complex role in storage of sediments, modifying the local wave action, and in bypassing of littoral materials. A man-made sill at the mouth of the Buena Vista Lagoon has reduced the natural tidal exchange and lessened the effects of inlet flows on coastal processes. This sill is located at the elevation of about mean sea level, effectively halving the natural tidal prism. The sill precludes this lagoon from acting as a sink or source of sand to the beaches and would have a significant effect on littoral processes only during periods of high local runoff. Agua Hedionda Lagoon has two jettied channels to the ocean and also has a tidal circulation dominated by man-made influences. The SDG&E power plant 2-1 cooling water is withdrawn from this lagoon with its effluent discharged through the downcoaat outlet. For this reason, flows in the northern channel are always flooding or near slack. About 130,000 cubic yards per year of sand is withdrawn into the lagoon based on historic dredging records to keep the lagoon clear. Dredged sand material are typically placed along the beach fronting Agua Hedionda or to the north of the northern jetty. Batiquitos Lagoon's tidal prism has also been altered by man-made construction of the railroad and freeway/highway. The inlet flows have been so reduced that it is insufficient to maintain inlet stability. Hence the cobble beach at the mouth to Batiquitos Lagoon is normally closed to the ocean with communication only during periods of heavy rainfall and runoff. The effect of Batiquitos Lagoon as a source or sink of littoral material has been probably negligible. However, the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project has been conducted in mitigation for the Port of Los Angeles expansion. About 1.9 million cubic yards of sand dredged from the lagoon have been placed on the South Carlsbad State Beach between 1994 and 1995. After the dredging operations have been completed, the mouth of the lagoon will be opened to tidal influences. Also, two 100-foot jetties have been constructed at the mouth of the lagoon. NWI > I I C,. I I S I S OWN a I C, SAN FRANCISCO SAN LUIS CALIFORNIA OBISPO 0 ' PROJECT SANTA BARBARA LOCATION VENTURA LOS ANGELES LONG BEACH gr CARLSBAD S. SAN DIEGO SALE 9 200 300 49211LES Figure 2.1 Location Map of Carlsbad Study Area 2-3 NORTH EI-tj % `SAN MA \ CLEMENTE %\ \\ r \ \ \ :.iEOIe ''\ \\ ..... 4 %\ \ \ AN ONOFRE cIr ' ' ' •00 \ \ \ \ \\ .v \ \ \ \ .•'.. \ \\ \\ •'•Q:. % 250 sq% \ •.:•• - \ \ çYR. %\50 S. IV 0 ' \N' \ 20,, OCEANSIDE 0 to "? •ARLSBAD %% •.%%\\ W. IL ,cIoI 01o•—J r • 1'.\ 61i0' iç \ S cl ' • \\ \\ 1• \ \ " '4 1 oci C' I S ,#•\_ s. MAR Los E,JASOUII LAGOON I I I / /f/i_i:.... ( PT. LA JOLLA — LA JOLLA 32°50 FALSE 11 I 118°30 / 118°20 \ % i:.: 1180 0 / t I I 5 10 SCALE IN MILES SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS 118040 Figure 2.2 Bathytnetry of Carlsbad Study Area 2-4 3.0 CLIMATE 3.1 General Climatic Conditions The climate of coastal southern California is generally considered to be of a semi-arid Mediterranean type, with mild winters characterized by about 10 to 20 inches per year of rainfall. According to USAED, Los Angeles (1986), the local average wind speed is approximately 7.7 miles per hour, only slightly higher than those measured in inland areas. Ocean-landmass temperature variations result in daytime wind patterns dominated by onshore winds, and nightly patterns dominated by offshore flows. Exceptions occur during occasional winter storms where wind directions vary, and during Santa Ana conditions when winds are usually out of the northeast. 3.2 Storms and Pressure Field Ocean swells effecting the study area are generated by three basic meteorological phenomena: northern Pacific extra-tropical cyclones, eastern north Pacific tropical cyclones, and extra-tropical storms in the southern hemisphere. Extra-tropical cyclones regularly form in the north Pacific from October through May. These storms usually track across the Pacific in an easterly direction. These storms have been responsible for the largest waves effecting the Carlsbad coastal area. The 1982-83 winter storm season resulted from a series of extra-tropical cyclones which produced severe conditions responsible for the widespread destruction along the coast of southern California. Tropical storms or tropical cyclones develop off the west coast of Mexico during May through November. The tropical cyclones usually track west to northwest, but have been known to veer to various directions. An average of B or 9 tropical cyclones per year attain hurricane strength in the eastern north Pacific, however when the hurricanes reach the cooler waters they weaken and die. If these systems stall or track into an appropriate wave window, fairly large waves can propagate into the Carlsbad coastal area. Tropical systems can track up all the way into the southern California area, as evidenced by the tropical storm of September 1939; however, this is extremely rare. During the southern hemisphere winter, large intense low pressure systems move from west to east across the ocean between Australia and Chile. Locally these storms can generate very large waves. For the most part this activity occurs from May to October. It has been proposed that their frequency of occurrence is hi-modal, with peaks in early and late northern hemisphere summer. These waves travel northward across the equator and into the southern California area. Wave periods are typically long, 16 to 22 seconds. Wave heights reaching southern California typically are small (2 to 4 feet); however, in some instances these can be as large as 12 feet. 3-]. 4.0 OCEANOGRAPHY 4.1 Tides and Water Levels 4.1.1 Tides Tides along the southern California coastline are of the mixed semi- diurnal type. Typically, a lunar day consist of two high and two low tides each of different magnitude. The lower-low normally follows the higher-high by about 7 to 8 hours, whereas the next higher-high (through lower-high and higher-low waters) follows in about 17 hours. Tides have a spatial scale on the order of hundreds of miles, and therefore are similar everywhere along the open coast in southern California. The National Ocean Service, NOAA collected 7 months of tide measurements at Agna Hedionda, Gulf of Santa Catalina and 18 years of measurements at La Jolla, Pacific Ocean in establishing tidal datums of the 1960 to 1978 tidal epoch. While the former are directly applicable to the project at the Carlsbad coastal area, extreme highs may not be represented due to the lack of measurement in the 1982-83 storm season. Tidal characteristics of both of these tidal stations are shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 San Diego Tidal Characteristics San Diego Tidal Characteristics (Elevation in feet referenced to Mean Lower Low Water MLLW) Agua Hedionda La Jolla Highest observed water level 7.55 7.81 Observed Date 14 February 1980 8 August 1983 Mean Higher High Water (MEW) 5.05 5.37 Mean High Water (MEW) 4.24 4.62 Mean Sea Level (MSL) 2.29 2.75 Mean Tide Level (MTL) 2.53 2.77 National Geodetic Datum - 1929 (NGVD) 2.58 2.56 Mean Low Water (tU..W) 0.82 0.93 Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) 0.00 0.00 Lowest observed water level -0.85 -2.6 Observed Date 16 May 1980 17 December 1933 4.1.2 Water Levels The variation of water levels along the shoreline are due principal'- astronomical tides (i.e.. tides driven by the moon, sun and plartr- surge driven by spatial variation in barometric pressure, wind anu w' and inter-annual large scale oscillations in the circulation and tempera . distribution of the Pacific, commonly referred to as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Prediction of astronomical tides is well established and validated by observation. The distribution of tidal characteristics in southern California has been obtained from Harris (1981). Figure 4.1 shows the statistical distribution of higher high water at San Diego. The contribution of the other components to water levels are more random in occurrence, although not entirely independent, and more variable both spatially and temporally. Flick (1991) estimated the ten largest positive 4-1 tidal residuals at a relatively wave sheltered location in southern California to range from 0.84 to 1.06 feet over a 30 year period of record. Flick (1991) also demonstrated that the joint occurrence of the largest residuals with the highest astronomical tides and/or highest waves were rare, although the analysis subjectively filtered residuals having durations shorter than 1.5 days. Wave setup and setdown along the beach profile varies from a minimum near the wave breaker location and a maximum at the shoreline. Linear wave theory predicts maximum setdown of about 4 to 5 percent of wave height along a plane beach and a slightly higher setup. Surf beats or infragravity waves are thought to be the result of non-linear transformation of energy across the surf zone. This phenomenon is not precisely understood but is generally observed with a magnitude of one to several feet during severe wave events. Long term changes in sea level from the "greenhouse" effect, tectonic forces and other localized ground movement are relatively small by comparison to the other components of sea level. The National Research Council (Marine Board, 1987) considered three plausible future sea level rise scenarios along the coastline of North America: 0.5 in, 1.0 m, and 1.5 m by the year 2100 (relative to 1986). According to Flick and Cayan (1984), a review of yearly mean sea level data recorded at San Diego indicates that a rise of 0.7 feet per century has occurred. If past trends are projected into the future at San Diego, a sea level rise of at least 0.2 feet would be expected over the next 25 years. Positive departures from the annual mean occur during strong El Nino episodes. These meteorological anomalies are characterized by low atmospheric pressures and persistent onshore winds. Tidal data indicate that five episodes (1914, 1930 through 1931, 1941, 1957 through 1959, and 1982 through 1983) have occurred since 1905. Further analysis suggests that these events have an average return period of 14 years with 0.2-foot tidal departures lasting for two to three years. The added probability of experiencing more severe winter storms during El Nino periods increases the likelihood of coincident storm waves and higher storm surge. According to Flick and Cayan (1984), the record water level of 8.35 feet MLLW observed at San Diego in January 1983 includes an estimated 0.8 feet of surge and seasonal level rise. Storm surge is relatively small along the Southern California coast when compared with tidal fluctuations. According to the U.S. Army (1991), storm surges driven primarily by atmospheric pressure can raise the sea level on the order of 0.5 feet for two to six days on the average. Extreme stillwater level departures from astronomical water levels may be as much as one foot or greater for the severest extratropical events. 4.2 Currents 4.2.3. Offshore Currents The offshore currents consist of (1) major, large scale coastal currents (i.e. California, Davidson, etc.) which constitute the "mean" seasonal circulation, and (2) tidal and "event scale" fluctuations (time scales 3 to 10 days) which are expected to be superimposed on the "mean" seasonal circulations. Hickey (1979) defines the constituents of the large scale California coastal current as follows: The California Current - the equatorward flow of water off the coast. According to Schwartzlose and Reid (1972), the mean speed is about 12.5 to 25 cm/sec. The California Undercurrent - A subsurface northward flow that occurs 4-2 below the main pycnocline and seaward of the continental shelf. According to Schwartzlose and Reid (1972) • the mean speeds are low, on the order of 5 to 10 cm/sec. The Davidson Current - A northward flowing nearshore current associated with winter wind patterns north of Point Conception. From the drift bottle records, Schwartzlose and Reid (1972) found that the Davidson Current attained speeds as high as 15 to 30 cm/sec. The Southern California Countercurrent (also called the Southern California Eddy) - A northward flow in the Southern California Bight south of Point Conception and inshore of the Channel Islands. According to Maloney and Chan (1974), velocity maxima in the Countercurrent during winter as high as 35 to 40 cm/sec have been observed. Typical shelf tidal currents have peak longshore velocities of roughly 20 cm/sec, although considerable amplification occurs near larger bays. Although tidal elevations are very well predicted, tidal currents are not. EVENT SCALE WIND FORCED CURRENTS: Lentz (1984) presents a detailed analysis of event scale (sub-tidal) longshore flows observed off Del Mar. The inner shelf is primarily wind' driven while the outer shelf is primarily driven by longshore gradients in sea level. In both cases the driving term is apparently balanced by bottom friction. The southern California Bight is a region of relatively light winds. North of Point Conception winds are stronger and may dominate. 4.2.2 Longshore Currents Longshore currents in the coastal zone are driven primarily by waves impinging on the shoreline at oblique angles. This wave generated current and turbulence is the major factor in littoral transport. The surf zone currents along the Oceanside Littoral Cell is nearly balanced between northerly and southerly flows, as predicted by previous littoral transport studies (Hales, 1980). Typical summer swell conditions produce northerly drifting currents while the large winter storms from the west and northwest produce southerly currents. Overall, the persistence of the northerly drift dominates, however, the strength of the southerly drift during major storm events results in a net southerly longshore transport. The direction of surf zone currents can be reversed by very local topographic effects. 4.2.3 Cross-shore Currents Cross-shore currents exist throughout the study area, part icu' times of high surf. These currents tend to concentrate at creek mouths and structures, but can occur anywhere along the shoreline in the form of rip currents and the return flows of complex circulation cells. To date, no information is available on the quantification of these currents ri.. -h effect on sediment transport. Consequently, their significance to the long- term sediment budget and coastal processes of the study area is unclear. 4.3 Waves 4-3 4.3.1 Exposure The coastal areas of Carlsbad are sheltered somewhat from deep ocean waves by the offshore Channel Islands. Waves can approach the Carlsbad coastal area through three wave windows. The southerly window is located between the coastline of Southern California and San Clemente Island, at approximately 160 degrees to 245 degrees. A westerly window exists between San Clemente Island and Santa Catalina Island, at approximately 245 degrees to 285 degrees. A north-westerly window exists between Santa Catalina Island and the coastline of Southern California, at approximately 285 degrees to 305 degrees. 4.3.2 Local Seas and Swell Local seas and swell in the southern California Bight near San Diego can be represented by the hindcast of the Wave Information Studies (WIS) for Station 7 (Jensen, et al. 1992). This hindcast only considered wave generation in the northern hemisphere, and is therefore augmented by the Marine Advisors (1961) hindcast for southern swell. Mean wave heights are about 2 to 3 feet with typical periods ranging from S to 17 seconds. 4.3.3 Storm Waves The data on storms waves are obtained from the wave studies described in the Design Memorandum of Oceanside Harbor of the USAED, Los Angeles (1992). These studies hindcasted a total of 67 severe storm events that occurred during the period 1900 to 1983. Thirty events were selected as pertinent to Oceanside Harbor. The hindcast data set was transformed for island sheltering, refraction, shoaling, and depth limitations. An extreme value statistical analysis results in a set of wave conditions representative of various recurrence intervals. Table 4.2 shows the wave statistics at Oceanside Harbor. Table 4.2 Oceanside Harbor Extreme Wave Heights Return Period Significant Wave Height (years) (feet) 1 10.0 10 13.5 25 15.9 50 17.9 100 20.0 After US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles 1992 4.4 Historic Coastal Storm Damages The coastal areas of Carlsbad are subject to coastal storm erosion and flooding. According to Tekmar..'ie (1992), the beach profiles in the northern reach of the Carlsbad shoreline were slow to recover after the 1982-1983 winter storm season. Also, the beach cycle featuring the alternate summer 4-4 accretion and winter erosion vanished altogether. However, the cobble beaches in the southern reach resumed the seasonal beach cycle in 1986. A major storm hit the California coast during 16 to 19 January 1988. According to the survey data (September 1987 before storm and January 1988 after storm) collected by the USAED, Los Angeles (1991), the MHHW shoreline of the Carlsbad coastal area experienced a recession of about 50 feet. By November 1989, while most of the San Diego region shoreline seemed to have recovered from the January 1988 erosion, the Carlsbad shoreline still had an erosion of about 15 feet. 4.4.1 History of Storm Damage and Beach Erosion The study area is susceptible to coastal storm flooding, which results in damage to adjacent parking areas, undercutting the highway foundation material, and requiring debris removal as we].l as traffic detours along the highway. Severe erosion has occurred along this shoreline with damages to both public and private property. In recent history, the area has been damaged and the highway closed on the order of once every two years. The worst extent of damage occurred in the spring of 1981 when the highway was closed for 5 days and 200 paved perpendicular parking spaces were lost to erosion. It is estimated that the areal extent of erosional damages for this event was two-thirds of the lengths between the two jetties (or about 2,000 feet) with an encroachment distance of about 100 feet. Flooding and debris deposited on the road was concentrated in the low-elevation areas over an extent of about 700 feet. Replacement value for the lost parking, including fill and pavement, approximated $500,000 (at $2.50/ft2 for 200,000 ft'). The double perpendicular parking which was lost in 1981 was not totally replaced, but instead was replaced with a single row of angled parking. The angled parking was lost in 1983 storm season, to the extent of about 100,000 ft2 and replacement cost of $250,000. The lost parking was subsequently replaced with parallel parking which exists today. The January 1988 storm did not seriously affect the parking areas but created a debris hazard and produced damages to the riprap around the bridge and road shoulder. About $20,000 was spent on clean-up during the 1988 storms. In addition, because of the storm damage to the roadway and the resultant highway closure in this area during the storms, all traffic, including private and public safety and emergency response vehicles, had to be rerouted, causing great inconvenience and loss of time (due to extra travel time) to the general public and interruption of critical public services. 4-5 San Diego Tide - Higher High Water 3 4 5 6 7 8 Water Elevation (ft MLLVV) Figure 4.3. Statistical Distribution of Higher High Water at San Diego 4-6 5.0 LITTORAL PROCESSES 5.1 Littoral Cells 5.1.1 Oceanside Littoral Cell According to the CCSTWS of USAED, Los Angeles (1991), the coastline of the Oceanside Littoral Cell is about 53.5 miles long extending from Dana Point to the La Jolla submarine canyons. Dana Point, the north end of the cell, is a near-complete barrier to the littoral transport of sand. Point La Jolla, the south end of the cell, is also a near-complete barrier. There are six subreaches within the Oceanside Littoral Cell: (1) La Jolla-Del Mar, (2) Encinitas-Leucadia, (3) Carlsbad, (4) Oceanside, (5) Camp Pendleton, and (6) San Mateo-Dana Point. 5.1.2 Carlsbad Subreach The Carlsbad study area lies within the Carlsbad Subreach which consists of about six miles of coastline. This subreach extends from Buena Vista Lagoon in the north to Batiquitos Lagoon in the south. Located in the middle of the subreach are the Carlsbad Canyon and the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. 5.2 Sediment Sources and Sinks There are a variety of sources that supply sediment into the littoral zone. These sources include erosion from the adjacent watershed with sediments transported to the beaches via natural streams, creeks and storm drains; coastal bluff erosion; beach erosion; and artificial beach fills. These sources are discussed as follows with the exception of artificial beach fills which are discussed in Section 5.4. 5.2.1 Streams, Creeks, and Drainages The CCSTWS of USAED, Los Angeles (1991) shows a list of rivers and streams carrying sediment into the coastal area of the Oceanside Littoral Cell. The major rivers are the Santa Margarita River with its mouth located in Camp Pendleton about one mile north of Oceanside Harbor, and the San Lois Rey River with its mouth emptying to the sea about 6 miles updrift of the Carlsbad city boundary. The total sediment load arriving at the coast from the river systems of this littoral cell vary from 53,000 cubic yards/year according to CCSTWS 88-3 of Simons, Li and Associates (1988) to 426,000 cubic yards/year according to CCSTWS 84-4 of USAED, Los Angeles (1984). 5.2.2 Coastal Bluffs During the CCSTWS 90-2 conducted by Moffatt and Nichol Eg::s.'ers (19!'), erosion caused by bluff retreat as well as erosion from ravine surface degradation of coastal terraces were considered. The presented in Table 5.1. Along the undeveloped shoreline of the Camp re,1.I.z.-r marine base, active bluff retreat is still occurring. In highly deveiea communities south of Oceanside harbor, the majority of the bluffs are stabilized by revetments and gunite and would only contribute sediments to the littoral zone during extreme storm events. 5.2.3 Beach Erosion The rate of shoreline change, which has been obtained from the CCSTWS of 5-]. USAED, Los Angeles (1991), is based upon beach profile survey data for the Oceanside Littoral Cell during three time periods: 1940-1960, 1960-1980, and 1980-1989. From 1940-1980, changes in the mean higher high water (MHHW) shoreline in the six-mile Carlsbad Subreach have been minor with occasional small accretions. During the period 1980-1989, this subreach experienced moderate erosion ranging from about 1.6 ft/year near Batiquitos Lagoon, 6.5 ft/year near Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and 10 ft/year near Buena Vista Lagoon. Table 5.1 Annual Coastal Bluff Sediment Contribution ANNUAL COASTAL BLUFF SEDIMENT CONTRIBUTIONS OCEANSIDE LITTORAL CELL 1933-1987 Sediment Contribution (cubic yards/year) ---------------------------------------- Coastal Terraces Total 22,000 22,000 310,000 319,000 61,000 84,000 393,000 425,000 Location Bluffs ------------- North Reach 0 Central Reach 9,000 South Reach 23,000 Total = 32,000 Note: North Reach = Dana Pt. to San Mateo Pt. Central Reach = San Mateo Pt. to Carlsbad Submarine Canyon South Reach = Carlsbad Submarine Canyon to Pt. La Jolla After CCSTWS 90-2 of Moffatt and Nichol Engineers (1990) 5.2.4 Sediment Sinks Submarine canyons usually function as partial or near complete sediment sinks for material transported in the littoral zone. The Oceanside Littoral Cell has three submarine canyons, namely, the Carlsbad Submarine Canyon in the cell's central portion and the Scripps and La Jolla Submarine Canyons at the cell's south end. The head of the Carlsbad Submarine Canyon is in water depths of about 100 ft. According to CCSTWS 88-2 conducted by Moffatt and Nichol Engineers (1988), this water depth is deep enough to prevent transport of littoral sediments into the head of the canyon. Breakwaters, groins, jetties and headlands effect sediment transport. Depending upon length and location, jetties and groins can reduce or even block sediment flow. The north breakwater of Oceanside Harbor is responsible for retention of material upcoast in an existing fillet, whereas, south beach is confined by the groin/south jetty of Oceanside Harbor and the north jetty of the San Luis Rey river. Sediment entrapped from the beach or nearshore zone by lagoons and estuaries is not presently significant in the Carlsbad coastal area, with the exception that SDG&E has been bypassing the sediments trapped by Agua Hedionda Lagoon. About 130.000 cy of material has been bypassed annually. Sediment losses to sand dunes are negligible in the Oceanside Littoral 5-2 Cell according to the CCSTWS 87-9 conducted by Tekmarine (1987). Tekmarine (1987) concluded in CCSTWS 87-9 that the small extent of berm overwash and the infrequency of its occurrence render it insignificant in the sediment budget of the Oceanside Littoral Cell. Currently, there are no onshore losses of the sediment, because no sand mining is occurring on the beaches within the Oceanside Littoral Cell. 5.3 Existing Structures, Beach Fills, and Dredging History 5.3.1 Existing Structures A series of man-made coastal structures are located within and adjacent to the Carlsbad study area. These structures, which are listed in Appendix A of USAED, Los Angeles (1991), are presented in Table 5.2 and were previously described in Section 1.5. Table 5.2 Major Coastal Structures Effecting Longshore Transport Structure ---------------- north breakwater south jetty south groin 3 groins intake and outlet jetties groin Location Oceanside Harbor Oceanside Harbor adjacent to and north of San Luis Rey River Wisconsin Ave. Agua Hedionda Lagoon south of outlet jetty Type ----------------- rock rubble-mound rock rubble-mound rock rubble-mound rock rubble-mound rock rubble-mound rock rubble-mound 5.3.2 Beach Fills and Dredging History Littoral material has been added to the beaches near the Agua Hedionda Lagoon by man in significant quantities starting in 1954 and continuing to 1991. These materials were the result of construction and maintenance dredging from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E). In 1954, four million cubic yards of new sand were added adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Maintenance dredging episodes (listed in Table 5.3), which occurred from 1954 to 1991, recycled about 4.8 million cy of sand between the lagoon and beach areas over the past 40 years. A distinction can be made between maintenance dredging of either. Oceanside Harbor or Aqua Hedionda Lagoon as compared to new construction resulting in the placement of sand to nourish the beaches. Maintenance dredging is the bypassing or redistribution of littoral material already active in the littoral zone, while new construction adds to the supply of littoral materials. New construction projects included tke construction of SDG&E power plant in 1954 mentioned previously, a federal beach nourishment 5-3 project completed in 1963 which placed 3.375 million cy of material on the beach at Oceanside from a borrow source which was developed into the Oceanside municipal harbor, and a second federal beach nourishment project which trucked 922,000 cubic yards of sand from the San Luis Rey river and dumped it on the beach at Oceanside in 1982. The total nourishment amounts to 8.3 million. cy from 1954 to 1994 or about 200,000 cy/yr. The Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project has been conducted in mitigation for the Port of Los Angeles expansion. About 1.9 million cubic yards of sand dredged from the lagoon have been placed on the South Carlsbad State Beach between 1994 and 1995. Table 5.3 Beach Fills and Relevant Dredging Within Carlsbad Study Area Dredging History at Agua Hedionda Lagoon: ACCUMULATIVE PLACEMENT with YEAR QUANTITY (YD') QUANTITY (YD') respect to LAGOON 1954 4,000,000 NEW SAND NORTH & SOUTH 1955 111,000 111,000 SOUTH 1957 232,000 343,000 SOUTH 1960 370,000 713,000 SOUTH 1961 225,000 938,000 SOUTH 1963 307,000 1,245,000 SOUTH 1965 222,000 1,467,000 SOUTH 1967 159,000 1,626,000 SOUTH 1969 97,000 1,723,000 SOUTH 1972 259,000 1,982,000 NORTH & SOUTH 1974 341,000 2,323,000 NORTH & SOUTH 1976 331,000 2,654,000 NORTH & SOUTH 1979 398,000 3,052,000 NORTH & SOUTH 1981 292,000 3,344,000 NORTH & SOUTH 1983 200,000 3,544,000 NORTH & SOUTH 1985 447,000 3,991,000 NORTH & SOUTH 1988 334,000 4,325,000 NORTH 1991 465,000 4,790,000 NORTH & SOUTH Average = 129,972 yd3/year from 1955 to 1991 Average = 122,542 yd3/year from 1955 to 1979 Data obtained from CCSTWS of USED, Los Angeles (1991) 5.4 Erosion and Accretion Rates Shoreline changes within the Oceanside littoral cell have been studied extensively through analysis of historic surveys of the U.S. Army and Geological Surveys, comparison of aerial photography and comparisons of relatively recent profile surveys taken for CCSTWS (USAED, Los Angeles, 1991). In general, the shoreline between Oceanside Harbor and the southern boundary of the City of Carlsbad at Batiquitos Lagoon has fluctuated in absolute location over the years due to major storms and coastal Construction. Long term trends of either erosion or accretion at Carlsbad is not evident from the historic record of available data, since seasonal fluctuations in shoreline 5-4 position or sediment volume in the littoral zone are larger than the net long term changes. Sediment budget analyses suggest that the littoral sub-cell which Carlsbad is a part of has been accretional since about 1900 due to sediment input from beach fills, coastal construction, bluff erosion and from the rivers. However, in the absence of future beach fills with sediment sources external to the littoral zone, a deficit in sediment supply is predicted and the littoral cell will be erosional. 5.4.1 Historic Shoreline Changes Historic shoreline positions are shown on Plates A through J for the Carlsbad area. The earliest shoreline position available in the comparisons are based on a 1887-1889 USGS survey -- the plan location of the "shoreline" by these surveys were approximately equal to mean high water. Relative to more recent surveys in 1972 or the shoreline mapped from January 1988 aerial photography, the present shoreline is located seaward of the shoreline of 100 years ago throughout most of the City of Carlsbad. This is largely the result of coastal construction of the power plant at Agua Hedionda. In 1953-54, the San Diego Gas and Electric Company constructed two pairs of stone jetties; one to stabilize the inlet of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon and the second pair to serve as a channel for the discharge of the thermal effluent from the power plant across the beach. Between March and November 1954, over 4 million cubic yards were dredged from Aqua Hedionda Lagoon and deposited on the beach extending from about 3,500 feet north of the lagoon inlet to 2,000 feet south of the discharge trench. This beach fill widened the Reach 3 beach about 400 feet and widened the beach an average of 100 feet for a distance of two miles downcoast of the disposal area (Reaches 4 and 5). (Note: Description of reaches is given in Section 6.1, Project Area Description). The furthest seaward shoreline location occurred in the mid 60's or the early 80's as testimony to the effects of the major beach fill from the Agua Hedionda power plant in 1954 and the beach fills in Oceanside in 1964 and 1983. Since that time beach widths have fluctuated with some profiles showing erosion and some showing accretion. One of the more recent shoreline position was mapped from aerial photography flown subsequent to a major wave event in January 1988. This shoreline shows an eroded condition demonstrating the effects of major storms. The time history of shoreline positions at selected profiles analyzed in CCSTWS(1991) are included at the Attachment to Coastal Engineering appendix. 5.4.2 Historic Profiles Five comparative profiles in Carlsbad were analyzed in CCSTWS and are shown at the end of this appendix. These profiles document changes across the nearshore zone between 1934 and 1988, although the data are not always complete. Like with the shoreline positions, seasonal or storm induced erosion masks any discernible long-term trend in profile degradation. Significant depth changes are observed generally to the 20- to 30-foot water depth, and seasonal changes in the plan location of MLLW have been at least as large as 200 feet. Also evident in the comparison between profile locations for the same survey in April 1986 is the pronounced steepening in the nearshore bathymetry in the southerly direction from Oceanside Harbor to the Carlsbad submarine canyon (see Figure 5.1). A rocky, erosion resistant shelf in water depths of 5 to 10 feet apparently extends to about 1000 feet offshore of reaches 4 and S (Profiles CB760 and CB800). Like the shoreline positions described above, the most recent profile was taken close after the January 1988 storm event and shows an eroded profile. 5-5 The relationship between sand volume change to shoreline position change was analyzed in CCSTWS (1991). The volume changes in the above analysis refer to that portion extending from the profile base line to water depths of PflD!W, MSL, -10 ft, -30 ft, and -40 ft deviation (from MLLW) where as the beach surface area or shoreline change refer to the MHHW line. Table 5.4 shows the computed volume change to shoreline movement ratios which are obtained from regression analysis. Table 5.4 Summary of Volume Change/Shoreline Values at Carlsbad Volume/Shoreline Change Elevation of Computed (yd'/ft) Volume Change (ft) ----------------------- --------------------- 0.13 ww 0.24 MSL 0.60 -10 ft MLLW 0.45 -30 ft t.Lw 0.51 -40 ft MLLW 5.5 Longshore Transport A number of longshore sediment transport studies have been performed and reviewed in the Coast of California Study. The general conclusion of these findings is that the net littoral transport in the Oceanside coastal vicinity is directed towards the south, with a net transport potential at a rate of 100,000 to 250,000 cubic yards annually. As shown in Table 5.5, the potential gross transport rates estimated by Hales (1978) increase from the north to the south within the Oceanside Littoral Cell. The Carlsbad study area lies within the reach of "Oceanside" in Table 5.5. Table 5.5 Oceanside Longshore Sediment Transport Estimates Longshore Sediment Transport Estimates Oceanside and Vicinity Location Gross (yd 3/yr) Net (yd3/yr) Las Flores 800,000 120,000 Oceanside 1,200,000 100,000 Encinitas 1,900,000 165,000 After Hales (1978) One shortcoming of the aforementioned findings is that its basis on wave energy for estimating longshore transport potential may be greater than the actual littoral transport given the reality that specific sections of beach contain no sand cover. Areas where sand cover is sparse and/or transitory exist typically between Oceanside and Encinitas. In Carlsbad halfway between Batiquitos Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Reach 4) the sand layer was measured by jet probing to be about 3.3 feet thick from 5 feet MLLW to 3 feet 5-6 MLLW, 0.5 feet thick at -10 feet MLLW, 1.5 feet thick at -20 feet MLLW, and 2.3 feet thick at -30 feet MLLW (Profile C2760 surveyed in late 1987 by Tekmarine,1988). Profile CB830 (Reach 2) located about 500 feet north of the intake jetties at Agua Hedionda Lagoon had no sand cover. Table 5.6 shows estimated actual longshore sediment transport reported in CCSTWS 90-2 (Moffatt and Nichol Engineers, 1990). From Del Mar to San Clemente, the southward directed net transport has been identified in the 100,000 to 250,000 cubic yards per year range for the 1945-1977 time period and in the zero to 40,000 cubic yards per year range for 1978-1987. The reduction in the transport rate is believed to be related to a significant change in the wave energy climate during that 10-year period. Also, Table 5.6 shows that Point La Jolla (south end of Oceanside Littoral Cell) acts as an effective barrier to sediment movement and that Dana Point (north end of Oceanside Littoral Cell) allows a small quantity of sediment (1,000 cubic yards per year) to enter the littoral cell from the north. Table 5.6 Net Sediment Transport Rates - Oceanside Littoral Cell Net Transport Rates (yd3/yr) Headlands ---------------------------- 1945-1977 1978-1987 Pt. La Jolla 0 0 San Mateo Pt. < 50,000 0-10,000 Dana Pt. 1,000 c 1,000 Coastline Del Mar 100,000-250,000 0-40,000 Encinitas 100,000-250,000 0-40,000 Oceanside 150,000-250,000 0-40,000 Las Flores 50,000-125,000 0-15,000 San Clemente 100,000-150,000 0-20,000 Note: All transport rates are directed towards the south. After CCSTWS 90-2 of Moffatt and Nichol Engineers (1990) 5.6 Sediment Budget 5.6.1 Historic Sediment Budget A sediment budget provides a conceptual model of littoral processes by accounting for volume changes and sediment fluxes within cells and across cell boundaries. The sediment budget presented in Chapter 9 of CCSTWS (USAED Los Angeles, 1991) covers possible scenarios over the past 90 years. Carlsbad is located within the central sub-cell of the Oceanside littoral cell of their analysis, which is summarized on Figure 5.2. Three historic time periods were analyzed: 1900-38, 1960-78, and 1983-90. The first period can be viewed as the "natural" shoreline condition prior to Oceanside Harbor and the power plant at Agua Hedionda, however by 1900 the watershed and coastal lagoons had been significantly altered by construction of roads, railroads and water supply and flood control works (see chronology of events in the Oceanside littoral cell at the Attachment to Coastal Engineering Appendix). During this period, the beach cell gained material with large contributions from bluff 5-7 erosion and from major flood events on the Santa Margarita and San Luis Rey Rivers. Large losses were assumed to the offshore while the net longshore transport downcoast is assumed equal to the transport potential of available wave energy. The second period between 1960-78 includes the effect of the Oceanside Harbor and the power plant over what some have considered a relatively benign period of storm and wave activity. In this scenario the central sub-cell gained 40,000 cy/yr. Significant contributions are shown from beach fills and bluff erosion. Oceanside Harbor is shown deflecting 80,000 cy/yr to the offshore and the net downcoast transport is equal to the previous period. The last period between 1983-90 is a period thought to be of unusually larger than normal northerly directed longshore transport. The beach cell gained material at a rate of 60,000 cy/yr with most of the beach material derived from eroded bluffs. The net downcoast transport is estimated at 70,000 cy/yr for this time period due to the aforementioned unusual wave climate. Prior to 1942, longshore sediment transport in the Oceanside littoral cell was not significantly influenced by man-made structures. In 1942-43, the U.S. Navy constructed Camp Pendleton Harbor (now known as the Del Mar Boat Basin) with two arrow head jetties about 1,300 feet long. The northern jetty was extended by about 2,300 feet by the Navy in 1957-58 to form the North Breakwater, and further jetty construction and dredging in the 60's and 70's by the City of Oceanside and the Corps of Engineers eventually evolved into what is now the Oceanside Municipal Harbor. Since the initial construction of the original jetties, the shoreline immediately up and downcoast of the harbor has advanced seaward, while the shore fronting the City of Oceanside experienced severe erosion. This erosion has been somewhat mitigated by beach fill projects and the placement of dredge material from Oceanside Harbor on the Oceanside beach area. The influence of Oceanside Harbor on the shoreline of Carlsbad is not apparent in the recorded data since construction of the Agua Hedionda jetties and beach fill masks historic "natural" long-term trends, and since the normal seasonal variations in shoreline position or sediment volume in the littoral zone are larger than any long-term net change. While this indicates a relatively stable shoreline, a contribution of this stability results from erosion being limited by protective works, i.e. revetments, seawalls and gunited slopes, or the shallow erosion resistant hardpan which is along the shoreline throughout most of Carlsbad. 5.6.2 Sediment Budget for Future Without Project Historic sediment budget analyses and the assumption that there will be no new beach fills in the future forms the basis for estimating a future sediment budget. The most probable future wave climate is expected to be similar to the 1900-78 time period. Site investigations also revealed that bluff erosion will be negligible south of Oceanside Harbor to at least Batiguitos Lagoon due to protective seawalls and gunite slopes. The continued maintenance dredging of Oceanside Harbor with placement of about 200,000 cy/yr on beaches to the south is assumed, and a net downcoast transport which is less than or equal to the transport potential of available wave energy is predicted due to the paucity of sand. As shown in Figure 5.3, the future without project sediment budget has an annual loss from the central Oceanside littoral sub-cell of 90,000 cy/yr -- about 30,000 cy/yr of it eroding from the Carlsbad shoreline. An average erosion rate of about 1 foot per year would be anticipated in the Carlsbad study area until the shoreline is denuded of sand exposing a more erosion resistant hardpan or cobble beach. As discussed in Section 6.1, the typical winter beach at Carlsbad is lacking sand with the exception of Reach 3. The sediment deficit would show as a smaller or non- existent seasonal summer beach and profile deepening at Reach 3. 5-8 Line Survey Time Date 988 50 1345 11 APR I - 938 58 1230 IlAPRI :I' "- -- 1099 - 1030 50 50 1048 935 11AFJt 11APB1 ' - - 1878 50 840 11 APR 18 3 3 3 3 3 -30 -20 0 I-. 'I.. -20 -30 -40 0 500 1880 1500 2800 2500 3008 D;ta.te. FT 9b,c-e r-° j LopciJ 20 18 Line Survey Time Date - 768 58 685 I31AVPRI _ ____ 808 58 1530 IlAPR I 3i -ii.)i r tTAM cA,L&.3 AC14 I. - - 980 50 j 1345 11 pjq 11 APR - '\\• ___ 3500 4800 3 3 3 3 590 1880 1588 2890 2590 3800 3588 4888 Distance. FT Figure 5.1 Comparison of Profiles by Location from Oceanside Harbor to Carlsbad Submarine Canyon 5-9 Input Output 0 190 85 0 170 60 0 0 +5 balance 190 270 270 0 520 640 0 0 +70 0.3 accretion 270 0 65 0 200 240 0 290 +5 balance 1939 1 51 SUBCELL km mi SI Input or Outmut Q140,1 Longshore 0, River Qb'Qo flluff,offshore Nourish av',at (lOs yd3/yr) ax,at (ft/yr) Q, Qb • Qo 05 av'/at io yd3/yr) 8X/8t (ft/yr) QtdQnd Deflection QgQ,, 0, Oh, 00 05 av,'at (lO yd3/yr) 8X/at (f t/yr) Q, Oh .00 Q00Q, Nour. Sub Canyon av'/at (10 yd3/yr) 8X/3t (ft/yr) Episodic Beach Denudation: Natural Uniform NW Variable W Conditions Wave Climate Wave Climate ca.1900-1938 Ca. 1960-1978 Ca. 1983-1990 Input Output Input Output 0 190 0 50 60 0 60 0 120 60 i 0 0 120 0 I 0 0 +50 +10 0.7 accretion balance 190 270 I 60 70 25 0 l 0 0 370 460 180 0 65 0 30 0 -SO I +200 0.6 erosion 1.4 accretion I -- — HARBOR EFFECTS--- 0 80 0 20 270 270 70 70 40 0 0 0 160 180 i 80 0 100 0 0 0 +40 +60 I 0.7 accretion 1.0 accretion 270 0 I 70 0 S 0 0 0 200 240 100 0 100 290 i 0 70 : l +100 0.3 accretion 0.6 accretion roptca1 1562/83 :Ora Cluster storms Oceanside Harbor — — -. — — - - - - — Carlsbad r- 2 Submarine ) ,Canyon II 7 SOUTH 32 20 Scripps/La Jolla i Submarine e\J Canyon Jolla IORTh 14 8.5 E?TRAL 27 16.3 84 52 11 Summary oj the Budgets of Sediment for Oceanside Littoral Cell in 104 yd /yr. Santa Margarita River San Luis Rey River ,o Oceanside 270 ," I \ ç'00 _1 h 100 % %% / '' 70 Pacific Ocean >\ Buena Vista 200 Lagoon Agua Hedionda Lagoon 30 Carlsbad LEGEND Change in 1 —601 Littoral Sediment Volume (000's y3/yr) Sediment Flux Rate 270 (000's y3/yr) Harbor Dredging 200 Batiquitos Lagoon _ Without Project Sediment Budget (000's y3/yr) Sources Sinks Northern Boundary: 100 —100 Northern Transport into Harbor Harbor Dredging: 200 —270 Net Southern Transport S.L.R. River 10 —30 Onshore Losses Total: 310 —400 Total NET VOLUME CHANGE = —90 Figure 5.3 Future Without Project Sediment Budget 5-1]. 6.0 WITHOtJT PROJECT CONDITIONS 6.1 Project Area Description The project area corresponds to the coastal area designated as Reach 3 in the Reconnaissance Study conducted by USAED, Los Angeles (1994). The study area includes the 4-lane divided causeway-Carlsbad Boulevard completed in 1989; with an automobile parking area between the sand dunes and the lagoon on the east side, parallel curb parking on the west side of the road, and a narrow strip of beach. The shoreline of the study area is dominated by cobbles, while sand occurs in the offshore profile generally below mean lower low water. The beach between the intake and outlet jetties off Agua Hedionda Lagoon remains sandy. This is the result of the periodic nourishment of fine sand from the lagoon provided by the dredging activities conducted by San Diego Gas and Electric Company. The beach is used for public recreation, including swimming, surfing, and fishing. East of the immediate study area are the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Rail Line, San Diego Freeway, and an inner lagoon. South of the area are the San Diego Gas and Electric Company's power plant and more beach area. Immediately north of the study area across the intake jetties is a public parking lot with approximately 400 parking spaces and Carlsbad State Beach on the west of the boulevard and residential and commercial developments on the east side. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon serves a multitude of uses; including a body of cooling water for the adjacent power plant, research area, fishing, and feeding spot for wildlife. On both ends of the causeway are ripraps, rocks ranging in size from one-quarter to one ton, about 350 to 400 feet long from the intake and outlet jetties. 6.2 Sediment Transport Along Carlsbad Coastal Area 6.2.1 Historic Data Available data on the historic shoreline response is discussed in Section 5.4 and reproduced at the end of this appendix. These data consist of beach profiles, shoreline change maps, and aerial photographs analyzed in the CCSTWS conducted by USAED Los Angeles (1991). Additional recent profile surveys (1990 to 1992) are available from Tekmarine Inc. 6.2.2 Shoreline Trends The most precise data for evaluating changes in the shoreline are the surveyed profiles. Five of these profiles located in the Carlsbad area are CB720, CB760, CB800, CB830, and 0S900. The location of these profiles are shown on maps located at the Attachment to Coastal Engineering Appendix. The profiles were analyzed for volume and shoreline changes using ISRP (Interactive Survey Reduction Program) and its associated utilities available for the Coastal Engineering Research Center's Field Research Facility, (Birkemeier and Holme, 1992). Figures 6.3 to 6.7 summarize the results. C2720. Profile line C2720 is located just south of the inlet to the Batiquitos Lagoon but may be representative of shoreline changes in Reach 5. The profile history extends to 1934 and was analyzed up to January 1988. Only those surveys which extended to at least the -20 ft MLLW water depth were utilized in the comparison. Between 1934 and January 1988, the net position 6-1 change of MLLW has been 165 feet closer to shore, i.e. erosion, equating to a long term rate of -3 feet/year. However, between 1934 and October 1986, there was a 19 foot seaward movement of the MLLW, equating to a net long term accretion of 0.4 feet/year, and a short term erosion between October 1986 and January 1988 of more than 131 feet/year. The cumulative volume changes are less cyclical and trends since about 1970 at an erosion rate of about -8 cubic yards per foot of beach per year. CB760. Profile C3760 is located at the northern end of South Carlsbad State Beach approximately at the boundary between reaches 4 and S. There were four profiles that extended to at least the -20 foot depth taken between April 1986 and September 1987. During this period the MLLW advanced seaward about 122 feet and the volume change between the baseline and 2000 feet offshore increased by 4 Cy/ft (rate of 5.8 cy/ft/yr). CBBOO. Profile CB800 is located off of the Terra Mar area in Reach 4. Surveys were available to the -20 foot depth between October 1970 to September 1987. Both the position of the MLLW line and the cumulative volume change is accretional by comparison to the first survey. In September 1987, the MLLW line had advanced 160 feet by comparison to October 1970. It should be noted, however, that severe erosion was observed as a result of the January 1988 storm at locations where surveys were performed and would also have been expected at this location. CB830. Profile CB830 is located about 500 feet north of the northern inlet to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Survey data were available for the two year period between April 1986 and January 1988. The trend in position of the MMw line and the sediment volume appear contradictory for these available surveys where when the t.UJLW shows erosion, the volume change is accretiorial and vice- versa. These data can only be used as an indication of the magnitude of seasonal activity and near term transport capacity of the profile. With regard to the latter, more than 60 cy/ft of beach were found to be transported in the six month period between April and October 1986. 0S900. Profile 0S900 is located to the north of Carlsbad in South Oceanside. This profile may be representative of Reach 1. Seven profiles were available with data to -20 foot depths between September 1961 to January 1988. Utilizing the 1961 survey as the basis for comparison shows a relatively stable shoreline with the exception of the eroded condition in January 1988. The long term volume loss between 1961 and 1988 is about 0.5 cy/ft/yr. 6.2.3 Storm and Future Without Project Profiles The January 1988 survey is representative of the eroded profile condition during a severe winter storm condition. During damaging storm events, a winter or storm profile would typically exist. This storm profile is deepened in the nearshore depending on the severity of the individual storm and the cumulative effects of the storm season. The long-term future shoreline also considers a net change in the average shoreline position to account for changes in the local sediment budget. For analysis purposes, the profiles taken in January 1988 were selected as representative of the present eroded winter profile that would exist during a storm event. The long term evolution of the future without project shoreline considered temporal changes in the sediment budget. From the sediment budget analysis in Section 5.7, the shoreline at mean sea level is predicted to retreat at an average rate of 1 foot per year for the next 50 years. Thus, a 50-foot shoreward recession in the present shoreline has been obtained for the future without project condition. 6-2 Storm effects on the profile were super-imposed on the present and future shoreline. It is rationalized that storm profile response would be directly related to storm severity and wave height, and therefore return period. Based on the analysis of the shoreline data presented in CCSTWS of USAED, Los Angeles (1991), shoreline retreat can be correlated with return period as shown in Table 6.1. The shoreline retreat corresponding to an exceedance probability of 1 % or a return period of 100 years was obtained by assuming a Gaussian distribution for the shoreline data. Table 6.1 Beach Recession at Carlsbad Coastal Area CE 720 Summer to Winter Shoreline Retreats: Shoreline Retreats (ft) ITEM MHHW -------------------------- MSL MLLW Mean 31.25 70.25 190.50 Maximum 39 81 227 Minimum 20 49 165 Standard Deviation 9.00 14.55 26.10 1 ' Exceedance 52 104 252 2 % Exceedance 50 100 245 4 t Exceedance 47 96 237 10 % Exceedance 43 89 225 The shoreline data presented in CCSTWS of USAED, Los Angeles (1991) from 1983 to 1988 have been analyzed to gain more insight of the seasonal movement of the shorelines. In Figure 6.2, the average profiles for the present conditions are indicated as the maximum, mean, and minimum profiles. The maximum profile represents the highest beach profiles and the minimum profile represents the deepest beach profiles, but not necessarily indication of the season. The mean profile is the average of all of the survey profiles. These profiles have been obtained by an analysis of the shoreline data by VOLUME-PC. VOLUME-PC, which is a program for processing beach and nearshore survey data on an IBM compatible micro-computer, is a complementary program to ISRP-PC (the Interactive Survey Reduction Program) and ISRPSORT (a sorting program). The hard pan profile, which is obtained from analysis of the available geotechnical data, is an indication of possible maximum scour. 6.3 Wave Runup Analysis 6.3.1 General As waves encounter certain types of coastal structures, the water rushes up and sometimes over the structure. These closely related phenomena, wave runup and wave overtopping, often strongly influence the design and the cost of coastal projects. Wave runup is defined as the vertical height above still-water level to which the rush of water reaches on the structure (of assumed infinite height). The waves are assumed to be normally incident to the structure. The empirical results introduced in the Shore Protection Manual (1984) and the Automated Coastal Engineering System, Version 1.07 dated September 6-3 1992, have been used to calculate the results of wave runup. Along the profile shown in Figure 6.2, the nearshore area of the project site has been approximated bya uniform slope running from the bottom up to the depth at which the structure is located. Then another slope is used to represent the structure. The still water level used in each wave runup calculation is a summation of the tide level and wave setup. Wave Setup: The phenomenon of wave setup causes a quasi-linear rise in the mean water level due to onshore mass transport of the water by wave action alone. This phenomenon is associated with the existence of a stress acting on the water due to the presence of wave motion, called the radiation stress. Its magnitude is related to the momentum flux accompanying wave propagation. The mean water surface slopes upward to the point of intersection with the shore. The results of wave setup have been calculated using the method introduced in the Shore Protection Manual (1984). The input parameters required for each wave event are the deepwater wave height and period and the nearshore slope of the sea bottom. 6.3.2 Methods of Wave Runup Calculation The Automated Coastal Engineering System, Version 1.07 (ACES 1.07) has been used to calculate the wave runups. ACES 1.07 uses the empirical method presented by Ahrens and McCartney (1975) for estimating the runup on structures protected by various types of primary armor faces. In their method, the runup R is predicted as a nonlinear function of the surf similarity parameter : R=H._a l+b (6.1) where Hi is the incident wave height; and a and b are the empirical coefficients associated with the corresponding types of armor unit. For the case of ripraps, a equals 0.956 and b equals 0.398 according to Table A-3 of Appendix A in ACES 1.07. The surf similarity parameter J is defined as (6.2) where 0 is the angle between the structure seaward face and the horizontal; and L0 is the deepwater wavelength. 6.3.3 Statistical Simulation The extreme wave runups were calculated using the design water depths at the structure toe. The design water depths and their corresponding probabilities were obtained through a joint probability simulation of possible joint combinations of storm wave events, astronomical tides and the combined residual water level resulting from.ENSO, storm surge, and wave setup. The frequency distribution of the higher high waters was utilized for the 6,4 astronomical tide which corresponded to an average storm duration of one lunar day. Independence was assumed between astronomical tide and storm events. The combined effects of storm surge, wave setup, and ENSO were dependent on storm event and were assumed to be dominated by the effect due to wave setup. For each condition (present condition and future without project condition) and reach cross-section, the joint probability model was run for all combinations of tide elevation, wave period, and significant wave height to obtain the design water depths. Each combination of wave period and wave height was used to obtain the corresponding value of wave setup. The resulting design water depth used in the calculation of wave runup was the summation of wave setup, tide elevation (above mean sea level), and the initial design water depth d1. (below mean sea level). The statistical distribution of higher high water shown in Figure 4.1 was discretized according to Harris (1981), resulting in 101 tidal elevations. Each tidal elevation had an assigned probability according to Harris (1981). Four wave periods, namely, 13, 3.5, 3.7, and 19 seconds, were used in the joint probability calculations. The 13, 15, 17, and 19-second waves were assumed to have probabilities of 0.3., 0.2, 0.4, and 0.3, respectively. The extreme wave heights shown in Table 4.2 were discretized into 13 waves, from 10 ft to 22 ft with 1-ft increment. The probability of each wave was obtained by linear interpolation of the exceedance distribution to plus and minus 0.5 ft of the wave. Thus, a total of 5,252 trials were obtained from each joint probability simulation. The resulting design water depths were ranked in descending order, with the corresponding probability of each depth attached. Then the probabilities were summed to obtain the exceedance probability. Table 6.3 shows the design water depth versus return period for the study area. During the calculation of the design water depth for the study area, the same profile was used for all of the return periods. Besides the present condition, the 50-year future condition is shown. The future condition has been obtained by scouring the initial water depth to the depth of the hard pan. Then the runup elevation corresponding to each design water depth and structure slope was calculated by using ACES 1.07. The breaking wave height that could be sustained by the design water depth had been used to calculate the runup level. Two sets of runup levels had been calculated, one set using a wave period of 15 seconds and another set using 17 seconds. The resultant runup levels were obtained by combining these two sets of runup levels, so that the runup level with the 2-year return frequency was that of the 15- second set and the runup level with the 200-year return frequency was that of the 17-second set. The runup levels of the other return frequencies were obtained by interpolating between the two sets of runup levels. The resulting probability distribution of wave runup elevations were used in the damage analysis (Section 6.5.3). Table 6.4 shows the wave runup elevation versus return period of the study area. 6.4 Coastal Storm Damages Coastal storm damages at the Carlsbad study area are the results of flooding due to wave runup, excessive forces from high velocity wave runup action, and storm induced erosion undermining foundations, etc. For instance, the causeway (Carlsbad Blvd.) between the intake and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon has been closed, in recent years, on the order of once every two years due to coastal storm attacks. 6.5 Estimates of Damages 6.5.1 Methodology Projections of damages to the coastal facilities were developed 6-5 utilizing projections of shoreline response, expectations of wave runup elevation, and a site visit to judgementally assign a damage-wave runup relation for the study area. This damage relation takes into consideration the type of improvement and existing protection afforded by the revetments, the proximity of improvements to the active wave runup zone, and the susceptibility to coastal flooding. Projections of future damages were also developed for the study area. - Table 6.3 Water Elevation Statistics at Carlsbad Coastal Area Carlsbad Design Water Depth Analysis: Design Water Depth (PT) (PT) COT COT LINE Dso T B 2-YR 5-YR 1OYR 25YR 5OYR 100YR 200YR Present Condition REACH 3 4.5 4.9 60.0 9.9 10.6 11.0 11.4 11.6 11.8 12.0 50-year Future Condition REACH 3 9.0 4.9 60.0 14.4 15.1 15.5 15.9 16.1 16.3 16.5 Notes: Dso = Initial design water depth below mean sea level COT T = Structure slope COT B = nearshore slope Design Water Depth = Wave setup + Tide + Dso Table 6.4 Wave Runup Statistics at Carlsbad Coastal Area Carlsbad Wave Runup Level (ft MLLW) ------------------------------------------------------------ Line 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 200-yr Present Condition Reach 3 18.2 19.5 20.4 21.2 21.7 22.2 22.7 50-year Future Condition Reach 3 21.4 22.7 23.5 24.3 24.8 25.4 25.8 6-6 Damages to existing revetments: Damage to revetments is estimated by calculating the forces acting on the revetment stones due to breaking waves. Basing on the stone size and revetment slope, the Hudson formula has been used to calculate H which is the design wave height corresponding to the no-damage condition. The stability coefficient K0 has been assumed to be 2.0. The breaking wave height Be for each reach is calculated by using the design water depths and nearshore slope shown in Table 6.3. Also, a wave period of 17 Seconds has been used. Equation 7-5 on page 7-9 of the SPM (1984) has been used to calculate 138. With the ratio of He to H00, the percent damage D for rough quarrystone armor is obtained from Table 7-9 of the SPM (1984). Damages to ancillary improvements: Ancillary improvements, such as landscaping, stairways, and restrooms, are damaged when the wave runup level exceeds the elevation at which these ancillary improvements are situated. Erosion damages at Carlsbad Boulevard: The section of Carlsbad Blvd. located between the intake and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon is subject to erosion damages. The estimate of road erosion is based on the magnitude of excess runup. Excess runup is the result of runup elevation subtracting the road elevation of +16.8 feet MLLW. According to the study of USED, Los Angeles (May 1990), a horizontal erosion of about 50 feet occurred at this section of Carlsbad Blvd. during the 1983 storm season. A wave runup level of +20.9 feet PULW was obtained for the January 1983 storm event, resulting in an excess runup of 4.3. feet. Thus, a horizontal erosion of 50 feet was related to an excess runup of 4.1 feet. It was assumed that no erosion would occur for excess runups of 3 feet or less. Also, it was assumed that the road would be totally damaged when an erosion of 150 feet occurred. With an erosion of 150 feet corresponding to an excess runup of 6.3 feet, erosion was assumed to be constant at 150 feet for excess runups greater than 6.3 feet. Thus, erosion caused by various runups were obtained by linear interpolation between the two data points, i.e., 0 feet erosion at 3 feet excess runup and 150 feet erosion at 6.3 feet excess runup. Damages were projected for various storm intensities in terms of percent by reach or structure type, equated to an absolute quantity of materials and valued by its depreciated replacement cost. Present and future without project runup levels and storm erosion were computed for the various return periods. The probability of extreme runup elevations on the coastal structures were modeled by the statistical simulation described in Section 6.3.3. Erosion is based on the discussion of Section 6.2.3. The estimation of physical damages and its valuation is contained in the Economics Appendix. 6.5.2 Wave Height - Damage Mechanism As previously indicated, maximum wave runup elevations provide the force by which the coastal structures are damaged. Damage criteria for these elements were developed through inferences made with respect to prior damages sustained by the structures at the Carlsbad coastal area. Study of historical damages at other coastal facilities in southern California has provided insight into the potential performance and consequent vulnerability of the Carlsbad coastal area to storm damage, based upon differing structure types. Detailed information on the structural capabilities of the coastal structures provided by the design engineer and as-built drawings has also been incorporated into an overall assessment of potential storm damage vulnerabilities. 6-7 6.5.3 Damage Analysis to Coastal Facilities Projected damages to the coastal facilities for the present and future without project conditions are presented in Tables 6.5 and 6.6. The damages to the revetments are shown in Table 6.5. Table 6.6 shows the damages to the causeway section of Carlsbad Blvd. between the intake and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Table 6.5 Revetment Damages - Present and Future Without Project Carlsbad - Damage of Revetments Item 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year 200-year Present Condition North of Intake Jetties 450 LF at $180.00 / ft = $81,000 Rb/H D=0 0.85 1.08 1.24 1.42 1.58 1.7 1.71 Damage (9') 0 5 13 25 43 60 61 Damage $0 $4,000 $11,000 $20,000 $35,000 $49,000 $49,000 South of Intake Jetties 350 IS at $134.29 / ft = $47,000 Rb/H D=0 1.22 1.54 1.78 2.04 2.26 2.43 2.46 Damage (9') 12 38 70 100 100 100 100 Damage $6,000 $18,000 $33,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 50-year Future Condition North of Intake Jetties Rb/H D=0 2.06 2.15 2.21 Damage (9') 100 100 100 Damage $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 South of Intake Jetties Rb/H D=0 2.96 3.08 3.17 Damage (9') 100 100 100 Damage $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 450 LF at $180.00 / ft = $81,000 2.26 2.29 2.32 2.35 100 100 100 100 $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 350 LF at $134.29 / ft = $47,000 3.24 3.28 3.32 3.37 100 100 100 100 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 6-8 Table 6.6 Carlsbad Blvd. Damages - Present and Future Without Project Carlsbad Blvd. Damages 16.8 ft = road elevation 2,000 ft = length of road damaged Jan 83 storm, excess runup = 20.9 - 16.8 = 4.1 ft, erosion = 50 ft Assume excess runup of 3 ft and less causing 0 ft erosion $15.00 per ft2 = Damage Repair 150 ft = Total Road Erosion Return Wave Excess (f t) (f t2) (S) Period(yr) Runup (ft) Runup(ft) Erosion Area Damage Present Condition 2 18.2 1.4 0 0 0 5 19.5 2.7 0 0 0 10 20.4 3.6 27 54,000 810,000 25 21.2 4.4 64 128,000 1,920,000 50 21.7 4.9 86 172,000 2,580,000 100 22.2 5.4 109 218,000 3,270,000 200 22.7 5.9 132 264,000 3,960,000 50-year Future Condition 2 21.4 4.6 73 146,000 2,190,000 5 22.7 5.9 132 264,000 3,960,000 10 23.5 6.7 150 300,000 4,500,000 25 24.3 7.5 150 300,000 4,500,000 50 24.8 8.0 150 300,000 4,500,000 100 25.4 8.6 150 300,000 4,500,000 200 25.8 9.0 150 300,000 4,500,000 6-9 Figure 6. la Five Reaches of Carlsbad Coastal Area (Datum of bathymetry is MSL which is +2.75 feet MLLW) 6-10 Figure 6.1b Reach 3 of Carlsbad Coastal Area (Datum of bathymetry is MSL which is +2.75 feet MLLW) 6-11 C. • ID .Lfl 5- ZZ Is' tI ! !I! o !/) •q T.1 ' ' IIwo : • 0 I- I .1- I -I -1 0 (M1-IN UOt0A9I3 Figure 6.2 Schematic Profile of Carlsbad - Reach 3 6-12 Above Below Net Gross Cum. Cum. Cum. Start Max. Shoreline Datum Datum Profile Profile Shoreline Net Vol. Above Dist. Dist. Cum. Change Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Change Change Datum ft ft Years ft yd3/ft yd3/ft yd3/ft yd3/ft ft yd3/ft yd3/ft 0 1300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1300 23.2 -8.33 -0.4 15.59 15.19 27.61 -8.33 15.19 -0.4 0 1300 36.7 107.14 40.85 41.19 82.04 83.18 98.81 97.22 40.45 0 1300 49.8 -83.83 -13.68 -77.22 -90.9 124.12 34.98 6.32 28.77 0 1300 50.4 -184.85 -22.33 24.47 2.15 99.48 -149.87 8.47 4.44 0 1300 50.9 118.31 7.62 -20.35 -12.73 73.34 -33.56 4.28 12.08 0 1300 52.3 -142.29 -8.87 51.47 42.6 118.18 -175.85 38.34 3.19 0 1300 52.7 194.58 20.87 -65.25 -44.38 107.38 18.73 -8.03 24.07 0 1300 53.3 -184.89 -20.25 -22.98 -43.2 100.47 -168.15 -49.23 3.82 0 1300 54.1 1.41 3.05 -14.43 -11.38 80.86 -164.74 -80.62 6.87 (Q Loc. Profile Survey Code No. No. Date CF 720 1 01/04134 CF 720 2 04/01/57 CF 720 3 10/01/70 n CF 720 10 10/18/83 9 CF 720 20 05/21/84 CF 720 30 11/27/84 CF 720 50 04/13/86 CF 720 60 10/04/88 o CF 720 70 04/13/87 CF 720 90 01126/88 to P. to A S. of Batiquttos PROFILE CHANGE SUMMARY TABLE 11 Datum: MLLW I 100 U) M g50 (D 2 0 C, S !-50 1100 a Q-I50 C) tr -200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Years since Jan 1934 L- cumulative shorelline change cumulative volume change 1 in, . .. ... . .... .. -7TI......... . .. .... ... .... V0 40 20 Carlsbad State Beach PROFILE CHANGE SUMMARY TABLE Datum: MLLW Above Below Net Gross Cum. Cum. Cum. Start Max. Shoreline Datum Datum Profile Profile Shoreline Net Vol. Above Loc. Profile Survey 01st. 01st. Cum. Change Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Change Change Datum Code No. No. Date ft ft Days ft yd3lft yd3lft yd3lft yd3lft ft yd3lft yd3lft CF 760 50 860413 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CF 760 60 881004 0 2000 174 94.24 3.76 -22.82 -18.86 81.86 94.24 -18.88 3.76 CF 760 70 870413 0 2000 385 -28.38 -5.69 37.5 31.82 72.12 67.86 12.95 -1.93 CF 760 80 870921 0 2000 528 53.98 7.55 -16.48 -8.93 77.71 121.84 4.02 5.62 140 1 Ee 20 ..... ..... -20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Days from 04113186 F-;;-- cumulative shorelline change -- cumulative volume change 1 REACH 4 PROFILE CHANGE SUMMARY TABLE Datum: MLLW Above Below Net Gross Cum. Cum. Cum. Start Max. Shoreline Datum Datum Profile Profile Shoreline Net Vol. Above Loc. Profile Survey Dist. Dist. Cum. Change Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Change Change Datum Code No. No. Date ft ft Days ft yd3/ft yd3lft yd3lft yd31ft ft yd3lft yd3lft CF 800 3 701001 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CF 800 5 720201 0 2000 488 134.03 15.15 45.13 80.28 75.38 134.03 60.28 15.15 CF 800 50 860411 0 2000 5667 -114.43 -9.05 1.11 -7.94 53.99 19.61 52.33 6.1 CF 800 60 861004 0 2000 5843 117.66 1.08 -48 -48.92 54.34 137.27 5.41 7.18 CF 800 70 870413 0 2000 6034 -72.11 8.85 41.92 48.76 57.06 65.16 54.18 14.02 CF 800 80 870921 0 2000 6195 94.5 0.21 -8.88 -6.67 43.98 159.66 47.5 14.23 160 _140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Days from 10128183 I - cumulative shorelline change - cumulative volume change I 4° 1 220 Ch M 1° tr La -20 Co 40 V ID 73 0 .60 -80 Carlsbad - Reach 2 PROFILE CHANGE SUMMARY TABLE Datum: MLLW Above Below Net Gross Cum. Cum. Cum. m Start Max. Shoreline Datum Datum Profile Profile Shoreline Net Vol. Above Loc. Profile Survey Dist. Dist. Cum. Change Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Change Change Datum Code No. No. Date ft ft Days ft yd3/ft yd3/ft yd3/ft yd3/ft ft yd3/ft yd3/ft '1 CF 830 50 860411 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CF 830 60 861004 0 2000 176 23.83 -1.48 -60.79 -62.27 72.99 23.63 -62.27 -1.48 CF 830 70 870413 0 2000 367 -13.81 -7.36 11.74 4.38 88.53 10.02 -57.89 -8.84 CF 830 80 870922 0 2000 529 -2.43 8.28 33.35 41.61 76.37 7.59 -16.27 -0.58 CF 830 90 880127 0 2000 658 -31.83 -4.3 80.47 58.17 98.22 -24.24 39.89 -4.88 0 0 LT_. ! 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Days from 10128183 cumulative shoreltine change --- cumulative volume change South Oceanside PROFILE CHANGE SUMMARY TABLE Datum: MLLW Above Below Net Gross Cum. Cum. Cum. Carlsbad - Reach I Start Max. Shoreline Datum Datum Profile Profile Shc reline Net Vol. Above Loc. Profile Survey 01st. Dist. Cum. Change Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Vol. Chg. Change Change Datum Code No. No. Date ft ft Days- ft yd3/ft yd3/ft yd3/ft yd3/ft ft yd3/ft yd3/ft -- --------- --------- ------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- Start Max. Shoreline Datum Datum Profile Profile Shoreline Net Vol. Above CF 900 2 09/07/61 0 2000 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CF 900 5 02/01/72 0 2000 10.4 -30 -22.15 -24.7 -46.85 85.38 -30 -46.85 -22.15 CF 900 50 04/11/86 0 2000 24.6 30.83 11.31 18.91 30.22 147.01 0.83 -16.64 -10.84 CF 900 60 10/04/80 0 2000 25.1 119.85 19.86 -35.79 -15.94 137.44 120.69 -32.57 9.02 CF 900 70 04/13/87 0 2000 25.6 -111.09 -15.34 61.02 45.68 118.49 9.6 13.11 -8.32 CF 900 80 09/22/87 0 2000 28.0 94.92 18.35 -18.61 -0.26 94.99 104.52 12.85 12.03 CF 900 90 01/26/88 0 2000 26.4 -204.05 -28.73 2.11 -26.62 191.39 -99.53 -13.77 -18.7 ..----- .--..-...--...---.. ........- ....................1 --...--.---.------. ii 50 10 -50 C) -100 -4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Years from Sep 1961 I -- cumulative shorelline change cumulative volume change 7.0 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 7.1 Planning Criteria Alternatives were developed in response to the primary need for storm damage protection at the project site, as well as to provide an opportunity for the potential re-establishment of beach activities in the area. Additional information on the development of these criteria can be found within the body of the Main report. 7.2 Preliminary Basis for Design The assumptions and basis for design of the alternative plans are described in the following sections. 7.2.1 Beach Fill The width of the berm is 200 feet and its crest elevation is +10 feet MLLW. The berm crest slopes downward 1 vertical to 20 horizontal to the natural nearshore bottom. The characteristics of sand from the borrow site will be compatible with those of the native sand in the Carlsbad coastal area. According to the boring data obtained by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1990), the median grain size of the sand is about 0.2 nun. Based on the typical beach profiles, the cross-sectional area of beach fill is about 3,460 ft 2. To maintain a minimum width of 200 feet for the protective beach, an extra volume of sand will be required during the initial construction of the beach fill. The extra volume will account for the sand loss which takes place between the time interval of replenishment, because there is a net longshore transport of 270,000 cubic yards per year moving towards the south. 7.2.2 Groin Design Water Depth: In the coastal area of southern California, such as Ventura Harbor and Newport Beach, the groins are generally designed to terminate in a water depth of -10 feet MLLW. However, the design of this study is based on the groin length of 350 feet due to the constraint of the length of the intake and outlet jetties of the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. Based on the beach profile measurements obtained by Tekmarine (1992), this groin length terminates in a water depth of about -8 to -10 feet MLLW. According to the CCSTWS conducted by USAED, Los Angeles (1991), the maximum sea level at La Jolla associated with a return period of 1 year is 6.95 feet MLLW. Thus, the design water depth is 10 + 6.95 = 16.95 feet. Design Wave Height: A design wave height associated with a return period of 25 years is used in this preliminary evaluation to approximate the optimal armor size in balancing the first and repair costs. From Table 4.2, the significant wave height of this event is 15.9 feet. Then the maximum waves that can be sustained near the structure head by a design depth of 16.95 feet are determined basing on the conditions of wave breaking and wave steepness. A wave period of 17 seconds and a nearshore slope of 1:51 have been used in the calculations. According to Weggel (1972), the maximum breaker height is 16.5 feet. According to Miche (1944), the maximum wave height subject to the limiting steepness is 14.8 feet. Therefore, the design wave height is 14.8 7-]. feet. c. Rock Structural Stability and Section Design: The groin structures are designed according to the SPM (1984). Armor sizes are designed using Hudson's formula and a specific gravity Sr of 2.65. Minimum side slopes of 1. vertical to 2 horizontal are utilized. The number of units comprising the thickness of the armor layer is 2. The stability coefficient K is 2.5. Rock is assumed to be individually placed, in the usual stable configuration with the long axis of the stone placed perpendicular to the structure face. An armor stone weight of 12 tons is determined for the structure head. Rock gradation of 9 to 15 tons is assumed, with 50% to be greater than 12 tons. The recommended minimum crest width is 3 stones, resulting in an 16-foot-wide crest utilizing 12-ton stones (assuming 5.3 feet wide per stone). The underlayer or 5-1 stone is sized as 10% of the armor stone. This yields a B-i stone size of 1 to 3 tons, with 50 percent greater than 1 ton. The core stone (C-Stone) is selected as quarry run. Also, an armor stone weight of 7 tons is determined for the structure trunk. The groin will be grouted to prevent the longshore sediment from passing through the structure.. Grouting starts from the berm end of the groin to about 200 feet offshore, along the centerline of the groin. The groin is grouted from the crest to the tLW line. 7.2.3 Seawall The design of the seawall is based on the design of the public seawall planned for construction by the City of Carlsbad. The seawall consists of a concrete cap built on a sheet pile wall. Also, toe stones are placed on the seaward side of the sheet pile wall. a. Scouring: The wave-induced scour depth in front of the vertical seawall has been estimated by the dimensionless equation developed by Fowler (1992) using irregular wave test results: H0 =I22 . 72d/ Lc) +O .25 (7.1) where S is the maximum scour depth below the natural bed, H. is the deepwater wave height, d., is the water depth at the vertical wall, and L0 is the deepwater wavelength. This equation is applicable for -0.011ad,,/L0 0.05 and 0.015sH0/L0s0.04. In the recent studies conducted at the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station's Coastal Engineering Research Center (Fowler, 1993), thisequation has been recommended for determining the ultimate scour depth at vertical walls. Table 7.1 shows the results of S for the case with a wave period of 15 seconds, i.e., L0 = 1153.08 feet. The extreme wave heights H of Oceanside Harbor shown in Table 4.2 have been used in the calculation of S. The values of the 2- and 200-year H have been extrapolated. The extreme waves were obtained at a water depth of about 30 feet. For each return period, the H0 has been calculated by the linear wave shoaling coefficient. Based on the beach profile data obtained by Tekmarine (1992), the elevation of the natural bed at the seawall (designated as TOS in Table 7.1) is about +16 feet MLLW. 7-2 Then the water depth at the seawall is expressed as: d=-(TOs-(d5+ d o) ] (7.2) where d5 is the design water depth shown in Table 6.3 and d50 is the initial design water depth. The d50 is located at -1.75 feet MLLW. Negative values of d1, shown in Table 7.1 indicate that the seawall is located shoreward of the location where the still water level intersects the natural pre-scour profile. The column designated by TOS2 is the scoured elevation of the natural bed, obtained by subtracting SW from TOS. Table 7.1 Carlsbad Reach 3 - Maximum Scour at Vertical Seawall T HG H0 dG d S TOS2 (years) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) SW/Ho (feet) (ft MLLW) 2 12.0 10.36 9.9 -7.85 0.309 3.2 12.8 5 13.0 11.22 10.6 -7.15 0.330 3.7 12.3 10 13.5 11.65 11.0 -6.75 0.342 4.0 12.0 25 15.9 13.72 11.4 -6.35 0.353 4.8 11.2 50 17.9 15.45 11.6 -6.15 0.359 5.5 10.5 100 20.0 17.26 11.8 -5.95 0.364 6.3 9.7 200 21.8 18.81 12.0 -5.75 0.370 7.0 9.0 Notes: = Return period H5 = Oceanside Harbor extreme wave heights at 30 feet depth shown in Table 4.2 H0 = Deepwater wave height calculated by linear wave shoaling coefficient d5 = Design water depth shown in Table 6.3 = water depth at vertical seawal]. = -[TOS - (d5 + = Maximum scour depth below the natural bed TOS2 = Scoured elevation of the natural bed with respect to MLLW = TOS - S TOS = Elevation of the natural bed = +16 feet MLLW = Initial design water depth shown in Table 6.3 = -4.5 feet MSL = -1.75 feet MLLW b. Toe Stone Protection: Figure 7.1 shows a typical cross section of the seawall and the layout of the toe stone apron. The toe protection for the vertical seawall has been designed according to the guidance of SPM (1984) and CETN-III-39. The toe stone weight is determined by: WrH3 (7.3) 10 (Srl) 7-3 where W is the weight of individual stone, Wr is the specific weight of stone, H is the design wave height associated with d12, d12 is the water depth at the structure, N1 is the stability number, and S is the specific gravity of stone. The stability number, N1, is semi-empirically formulated on the basis of irregular wave tests conducted by Tanimoto, et al. (1982): 1-x K)2 d Ns=1.3K,,3_ d +1.8exP[_l.5 (1 K113 where d1 is the water depth at. the top of the toe protection and K is the parameter associated with the maximum horizontal velocity at the edge of the apron determined from standing waves as described by the linear wave theory: 4 itd1 K= 41td1 (sjn2) 2 (7.5) sinh( L where B is the width of the toe apron and L is the wavelength at depth d predicted by the linear wave theory. It is noted that if the value of N. obtained from Equation 7.4 is less than 1.8, the value of N. should be set at 1.8. As shown in Figure 7.1, the top of the toe apron is situated at an elevation of +9 feet PJLW. (This is the 200-year scoured elevation of the natural bed shown in Table 7.1) The toe apron, which is 3 feet thick, is supported by 6 inches of bedding material (quarry run). The width of the toe apron, B, is 15 feet. The 200-year design water depth shown in Table 6.3 and the following parameters have been used in the calculation of the toe stone weight: T = wave period = 15 seconds = top elevation of toe apron = +9.0 feet ?flJLW dBOT = bottom elevation of toe apron = +5.5 feet PUJLW = 200-year design water depth shown in Table 7.1 = 12.0 feet = initial design water depth shown in Table 6.3 = -1.75 feet MLLW d52 = (d. + d50) - dscr = 4.75 feet H = 4.202 feet (according to Weggel (1972) and Miche (1944)) = (d1 + d10) - d, = 1.25 feet B =lsfeet L = 95.056 feet K = 0.697 N. = 1.851 w, = 165 pounds per cubic foot S = 2.65 W = 491 pounds Thus, the toe stone weight is about 500 pounds. However, a stone weight of 1,500 pounds, as used in the designs of the City of Carlsbad, has been selected for the design of the toe stone protection. This stone weight has been selected for the final design because (a) using a higher design stone weight will result in higher reliability of structure integrity; and (b) the first construction cost is insensitive to the range of stone sizes used in this project. 7-4 7.3 Description of Alternate Plans To protect the Carlsbad coastal area from storm damage and to armor the shoreline against further erosion, the following beach stabilization and protective structures have been considered: beach nourishment, seawall, and groin. The plans, which have been developed as alternative strategies to reduce storm damages along the study area of Carlsbad, are outlined in the following sub-sections. Other schemes of shoreline stabilization include sand bypassing and submerged sill, and offshore breakwater. However, these schemes have not been considered in the alternative plans. 7.3.1 Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill As shown in Figure 7.2a, a T-groin is used to stabilize the beach fill in the study area. The beach fill is about 2,700 feet long. The elevation of the beach fill is +10 feet MLLW and the width of the berm is 200 feet. The beach face slopes downward approximately 1 vertical on 20 horizontal from the berm crest to the natural nearshore bottom. A typical cross-section of the beach fill is shown in Figure 7.2b. The groin is about 350 feet long and the T-shaped end is about 200 feet long. Figure 7.2b also shows the profile of the groin. A typical cross-section of the groin is shown in Figure 7.2c. 7.3.2 Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawall As shown in Figure 7.3a, a 2,504 feet long seawall is built in the study area to protect the portion of Carlsbad Blvd. between the intake and outlet jetties at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Design of the seawall was obtained from the City of Carlsbad. Figure 7.3b shows a typical cross-section of the seawall. The seawall consists of a 30-foot steel sheet piling with a reinforced concrete cap. Typical elevation of the seawall top is about +20 feet MLLW. The seaward side of the sheet pile wall is protected by two layers of 1,500- pound stones. In addition to the seawall situated in the study area, the City of Carlsbad has designed the South Wall and the South Wall Extension situated south of the outlet jetties. The additional seawall is 608 feet long. Thus the total length of seawall is 3,112 feet. Also, a 400 feet long rubble-mound revetment is constructed, starting immediately from the south jetty of the intake structure to the aforementioned seawall. The stone weight of the revetment is 3 tons. 7.3.3 Plan 3 - A 2,504-Foot Seawall As shown in Figure 7.4, a 2,504 feet long seawall is built in the study area to protect the portion of Carlsbad Blvd. between the intake and outlet jetties at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Design of the seawall was obtained from the City of Carlsbad. Figure 7.3b shows a typical cross-section of the seawall. The seawall consists of a 30-foot steel sheet piling with a reinforced concrete cap. Typical elevation of the seawall top is about +20 feet MLLW. The seaward side of the sheet pile wall is protected by two layers of 1,500- pound stones. Also, a 400 feet long rubble-mound revetment is constructed, starting immediately from the south jetty of the intake structure to the aforementioned seawall. The stone weight of the revetment is 3 tons. The South Wall and the South Wall Extension situated south of the outlet jetties are not included in Plan 3. 7.4 Assessment of Alternate Plans 7-5 An assessment of these alternative strategies is described in the following sub-sections. Included in the assessment are the shoreline response, wave runup, and damages to coastal structures. For damages to the coastal structures, the same damage criteria and method of calculation detailed in Section 6.5.1 are used. 7.4.1 Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill Due to the reorientation of the shoreline after groin construction, the angle between the shoreline and the incoming wave crests will be reduced. The net ].ongshore transport rate affecting the study area is assumed to be reduced from 270,000 cubic yards per year to about 130,000 cubic yards per year. It is also assumed that the study area will receive about 130,000 cubic yards per year from the sand bypass operation at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Thus, no beach -fill replenishment is required. With the protection of the beach fill, the results of wave runup in the study area are +14.9, +16.2, +17.0, +21.0, +21.3, +21.7, +22.2 feet MLLW associated with return periods of 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 200-year, respectively. Using the results of wave runup, damages to the causeway section of Carlsbad Blvd. between the intake and outlet jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon can be obtained. Based on the road elevation of +16.8 feet ?.fiJLW, the results of excess runup are 0.2, 4.2, 4.5, 4.9, and 5.4 feet associated with return periods of 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 200-year, respectively. Table 7.2 shows the results of wave runup and damages to Carlsbad Blvd. for the with project condition. Table 7.2 Plan 1 - Road Damage - With Project Beach Fill Reach 3 - Carlsbad Blvd. Damage - With Beach Fill Project Condition 16.8 ft = road elevation 2,000 ft = length of road damaged Jan 83 storm, excess runup = 20.9 - 16.8 = 4.1 ft, erosion = 50 ft Assume excess runup of 3 ft and less causing 0 ft erosion $15.00 per ft*2 = Damage Repair 150 ft = Total Road Erosion Return Wave Excess (ft) (ft*2) ($) Period(yr) Runup(ft) Runup(ft) Erosion Area Damage 2 14.9 0 0 0 0 5 16.2 0 0 0 0 10 17.0 0.2 0 0 0 25 21.0 4.2 55 110,000 1,650,000 50 21.3 4.5 68 136.000 2,040,000 100 21.7 4.9 86 172,000 2,580,000 200 22.2 5.4 109 218,000 3,270,000 Since the berm provides protection from wave attack, damage to the revetment located south of the intake jetties is reduced. The results of revetment damage are shown in Table 7.3. 7-6 Table 7.3 Plan 1 - Revetment Damage - With Project Beach Fill Item 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year 200-year Damage(%) 0 0 0 30 65 100 100 Damage 0 0 0 $14,100 $30,600 $47,000 $47,000 Notes: Revetment at South of Intake Jetties, 350 LF at $134.29/ft = $47,000 Cost amounts are rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. 7.4.2 Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawall Construction of a seawall at the study area is anticipated to cause minimal effects to the existing sediment transport mechanism, because the toe of the seawall is located at a landward setback distance. Thus, there will be no adverse impact to the local coastal processes. The results of wave runup within the study area will be similar to those of the without project conditions. Damage to the causeway caused by wave runup action is reduced as shown in Table 7.4a. Table 7.4a Plans 2 and 3 - Carlsbad Blvd. Damages Condition 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year 200-year Present 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-year 0 0 0 0 $409,090 $1,227,272 $1,772,726 There will be no reduction in damage to the existing revetment situated north of the intake jetties. Since the revetment situated south of the intake jetties has been re-built, damage to this revetment is reduced as shown in Table 7.4b. Table 7.4b Plans 2 and 3 - Revetment Damage Item 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year 200-year Damage(%) 0 0 0 13.5 21 31 32 Damage 0 0 0 $6,300 $9,900 $14,600 $15,000 Notes: Revetment at South of Intake Jetties, 350 LF at $134.29/ft = $47,000 Cost amounts are rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. The wave-induced scouring in front of the seawall will occur down to the top of the toe stones. Further scouring is prevented by the protection of the toe stones. Thus, scouring will not cause damage to the seawall. Since the seawall is properly designed against wave attack, structure damage to the seawall is also assumed to be minimal. 7-7 1.4.3 Plan 3 - A 2,504-Foot Seawall The results of shoreline response, wave runup, and damages to coastal structures are similar to those of Plan 2. 7.5 Costs of Construction and Maintenance Costs to construct the alternatives are detailed in the MCACES cost estimates shown in Appendix D. The results are shown in Tables 7.5 through 7.7. The procedures of calculation are shown in the following sub-sections. An interest rate of 7.625 % and a project life of 50 years have been used in calculating the annual cost. 7.5.1 Unit-Prices The cost estimates assume current unit-prices as follows: A-12 stone $35/ton A-7 stone $35/ton A-3 stone $31/ton A-i stone $31/ton B stone $31/ton C stone $25/ton Sheet Pile Wall $488/linear foot Concrete Cap $285/cubic yard Beach Fill $3/6ubic yard Planning, Engineering, and Design: 8% of total construction cost Construction Management: 7% of total construction cost Engineering during Construction: 2% of total construction cost To account for the uncertainties of estimating the unit-prices and construction quantities, a contingency of 25% has been applied to the calculation of cost items. 7.5.2 Construction Materials, Quantities, and Costs The characteristics of sand from the borrow site will be compatible with those of the native sand in the Carlsbad coastal area. Based on the typical cross-sectional area to achieve a 200-foot berm, the volume of beach fill is estimated by using the pertaining length of the study area. The groin would be constructed with quarry stone of Sr = 2.65, and meeting standard SPL criteria. It is assumed that the groin would be constructed with land based or floating equipment, typically including a 150- ton, barge-mounted crane, various tugs, rock barges etc. The quantities estimated for: the groin and toe stones of the seawall have been calculated with an in-place rubble-mound density of 1.5 tons per cubic yard of volume. The quantity estimates of the other items are included in Tables 7.5 through 7.7. It is assumed that the seawall would be constructed with land based equipments. 7.5.3 Maintenance Requirements For the groin structure, maintenance requirements would include the 7-8 repair and replacement of the rubble-mound structure. It is assumed that the annual maintenance of the rubble-mound structure would run about 0.5 % of the total first cost of rock placement. In actuality, this maintenance would be performed on an as-needed basis, resulting in less frequent maintenance efforts. Similarly, the annual maintenance of the seawall is assumed to run about 0.5 % of the total first cost of construction. In order for the portion of the steel sheet piling without concrete encasement to remain functional throughout the project life, corrosion protection of the steel is required. This can be achieved by methods such as cathodic protection or coating. For the maintenance of the beach fill, it is assumed that the study area will receive about 130,000 cubic yards per year from the sand bypass operation at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Thus, no beach fill replenishment is anticipated. 7.6 Optimization of Seawall Crest Elevation Based on the results of economics analysis shown in Appendix B, Plan 3 with a 2,504-foot seawall is the plan that has the maximum net benefit among the three aforementioned plans. The City of Carlsbad has designed the crest of the seawall at an elevation of about 4.7 feet above the road. By varying the seawall crest elevation with a fixed length of 2.504 feet, an optimization process has been conducted to confirm the existing design crest elevation of the seawall. Table 7.8 shows the results of the optimization process. The crest elevation of the seawall has been varied from 2 to 9 feet above the road. Using the wave runup results shown in Table 6.6, the residual road damage for each seawall crest elevation has been calculated and shown in column 2 of Table 7.8. Column 3 shows the road benefit which is the difference between the without project road damage of $606,510 and each residual road damage. Then the total benefit shown in column 4 is the sum of the road benefit and the benefit obtained by re-building the revetment situated south of the intake jetties. Column 5 shows the total annual cost which consists of the annualized construction cost and operation and maintenance cost. Columns 6 and 7 show the net benefit and benefit cost ratio, respectively. Figure 7.5 shows the results of net benefit versus seawall crest elevations above the road. From the results of the optimization process, a seawall crest elevation of about 5 feet above the road will result in the maximum net benefit. Thus Plan 3 with a 2,504-foot seawall is qualified as the NED plan. 7-9 Table 7.5 Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill - Cost Estimate Contingency Unit Cost without -----------------Cost with. Item Quantity Unit Price Contingency Amount % Contingency 350 ft groin A-12 Stone 2,800 tons $34.85 697,576 $24,394 25 $121,970 A-7 Stone 2,800 tons $34.85 $97,576 $24,394 25 $121,970 B-i Stone 5,600 tons $31.35 $175,558 $43,890 25 $219,448 C-Stone 5,600 tons $25.38 $142,112 $35,528 25 $177,640 Excavation 10,000 Cu yd $8.45 $84,549 $21,137 25 $105,686 Grouting 1 Job L.S. $208,326 $52,082 25 $260,408 Cost of each groin $805,697 $201,425 $1,007,122 200 ft 'F-ends A-12 Stone 3,200 tons $34.85 6111,515 $27,879 25 $139,394 B-i Stone 3,200 tens $31.35 $100,319 $25,080 25 $125,399 C-Stone 3,200 tons $25.38 $81,207 $20,302 25 $101,509 Cost of 'F-ends $293,041 $73,261 $366,302 Mobilization & Demob. 1 Job L.S $57,690 $14,423 .25 $72,113 Cost of 1 T-groin $1,156,428 $289,109 $1,445,537 Beach Fill 346,000 Cu yd $3.11 $1,075,393 $268,848 25 $1,344,241 Cost of Beach Fill $1,075,393 $268,848 $1,344,241 Subtotal of Construction Cost (Beach Fill • Groin) $2,231,821 $557,957 $2,789,778 8 % Planning, Engineering, and Design $178,546 $44,637 25 $223,183 2 % Engineering during Construction $44,636 $111 159 25 $55,795 7 % Construction Management $156,227 $39,057 25 $195,284 Total First Cost of Construction $2,611,230 $652,810 $3,264,040 Annual Cost $204,289 $51,073 $255,362 Interest During Construction $2,500 $625 $3,125 Annual O&M Cost of Groins $6,823 $1,706 $8,529 Total Annual Cost $213,612 $53,404 $267,016 Note: Replenishment 0 Table 7.6 Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawall - Cost Estimate Contingency Unit Cost without -----------------Cost with Item Quantity Unit Price Contingency Amount % Contingency Mobilization & Demobilization 1 Job L.S. $57,690 $14,423 25 $72,113 Sheet Pile Wall 3,112 In feet $483.40 $1,504,334 $376,084 25 $1,880,418 Concrete Cap 2,512 Cu yd $284.66 $715,076 $178,769 25 $893,845 1,500-pound Toe Rock 9,650 tone $31.21 $301,187 $75,297 25 $376,484 C-Stone 905 Cu yd $44.14 $39,951 $9,988 25 $49,939 Filter Cloth 9,350 sq yd $3.85 $35,977 $8,994 25 $44,971 Other Items - Group 1 1 Job L.S. $84,593 $21,148 25 $105,741 Other Items - Group 2 1 Job L.S. $46,336 $11,584 25 $57,920 North Revetment 1 Job L.S. $595,670 $148,918 25 $744,588 Subtotal Cost $3,380,814 $845,205 $4,226,019 8 % Planning, Engineering, and Design $270,465 $67,616 25 $338,081 2 % Engineering during Construction $67,616 $16,904 25 $84,520 7 % Construction Management $236,657 $59,164 25 $295,821 Total First Cost $3,955,552 $988,889 . $4,944,441 Annual Cost $309,462 $77,366 $386,828 Interest During Construction $5,698 $1,424 $7,122 Annual O&M Cost $19,778 $4,944 $24,722 Total Annual Cost $334,938 $83,734 $418,672 Notes: Design of seawall was obtained from the City of Carlsbad. 7-10 Table 7.7 Plan 3 - A 2,504-Foot Seawall - Cost Estimate Contingency Unit Cost without -----------------Cost with Item Quantity Unit Price Contingency Amount % Contingency Mobilization & Demobilization 1 Job L.S. $57,690 $14,423 25 $72,113 Sheet Pile Wail 2.504 in feet $486.91 $1,219,222 $304,806 25 $1,524,028 Concrete Cap 2,016 cu yd $284.76 $574,070 $143,518 25 $717,588 1.500-pound Toe Rock 7,500 tens $31.35 $235,122 $58,781 25 $293,903 C-Stone 1.120 tons $25.38 $28,422 $7,106 25 $35,528 Filter Cloth 7,200 sq yd $3.85 $27,704 $6,926 25 $34,630 Other Items - Group 1 1 Job L.S. $84,593 $21,148 25 $105,741 North Revetment 1 Job L.S. $595,670 $148,918 25 $744,588 Subtotal Cost $2,822,493 $705,626 $3,528,119 8 % Planning, Engineering, and Design $225,799 $56,450 25 $282,249 2 % Engineering during Construction $56,450 $14,113 25 $70,563 7 % Construction Management $197,575 $49,394 25 $246,969 Total First Cost $3,302,317 $825,583 $4,127,900 Annual Cost $258,356 $64,590 $322,946 Interest During Construction $3,958 $990 $4,948 Annual O&M Cost $16,512 $4,128 $20,640 Total Annual Cost $278,826 $69,708 $348,534 Notes: - Design of seawall was obtained from the City of Carlsbad. Table 7.8 Carlsbad 103 Study - Optimization of Seawall Crest Elevation $610,850 Without Project Road Damage $10,690 Benefit of Revetment South $4,948 Interest During Construction Crest above Road Road Total annual Net Road (ft) Damage($) Benefit($) Benefit($) Cost($) Benefit($) B/C 2 177,918 432,932 443,622 321,622 122,000 1.38 3 61,805 549,045 559,735 331,473 228,262 1.69 4 20,383 590,467 601,157 ' 341,322 259,835 1.76 5 3,945 606,905 617,595 351,172 266,423 1.76 6 0 610,850 621,540 361,022 260,518 1.72 9 0 610,850 621,540 390,571 230,969 1.59 7-11 EL. •39.75_lILLY - ,,--- REINFORCED CONCRETE CAP EL. .16.25 lILLY 11 EL. .16 lILLY (APPROXIMATE REACH ELEVATION) APPROX. SIDEWALK ELEVATION 11 15' EL._•9_MLI.Y 500-POUND TOE STONE 0.51 QUARRY RUN MATERIAL 30 LONG STEEL SHEET PILING EL. -6.3' lILLY (TOP OF HARD PAN) EL. -II lILLY riure i.i. A beawai.J. - Lross section 7-12 Figure 7.2a Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill - Schematic (Datum of bathymetry is MSL which is +2.75 feet MLLW) 7-13 200° BERN. IL. '10°. BEACH FACE ISO 350° CR0111 ------------ EXITh11O TYPICAL BEACH PROFILE IL. • -8° to -10' KILl 7.2b Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill - Typical Cross Sect of Beach Fill and Typical Profile of Groin 7-14 V) Figure 7.2c Plan 1 - A T-Groin with Beach Fill - Typical Cross Section of Groin 7-15 Figure 7.3a Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawall - Schematic (Datum of bathymetry is MSL which is +2.75 feet MLLW) 7-16 Elevation Varies Present Umit _________ "Slope 1% of Sidewalk 12" Existing 42" Curb and Gutter New 4 Slab on Grade Two (2) Layer of to Complete Sidewalk i 1,500 pound Stone Approx 4 ft Thick Reinf Conc Cap 4' at Each End I.: Undisturbed Soil I +8.75' Filter Cloth Wrap Th % 'F. % .. Use 30' Long Sheet Piling Bethlehem steel P12-23 or Syrd Steel SPZ-23 or Approved Equal 6 inch Thick Quarry Run Material Underlain by Filter Fabric —11' 11888118M Figure 7.3b Plan 2 - A 3,112-Foot Seawall - Typical Cross Section (Datum is ML.LW) 7-17 Figure 7.4 Plan 3 - A 2,504-Foot Seawal]. - Schematic (Datum of bathymetry is MSL which is +2.75 feet MLLW) 7-18 Carlsbad Section 103 Study Seawall Crest Elevation Optimization 300 Cu 0 100 0 2 44.7 6 8 10 Wall Crest Above Road (ft) Figure 7.5 Carlsbad 103 Study - Optimization of SeawallCrest Elevation 200 Plan Re con mended 7-19 8.0 REFERENCES Ahrens, J.P. and B.L. McCartney. 1975. "Wave Period Effect on the Stability of Riprap," Proceedings of Civil Engineering in the Oceans/Ill, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1019-1034. Birkemeier, W.A. and S.J. Holme. 1992. "The User's Manual to ZSRP 2.7, the Interactive Survey Reduction Program," US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. August 1992. Cayan, D.R., et al. 1988. "January 16-18: An Unusual Severe Southern California Coastal Storm," CSBPA Newabreaker, July 1988. City of Carlsbad. 1989. "City of Carlsbad Proposal for the Carlsbad Beach Erosion Study and Coastal Shore Protection Project," April 1989. Flick, R. 1991. State of the Coast Report, San Diego Region, Chapter 4, Tides and Sea Levels, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, September 1991. Flick, R.E. and D.R. Cayan. 1984. "Extreme Sea Levels on the Coast of California," Proceedings of 19th Coastal Engineering Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, Pages 886 through 898. Fowler, J.E. 1992. "Scour Problems and Methods for Prediction of Maximum Scour at Vertical Seawalls," Technical Report CERC-92-16, Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Fowler, J.E. 1993. "Coastal Scour Problems and Methods for Prediction of Maximum Scour," Technical Report CERC- 93-8, Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Goda, Y. 1983. "A Unified Nonlinearity Parameter of Water Waves," Report of the Port and Harbor Research Institute, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 3-30. Hales, L.Z. 1978. "Coastal Processes Study of the Oceanside, California, Littoral Cell," Miscellaneous Paper H-78-8, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Harris, D. L. 1981. Tides and Tidal Datums in the United States, Special Report No. 7, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, February 1981. Hickey, B .M. 1979. "The California Current System-Hypothesis and Facts," Progress in Oceanography, v. 8, n. 4, p. 191-279. Holman, R.A. 1986. Extreme Value Statistics for Wave Runup on a Natural Beach, Coastal Engineering 9. pp. 527-544. Jensen, R.E., et al. 1992. "Southern California Hindcast Wave Information," WIS Report No. 200 US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Lentz, S.J. 1984. "Subinertial Motions on the Southern California Continental Shelf," Ph. D. Thesis. Univ. of California, San Diego, Scripps Inst. of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA., 145 pp. Maloney, N. and K.M. Chan. 1974. A Summary of Knowledge of the Southern California Coastal Zone and Offshore Areas, V. I, Report to the Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Marine Advisers. 1961. "A Statistical Survey of Ocean Wave Characteristics in Southern California Waters, La Jolla, California," prepared for US Army 8-1 Engineer District, Los Angeles. Marine Board, National Research Council. 1987. Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 148 pp. Miche, R. 1944. "Mouvements ondulatoires de la mer en profondeur constante ou decroissante," Annales des Fonts et Chaussees, Vol. 114. Moffatt and Nichol Engineers. 1988. "Sedimentation in Submarine Canyons in San Diego County, California, 1984-1987," US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study (CCSTWS) Report No. 88-2, 115 pp. Moffatt and Nichol Engineers. 1990. "Sediment Budget Report, Oceanside Littoral Cell," US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, CCSTWS 90-2, Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study, November, 1990. NOW Sea Level Variations for the United States, 1855-1986, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, February 1988. Robinson and Associates, Inc. 1988. "Processes, Locations, and Rates of Coastal Cliff Erosion from 1887 to 1947, Dana Point to the Mexican Border," U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Coast of California Wave and Tidal Waves Study (CCSTWS) Report No. 88-8. Schwartzlose, R.A. and J.L. Reid. 1972. "Nearshore Circulation in the California Current," State of Calif., Marine Res. Comm., Calif. Coop. Oceanic Fisheries Investigation, Cal COFI Report No. 16, p. 57-65. COE Ref * 410. Shore Protection Manual. 1984. 4th Ed., Volumes I and II, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Simons, Li and Associates. 1988. "River Sediment Discharge Study, San Diego Region," US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study (CCSTWS) Report No. 88-3, 4 volumes. Tanimoto, K., T. Yagyu, and Y. Goda. 1982. "Irregular Wave Tests for Composite Breakwater Foundations," Proceedings of the 18th Coastal Engineering Conference. American Society of Civil Engineers, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa, Vol. III, pp.2144-2161. Tekmarine, Inc. 1987. "San Diego Region Wind Transport and Wave Overwash Report," US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study (CCSTWS) Report No. 87-9, 36 pp. + Appendices. Tekmarine, Inc. 1988. "Sand Thickness Survey Report, October-November 1987, San Diego Region," US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study (CCSTWS) Report No. 88-5, August 1988, 21 pp. Tekmarine, Inc. 1992. "Semi-Annual Beach Profile Surveys and Analysis for October 1991," submitted to City of Carlsbad, California, March 1992. US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1984. "Geomorphology Framework Report, dana Point to the Mexican Border," CCSTWS 84-4, Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study, 75+ pp. US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1989. "Section 103 Small Project, Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," February 1989. 8-2 US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1990. "Section 103 Small Project, Carlsbad Beach Erosion Control Reconnaissance Study, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," May 1990. US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1991. "State of the Coast Report, San Diego Region," Volume 1 - Main Report and Volume 2 - Appendices, Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study. Final - September 1991. US Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1992. Oceanside Harbor, San Diego County, CA., Storm Damage Reduction and Navigation Improvements, Design Memorandum. August 1992. U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles. 1994. "Reconnaissance Report, Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California." January 1994. Weggel, J.R. 1972. "Maximum Breaker Height," Journal of Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. WW4, pp. 529-548. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990. "Design Memorandum, Carlsbad Boulevard Shore Protection, Carlsbad, California," prepared for City of Carlsbad, California. 8-3 ATTACHMENT TO COASTAL ENGINEERING APPENDIX B-155 I l1w B-156 20 10 C 0 -10 .4J 'U > a, '-4 w -II Line Survey lime Date -- 720 1 1200 JAN - - - 720 90 1400 21 JAN B11 200 OCT 7 ' -- -+ 720 50 705 1 APR 8 720 70 1735 i: APR B lk_1h.S,l,. 'S\ • .B B. .54 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Distance, FT Line Survey. Time Date 760 10 845 2 1 OCT 8 -- -n 760 50 605 1 APR 8 7CC 760 0 70 400 520 i OCT 0 APR B - 760 80 440 2 SEP 8 20 10 -30 -40 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Distance, FT Line Survey lime Date --. 800 3 1200 1 OCT 7 - - - 800 O0C 5 JO 200 30 1 FEB 7 APR B BOO 70 300 13 APR 8 800 80 540 2 SEP 8 20 10 -30 -40 -10 -20 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Distance, FT 20 10 0 I-IL —10 —20 Carlsbad - Reach 2 -30 -40 0 Line Survey lime Date --. 830 20 1030 2 2 MAY 8 - - -n 830 80 50 730 2 2 50 1 SEP B 0. APR 01 -- - 03C -+ 830 70 140 i: APR 8 830 90 750 2 JAN 811 • _____ ___ 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Distance, FT 20 10 0 I- IL C 0 rl -10 4-, (U > co w -2C -3C -40 1- 0 Line Survey lime Date ---. 830 50 1505 11 APR B - - -e 830 03( -c 60 1605 70 I 140 i: OCT B APR 0 -- - 830 80 730 2 SEP B 830 90 750 2 JAN B • • 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Distance. FT 4-) > 03 '-4 w 0 -40 0 -10 -20 -30 Line Survey Time Date 900 2 1200 SEP6 - - -n 900 5 1200 g40 11 FEB 7 -- 90C - 900 70 80 850 2er APR.O SEP 8 oo 90 1000 2E JAN 8 4-, ::--• 200 400 600 800 1000 1200. Distance, FT 1400 1600 1800 2000 EM 20 -40 IAA Li ie Survey Time Date 7 O ! 0 705 13 APR BE - - -€ 750 ! 0 605 13 APR 8 80 0 1530 11 APR 8 g o E O 1bU5 1345 ii APR u 11 APR B t . 54, 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Distance, FT F-LI- LII -20 40 Mac Line Survey Time Date 720 70 1735 13 APR 8 - - -n 760 70 1520 13 APR B ....'c 800 70 1300 13 APR 8' b30 900 IL) 70 114U 940 Ii APR 8 13 APR B t%06- I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Distance, FT 600i -4-- i' 500 a, 9- 400 a300 w z —J ILl 200 ci: 0 - -. - -I- - O AtAL PHOTOS, welled bur + 1405, 1414W •thnretlne 1900 1920 1940 TIME ITi 1960 4I1III] 600 .4- w 500 II) 9- .,Etry CONS T. A(UA IItI)IONDA \ r CB 760 8 ACHflU. ON AC.UA Hr.OIOtIDA BEACHES 1954-1905 Q400 cL 300 L,J z —J Iii 200 Ct:: C) :t 100 0 o AERIAL PHOTOS, welled bound + NOS. P.414W shorelIne 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 TIME ow 0 0• 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 LO jeal 'tOWSOd 3N1I30HS E-34 0 0 0 04 0 rJ a) 0 0 a, 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 i.0 It) lqt p') .4 'NOIlISOd 3Nfl30HS E- 35 0 0 0 C'4 0 0•' 0 C4 C., 0 0 C) 11 0 0 0 0 0 4J 'NOWSOd 3Nfl30 LIMA E-36 500 H SHORELINE POSITION. feet 2000 1500 1000 GB 760 • M H H W I M S L *( MLLW p _ -X- -15 -0- -30 0 I I I I I I I I I I I 83 83.5 84 84.5 85 85.5 86 86.5 87 87.5 8 8 8 8 . 5 8 9 8 9 . 5 9 0 YEAR unnFIJNF POSITION. feet 2000 1500 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 YEAR SHORELINE POSITION. feet 2000 iLN 1000 :.i ;L1cIi • MHHW I MSL )I( MLLW p _ x -i 0-30 500 0 1 I I I I I I I 84 84.5 85 85.5 86 86.5 87 87.5 88 88.5 89 89.5 90 YEAR SHORELINE POSITION, feet 4,1'1'J 08900 G MHHW 1 MSL 0 MLLW -* -5 * -15 )< -30 2000 1500 1000 500 0 - I I I - IVrI I I I - U 'VI- V 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 7 9 8 1 8 3 8 5 8 7 8 9 YEAR T W 00 .1• • - ___________________ IM City of. Carlsbad December 7, 1994 Colonel Michal R. Robinson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P ( D....111 .. £SUA -. £L Los Angeles, Ca. 90053-2325 Dear Colonel Robinson: I would like to thank your staff in the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their efforts in completing the Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad Reconnaissance Study. This comprehensive study analyzed the potential damages which may be realized along Carlsbad's coastline during the occurrence of an intense storm event in addition to providing an evaluation on the effectiveness of various shoreline protection structures and beach building methods. The study further concluded that federal interest exists in providing storm protection to a 2,700 foot reach of Carlsbad Boulevard fronting the Agua Hedionda Lagoon (identified as Reach 3 in the report). As I now realize, the effort in the preparation of an analysis of this nature is extensive and your staff is to be highly commended for their professional work and thorough evaluation of the City's eroding shoreline. The Final Report also indicated that the next phase in the development of a beach protective project is for the City to enter into an agreement for the preparation of a Feasibility Study. However, this Feasibility Study phase is projected to take approximately 32 months to complete. Due to the imminent threat of damage to a principal thoroughfare (Carlsbad Boulevard) and the pctcn:ial zvailability of State fui1 for assistance in construction of a shoreiine protective structure along this stretch of roadway, the City believes that the seawall alternative proposed in the Reconnaissance Study should be pursued as the most effective and expeditious option. Because the length of the area affected is relatively short, the Continuing Authority Program appears to be the best approach. Therefore, this letter shall serve as a formal application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a Section 103 study of the area of Carlsbad's coastline adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. It is my understanding that the Continuing Authority Program will be conducted in two phases; the first phase being a reconnaissance study which is funded by the Corps of Engineers. It would seem fair to assume that a majority of this effort has been completed and can be extracted from the Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad Reconnaissance Study. The City further recognizes that we must fund 50 percent of the second phase, the feasibility study, and that as much as one- 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad. California 92008-1989 • (619) 434-2821 half of this share may consist of in-kind services. It is the City's desire to submit the completed design plans for the seawall construction as well as the secured permits from the required regulatory agencies as in-kind services. This is submitted in an effort to reduce the overall costs as well as processing time. Additionally, the City can and will provide all necessary local cooperation and participation through the City's Beach Erosion Committee and Engineering technical staff. I would like to take this opportunity to express the City's sincere appreciation for your attention to this matter. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (619) 434-2821 or Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4391. Sincerely, C: City Council Beach Erosion. Committee Community Development Director City Engineer Associate Engineer Jantz City of Carlsbad December 19, 1995 wo Col Michal Robinson 9i'trict Engineer tl.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles CA 90053-2352 SECTION 103 - AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON SEAWALL Dear Colonel Robinson; I am writing to you to indicate the City of Carlsbad's support and intent to proceed with implementation of the recommended Section 103 project to protect Carlsbad Boulevard against storm damages as indicated in your report entitled "Detailed Project Report - Section 103" dated November. 1995. The City intends to fully comply with the non-Federal requirements for implementation of the recommended plan and we expect to furnish the non-Federal cost-sharing requirements from a combination of state and local funds pending execution of formal agreements. The City looks forward to proceeding with this project in partnership with the Corps of Engineers which we believe is vital to protecting this reach of Carlsbad Boulevard from potential storm damages. City Manager C: Financial Management Director City Engineer Associate Engineer Jántz 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 • (619) 434-2821 -- US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District FINAL REPORT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SECTION 103 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Appendix B Economic Appendix U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 April 1996 Carsbad Feasibility Study Economic Analysis The purpose of this economic study is to evaluate potential benefits of constructing alternative prevention measures along the coast of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The lagoon is located in the City of Carlsbad,San Diego County, California. A reconnaissance report entitled "Pacific Coast Shoreline, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, Economic Appendix",dated January 1994, provided an economic analysis of the study area. 1.1 Methodology The Methodology used in this study is according to current ER 1105-2-100 regulations and is detailed throughout the text. Backup data is on file at the Los Angeles District. Economic efficiency is measured as positive contributions to the National Economic Development (NED) associated with the various alternatives. The benefit to cost ratio, which establishes whether a given alternative returns more benefits or costs, and net benefits, those benefits in excess of costs for a particular alternative, represents the specific methods used in the benefit analysis. 1.2 Project Interest Rate The analysis employs the currently established Water Resource Council interest rate of 7.625% percent. The economic life of the project and period of analysis is 50 years. 2.0 Region Location and Description 2.1 Region Location The City of Carlsbad is a coastal community located in northern San Diego County. The population of Carlsbad was 65,661 as of 1992. The study area consists of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon coastline. The area was identified as 1-1 Reach 3 in the reconnaissance report, which consist of the shoreline between Tamarack Boulevard southward to the Terrramar housing development. This segment encompasses some Carlsbad Boulevard/Highiway 21; a narrow cobble state beach anterior to the boulevard; the 127 spaces Tamarack parking lot, located north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon's intake jetty; and additional curb parking west of the boulevard. Elevations along the street's center line vary between approximately +14 to +16 feet from MSL at its lowest point. Riprap ranging in size from one-quarter to one ton extends along both ends of the causeway, about 350 to 400 feet from the intake and outlet jetties. 2.2 Project Area Description The study area encompasses part of North Carlsbad State Beach that includes areas for recreational areas for beach activities of sunbathing, surfing, and swimming. Carlsbad Boulevard parallels the coast with Agua Hedionda Lagoon east of the boulevard. The lagoon serves a multitude of uses including, a body of cooling water for the San Diego Gas & Electric Power Plant, a research facility, a fishing area, and a feeding spot for wildlife. 3.0 Historical Damages Significant storm events affected the Carlsbad coastline in the years 1978, 1983, and 1988. The Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Section estimated that the January, 1963 storm event represented a 25-year storm frequency, while the 1988 event was estimated to range between a 25-year and a 50-year frequency depending upon the reach and cross-section. Within the study area, overtopping and closure of both the roadway and the beach parking areas has occurred an average of once every two years. In the spring of 1981 a section of Carlsbad Boulevard was closed for 5 days. Flooding and debris deposited on the road was concentrated in the low-elevation areas over an extent of about 700 feet. Two hundred paved perpendicular parking spaces were lost to erosion and never completely replaced. It is estimated that the aerial extent of erosional damages for this event was two-thirds of the length between the warm-water and cold-water jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon (or about 2,000 feet), with an encroachment distance of about 100 feet. The double perpendicular parking lining the boulevard was lost during this storm and never completely replaced. A single row of angled parking was lost to the extent of 100,000 square feet during the 1983 storm. After the 1983 storm, the lost parking 1-2 was replaced with parallel parking still present today along the boulevard. In 1983, the Tamarack parking lot experienced a reduction in width of approximately 30 feet. and loss of its curbing gutter. Emergency repairs were installed, but also lost in the 1988 storms. Following the 1988 storm season, the State performed temporary repairs on the parking lot. Before the 1988 storms, the City installed protective riprap along the shoulders of the boulevard neighboring Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The January 1988 storm did not seriously affect the parking areas but created a debris hazard and produced damages to the riprap around the bridge and road shoulder. Resultant highway closure forced public-safety and emergency response vehicles to be re-routed. In addition, the general public encountered inconveniences stemming from increased travel time. Approximately $151,217(1988 Dollars) was spent on emergency repair work, debris removal, and improvements during and following the 1988 storm season. The City of Carlsbad improvements to the boulevard included the construction of a sidewalk and a landscaped median and the widening of the roadway. I!A!I11 II11HM Damages were computed for the without-project condition, which is expected to exist as if there is no planned Federal project. Due to the existing growth management plan for the City of Carlsbad, future developmental patterns are expected to reflect current conditions. 4.1 Revetment Damages. The revetment damages were estimated by calculating the forces acting on the revetment due to breaking waves. Variables include stone size, slope, and wave height. The calculations of damages were separate between revetments located in the south with 350 linear feet and revetments located in the north with 450 linear feet. 1-3 Table I Damages to Revetment Present Condition • 1. J linear ft. 2-yr event 5-yr event 10-yr event 25-yr event 50-yr event 100-yr event 200-yr event North _1450 $0 $4000 $11000 $20000 $35000 $49000 $49000 South 350 $6000 1 $18000 1 $33000 $47000 $47000 $47000 $47000 Table 2 Damage to Revetment Future Condition 50-years linear ft. 2-yr event 5-yr event 10-yr event 25-yr event 50-yr event 100-yr event 200-yr event North 450 $81000 $81000 $81000 $81000 $81000 $81000 $81000 South 350 $47000 1 $47000 $47000 1 $47000 1 $47000 1 $47000 1 $47000 Table I has the estimated damages to revetments at present conditions. Table 2 has the future estimated damages to revetments at year fifty. A linear profile of damages to revetments was calculated from year one to year fifty based on difference between present conditions and year fifty conditions. The annual damage calculations of revetments were based on damages expected to result in each storm interval (2,5,10,25,50,100 year exceeding frequency) and its linear profile of damages to year fifty. Average annual expected damages to the revetments, which adjusts the annual damages for the probability of the storm events is listed as the revetment damages in Table 4. 4.2 Roadway Damages Significant damages to Carlsbad Boulevard have occurred in the study reach. A unique feature of this reach is that the bedrock is at elevation -6.25 feet MLLW, thus making the reach more susceptible to both storm-induced scour and long-term erosion. 14 As previously discussed, it is assumed that over a fifty year period, this reach will experience recession of 1 ft/yr and it is anticipated that the beach will erode to the roadway and then continue to scour vertically. As a result, the depth at the toe will continue to deepen, and the road could be exposed to greater wave energy. Damages to Carlsbad Boulevard were based on the 1983 storm event which produced excess runup of 4.1 feet over the top of the road. The excess runup was based on the portion of the boulevard exhibiting the lowest elevation. Approximately 50 feet of erosion was determined to have resulted from the 1983 storm. Because portions of the causeway are susceptible to coastal storm flooding, significant storm events are expected to foster undercutting of the highway foundation material. The Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Section determined the percentage of roads eroded during each storm frequency and applied a replacement cost of $15 per foot of lost roadway for the required construction materials and labor. The expected total square feet of roadway damaged from a storm event are listed in Table 3. In this manner, they were able to determining dollar damages for each storm event, which was used to calculate expected annual damages. The expected annual damages to the roadway is listed in table 4. Table 3 Carlsbad Study Reach Present and Future (50 years) Without-Project Roadway Damages Return Period Area Lost (SQ.FT.) Present Total Dollar Value Damage Present Area Lost (SQ.FT.) Future Total Dollar Value Damage Future 2 0 $0 146,000 $2,190,000 5 0 $0 264,000 $3,960,000 10 54,000 $810,000 300,000 $4,500,000 25 128,000 $1,920,000 300,000 $4,500,000 50 172,000 $2,580,000 300,000 $4,500,000 100 218,000 $3,270,000 300,000 $4,500,000 200 264.000 $3,960,000 300,000 $4,500,000 4.3 Emergency and Clean-Uø Costs Emergency costs include losses resulting from the disruption of normal activities, 1-5 which would otherwise not be incurred. Clean-up costs represent the expense to clear debris from the Tamarack parking lot area and to bring the parking lot into working order. Examples of emergency costs include the increased costs to employ the police and road maintenance and clean-up crews and construct emergency repairs to the parking lot. For this study, emergency and clean-up costs were accrued solely to the Tamarack parking lot based upon the City of Carlsbad's damage survey reports. This assumption is supported by the fact that no historical emergency and clean-up costs have been reported in connection to structure and content damages. Emergency and clean-up costs were based on costs incurred during the 1988 storm event, a 35-year frequency storm. The total estimates for emergency and clean- up costs during the 1988 storm event was $151,217. To determine the emergency and clean-up costs for larger storm frequencies, the 1988 costs were increased in proportion to the amount of increased run-up overtopping the road because of the more substantial storm events. These points provided the data to compute a frequency damage curve for varying storm frequencies; the respective dollar damages by event, and the expected annual average damages under without project conditions. The average annual damages from emergency and clean-up in the without-project condition are listed in Table 4. H i1 fl Conversations with the City of Carlsbad Maintenance Department revealed that Carlsbad Boulevard within the study reach was closed due to flooding a total of two days during the 1983 event. Detour costs during the larger storm frequencies were determined by increasing the 1983 time and mileage in proportion to the increased run- up overtopping of Carlsbad Boulevard. The Carlsbad Section 103 Small Project cited the boulevard as having been closed about once every two years. The total automobile count traveling north and southbound during these two storm events equate to 13,536 cars in 1983 and 16,500 cars in 1988. Both the time delay and mileage difference for the most logical detour route were calculated. Both computations assumed an average passenger count of 2.1 persons per vehicle, based upon the State Department of Parks and Recreation estimation of average passengers in the San Diego region. The total time delay is equivalent to the amount of time required to travel the detour route minus the time to travel the corresponding distance along Carlsbad Blvd. The delay time for each passenger was determined to be 1.52 minutes. Fifty percent of the passengers were assumed to be delayed an additional 4 minutes by existing stop lights and a single stop sign. The additional four minute detour time was determined in conjunction with a city road engineer. Delay costs were based upon the Institute of 1-6 Water Resources Report 91-R-12, "Value of Time Saved for Use in Corps Planning Studies/A Review of the Literature and Recommendations." The estimated value of time for vehicles delayed less than five minutes is equal to $.99 per hour, which equates to $.025 per car traveling the 1.52 minute delay. The values for vehicles delayed longer than five minutes is equal to $499 per hour of $.46 per car delayed a total of 5.52 minutes by the detour and stop signals. The computations for total time and mileage delay costs are provided below. The total detour mileage was provided by the city roads engineer as a distance of 2.25 miles, while the portion of Carlsbad Boulevard that would be closed due to flooding under the current mileage was figured out to be 1.13 miles. The difference in detour to operate the vehicle each additional mile is $.49. Caltrans provided the operating vehicular mileage cost, which is based upon an average mid-sized car driving between 15,000 to 20,000 miles per year. The total delays for both time and mileage is presented below for the 1983 storm event. Based on the delay costs resulting for these storm intervals, a total detour cost at varying storm frequencies was run through the Expected Annual Damages Program to yield a frequency-damage curve and the total annual average expected detour costs. The average annual expected damages in the without -project conditions from detours is listed in Table 4. Time delay cost: 1983: 2 days * 6768 cars *2.1 passengers * $.025 = $711 (50% not stopped at traffic signals) 2 days * 6,768 cars * 2.1 passengers * $46 = $13,076 (50% stopped at traffic signals) Mileage delay cost: 1983: 2 days • 13,536 cars • 1.1 miles • $453 = $13,400 Total delay cost in 1983: $27,277 1-7 Table 4 Carlsbad Study Reach Expected & Equivalent Annual Damages Without-Project Conditions Type of Damage Annual Damages Detour $5,200 Emergency/Clean-Up $1,490 Revetment South $13,580 Revetment North $12,600 Roadways $610,850 Total Annual Damages $643,720 4.5 Recreation Analysis The entire coastline of Agua Hedionda Lagoon is covered by North Carlsbad Beach used for beach activities. The beach has easy access, lifeguards, and adequate facilities for maximizing the public recreation experience. Public access to beach is enhanced by adequate parking from the Tamarack public parking lot with 127 spots and over 200 spaces from curbside parking along Carlsbad Boulevard. The evaluation of the recreational experience will be based on the marginal utility loss with increases in the density of visitors per acre. This methodology is supported in the "Standards Related to Water-Oriented and Water-Enhanced Recreation in Watersheds, Phase I" If the use of a beach at anytime is less than 75 square feet per person, the recreation experience decreases proportionally with increases in use. The user willingness to pay for this recreational experience will be reduced. The Unit Day Value (UDV) was used to decide the current and future values of the recreational experience along the beach area of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. For this study, the Santa Monica Breakwater Feasibility Study UDV of $4.10 was identified as the value of the recreational experience along the study reach. Currently, the without-project conditions have 197,100 square feet of beaches and annual visitation of 366,883. In the future the area will have 62,100 square feet and 541,950 visitations. These estimates of visitations are based upon SANDAG's beach recreation projections listed in the Appendix of the "Draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region". Table 5, shows the present and future visitation projections for each of months .based on the historical monthly average percentage of 1-8 visitations to the beach. The present and future square feet per person(SF/Pop)are listed in Table 5. The calculations for the total square feet per person are calculated from dividing the total square feet with an estimated amount of people using the beach at any given time. The beach user at anytime includes the division of monthly population by the number of days in the month and expected turnover rate of three. Table 5 Estimate of Present and Future Beach Use along the Study Reach Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Monthly 4.9 4.6 5.2 7.1 8.9 10.4 17.1 15.6 10.2 6.4 52 4.5 present pop 18 17 19 26 33 38 63 57 37 23 19 17 (000) present 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 SF/pop 1 (000) future pop 26 25 28 38 48 56 92 85 55 35 28 24 (000) I future 0.2 0.2 02 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.2 0.2 0.20 SF/pap 1 (000) Based on Table 5, the present without-project conditions does not show any month with square feet per person less than seventy-five feet. In the future, the expected erosion rates along the reach are expected to reduce the beach area by 69%, yet the expected beach use along the reach is expected to increase by 48%. In the future, the marginal utility of recreational experience will be lower in the months of July and August, since the square feet per person is less than seventy-five feet. The UDV for those months will decrease proportionally with reduction in beach area. The without-project calculations for annualize benefit for recreation is $1,793,269. 5.0 Plan Formulation The proposed alternatives consist of either constructing a T-groin or a seawall. The expected annual damages and benefits of the projects are listed in Table 6. 1-9 Project one includes construction of groin 350 feet long, with T-shaped covering a length of 200 feet. The T-groin is used to stabilize the beachfill in the study area. The elevation of the beachfill is +10 feet MLLW, with length of 2,700 and the width of the berm is 200 feet. 5.2 Project 2 Project two includes the construction of a 3,112-foot long seawall between the intake and outlet jetties at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The typical elevation of the seawall top is about +20 feet MLLW. The seaward side of the wall is protected by two layers of 1,500-pound stone. Also, a rubble-mound revetment is constructed at the south jetty of the intake structure. 5.3 Project 3 Project three includes a similar seawall of 2,504 feet long between the intake and outlet jetties at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The typical elevation of the seawall top is about +20 feet MLLW. The seaward side of the wall is protected by 500-pound stone. Also, a rubble-mound revetment is constructed at the south jetty of the intake structure. 6.0 Benefits Associated with the Proposed Alternatives 6.1 Roadway Damage Reduction According to the without-project condition methodology, the damage percentage of roadways associated with the runups heights for the with-project conditions were applied with a replacement cost of $15 per square feet within the reach to determine with-project damages by alternatives. With-project expected annual damages were generated by Expected Annual Damages(EAD) calculations. Benefits were generated by subtracting the with project damages from without project damages. Roadway damages and benefits for with-project are listed in Table 6. 1-10 Table 6 Carlsbad Study Reach Total Damages and Benefits With-Project Data in Thousands Detour Emergl Clean- Revetment Revetment Roadways Recreation Total Damages up South North or Benefits Damages Project 1 $0.00 $1.49 $1.73 $12.60 $140.48 NA $156.30 Damages Project 2 $5.20 $1.49 $2.89 $12.60 $6.90 NA $29.08 Damages Project 3 $5.20 $1.49 $2.89 $12.60 $6.90 NA $29.08 Benefits Project I $5.20 $0.00 $11.85 $0.00 $470.37 $31.0 $518.42 Benefits Project 2 $0.00 $0.00 $10.69 $0.00 $603.95 NA $614.64 Benefits Project 3 $0.00 $0.00 $10.69 $0.00 $603.95 NA $634.64 6.2 Revetment Damage Reduction With project damages for each alternatives were furnished by the Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Section. Expected annual with-project damages were then generated for each alternative, and subtracted from without project damages to reflect damages reduced. Revetment damages and benefits for with- project are listed in Table 6. 6.3 Detour Damage Reduction or Transportation Cost Savings To calculate transportation cost savings, it was assumed project one will provide additional beachfill that will prevent all road closures under the with- project conditions. Therefore, the benefits will equal the without-project transportation costs for project one. For projects two and three that do not have beachfill, these projects will not reduce road closures and, therefore, will realize no transportation cost savings. . aII IL'1 [41I .JP1iiM,IJ1!titt1 Since, the without-project emergency/clean-up cost was based on the Tamarack parking lot, any reduction in damages must be related to measures protecting the parking lot. Currently, none of the planned projects provide protection to the parking lot. Therefore, the benefits for reduction emergency/clean-up will equal to zero for each of the three projects. 6.5 With-Project Recreation Value The with-project recreational value for each alternative was computed using the methodology outlined under the without-project conditions. In the future, the recreational value or the UDV is expected to be reduced when increases in visitations during the peak season and erosions of the beach area causes the number of square feet per person to be less than 75 square feet. Project one includes beachfill that will expand the width of the beach area to 200 feet throughout next 50 years. If project one is constructed, the recreational value will not be reduced, since the number of square feet per person will not less than 75 feet per person. The net increase annual recreational benefits from project one is $30,943. Projects including the seawall do not include beachfill and will have the same erosion rates as without-project conditions of the beach area. Those projects will have no recreational benefits, since beach area is the same as the without project conditions. 1-12 Table 7 presents the annual cost, net benefits, and the benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) for the three projects. Project three or the 2,504-foot seawall is the preferred NED plan because the project BCR is higher than one and has most net benefits. The T-groin plan or project one has a higher BCR than plan 3, but its net benefits are lower. Plan 3 provides more benefits than the other two plans. Table 7 Carlsbad Study Reach Annual Cost, Net Benefits, and BCR Ratio Costs-Average Annual Const. Cost O&M (Inc._IDC) Average Annual Cost Net Benefits Benefits/Cost Ratio Project One $258,487 $6,529 $267016 $251,404 1.94 Project Two $393,950 $24,722 $418,672 $195.968 1.47 Project Three $327,893 $20640 $348,533 $266.107 1.76 71 1-13 US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angt1esDh FINAL REPORT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SECTION 103 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Appendix C Woodward-Clyde Consultants Seawall Design U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 April 1996 1550 Hotel Circle North San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 294-9400 FAX: (619) 293-7920 Woodward-Clyde Consultants October 15, 1990 Project No. 9051141E-0001 City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Attention: Pat Entezari DESIGN MEMORANDUM CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: As a part of our Agreement to prepare complete plans and specifications for the Carlsbad Boulevard Shore Protection wall, we have prepared a. Design Memorandum. This memorandum is complete and is transmitted to you herewith for your information and use. It is presently planned to include the "Geotechnical Investigations - Attachment A" as an attachment to the Technical Specifications. If you have any questions, please call at your convenience. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE C NSULTANTS /C7 Louis J. Le R.E. 14129 ?1L ESSI LILIegnj18) Attachment vi 0 14129 OF CALki Consulting Engineers. Geologists and Environmental Scientists • . • ______ USIU manages ago "gonad was so" iLUu uUUUUUII um...i •.rw~.a•i I LU ULUU..IUUIlUUULUtlUUUUUllUIUUUUUIIULUUU sons Ions UUUlUU "OWN UIUU ago" UULU LU LU JU •UU U LU Ui.UIUU P.S • LI Now UUnoun U "son am UIU Mona UUUUIU UUUU "am U LULUUU Ono LU man UUflLUUI EWE somas UU UI IJUU LU LUSIULUU U UUIUUUUUU U. UIUUIUIU Bond •uU IUIUUULUUUUU UUUUUU UU UIUU LUUU• IU UUU LIIIUUU n ItU U UI ONKMLU 1IJ LU LU LU LIIIU LI ...IU.UUU S UUUI LIUUUUU LUU U.IU..UUU LIII SUUUUUUU UI U U IlU LU LUU Cr U RU USU LI. I P.11LU Iii LU.SILU...U...ULULU.....LIIU....U...SU•.IU.UUUU.ULUU.URUUU....UUSUUUU.ImU IUUIrUSIULUcUU..SUI LU.IRLUIUULUNSIUUUUUSIUSUUUIPUIUPILU!tUUIUUUUIULUUUUUUIULUIUUULUUUU UUUIUIUUUIUUSUUII u mI I ma us... II.. UU UI. LU • LU IN UI LUUU U UI •— US VU IUIIU ULU UIU UUI 1TtIfl LU LULU:92022 rrt?L:fl ULL — U LU LUIU U U IUU IIU UI LUUIIUU. - NE supm - VUWIUUU.IUtUUU..UILIUUS 1*IUI Il LUUUU •SUUIUUUI UUUUUUIUU U U US - UI UU .11 U..U.U..0 IU UI WUU U UIU II UU•I IIUUU LUU UIIU U U U US UIUIU UI UIU man won UUU IIIUIU. IUIVUUUI IUUUUILUU IULUWIUU son "an one UU moo U owns son S U LUAU LU U U U LU UR LU magnums gas U UU UU LUUUU IlU UIUUI SIUI IS III UIUUIIUU UUU U 111111 LUU UUIU. ULU LU LU WUUU u• uiu•U U U LUUU UIUUIUUUI UI. LUll I'll U U LU UlU Il U U V*UU UU VU I1UUU ..U•UU•UUUUUIIUUUUUIUUUUUsons UI US URI UIUSURUI LUIU i £VIIIUI Ulull LUUU U UU LU•S UIUUU U U• U LU LU I .I UI LVIUU LUUUUU UIU IIUIIUUU.0 UUU IU I ULU U U IILUIIIUUIUUUUUILUUUIUUIIUUUUU UUVU LUll U RI SU LU ULIUUUUU UIIIIUI U U 5IU IUUUUUUUUIUUUUuIIUUIUUU. "W-41 _____________UIUIIU UIUUUUUUUI ESUUU _______________UUUUUSUUIL"I I LU LUllWUILUUUSUUUIUUIULUUUUUUUUUIUUVILUUll UUUIUUUUIIUUUUUUUU U.UUUIS.I UVUA.UU UI UtU USU UU LUll ..UU UUUUU LU U U •IlII•UU•Uu.. UIU UI IUSU luSh I ULUUUILULULI1UU1IULUUUIUUUUUULUIUIU11UU1ULU5IU5U1U5UUIUUUUUWUUIUUUULUUUUUUUU1IUUUlLU1LULU1 LURIU US UU LU UIU UU UUIIU UUU U U UI LU U U UU II U UIU U U U U UI U U IUIU U U U•IU U U U II U III UU U UUU UIUIUU IUUU U U UILU ULUI Zq lI.UI owe UUU%?LIUJUUUIUUIUUUUUUIUUIUUUUUUUIIUUUVUUUUUUUUUUUSUUUIUUUUUIUUUUUUUULUUUUUUUfIUI b'L7'W U U UIU U UU U• U r UI U U UU U Il U UIUIU lUll US U I UUUUS U U U UU II UU U U U U U U U U U U UIUUIUUU IIUU U U U UI UU U UULU LU UU IU4i.PF.JIlUSIUIUlUI...J ITMUUUEd, UUUUUUUUUIUIIUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUIIUUUUIUUUUIUUUIIUUULUUUUUUUUUUUUVU (WI U U U U U U U U U U IS IUU IU I-S U U U UI LI U UI U U UIIU U U U U U U U U U I U U U U U UU II U U lU U U U U U UI U UU U UI U U U U UI 151 IRAE U.4jU5UUUIULUUUUUUUUUSIUUUUUUULUUUUUIUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUIUUUUIUUUULUIIIUIUUUUIUUIUILU4I ULU •UUIU U .11 LU U U U 11 LU UUUU IU U U UI US UUUUU UI IU LU UU UI U U UI U U PU U U U U U UIUUUUU WU•U U UIUI ULI UISUUUI UU U U U.IUU I U U LU US U U UUI . Z744 U U UU LUll U UI U U U U UI U US UIUU U II UIU U U US II U UU U I U U IS U US US UI-S UI IUUU III - UUU UU UI IIIUU U-. U UI Ii USU U U UU U U U U IUUUUU U U U U U U UI U UI U U UI U IU U U U UI UU U LU U UI USUU U.0 U U small I "as U IS UU I UI UIU U .. UIU U U U U UI U U U IIUUU U U U U UUUU U U U U U UI UU U U U U U U UI IU U UIUU II 0111 SU U ILlS SU UUIU U UU U UI U I Z IU U UI U U UIU U UI - IU U LU U U U UI U U UUU UI U U U U U IIIU UIIIUUUU UI Il U U UU U PU US I U I-PU UUS . •IU U U UI U U U Il : UU U UIUU U U UIU U.. - UIU U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U UU U UIU UI UI U U U UUIU UU mount 'PIUlU DLI UI U UUUU US - - f 1 U U IUI UUUII U . 1 U LU UU U UUI U U U UI U III U IUUU U U UUUUU Elm Romagna UI U UIIUU VU LU III LUU UIU U U UIIUUU.. •UIUI U U U U UI U U UI UI U UIUI. UUUUUU U U U U U Ulli IU LUUU U UI IlU LU Ui US gigs PUll IRS IUUU U LUU I U U Ill IS . Z U IIU LUUI UU u .. - UIU UI U. UII ... U UI U U II• III LU U UIUI U U UI U UI UI umseno MR" _________ UUUUIUUUUIU UUIULUUIUU • U-.Nissan iiiiUUIUUUUIUUiiiUUUUP;SLUUIIiIIULUUlItUU.0 Ulli liii I I U I jiljiij 1111111 Iii jIUIIUiUUULUijUIUIULSUUU UUIUUIUUUIIIUIIILUUUIUIISUIUIUUUIIUUUUSIUU•UUIUIUUIUUUUIUUUUIUUUUUUIIUU.UUUIIUUUUUUUU.U..UUILUULUUII IUIUUI1IIUUUUIUUUUUUUIIUIUUIUUIUUUUUUUUUUUSIUUUIUUUSUIUUUUUUUUUIIIUIUUUI.UIUUIU..UU.UUUU.UUUUU.IUII IUUUUUIUISIIULSUUUUUIUUUUIIUUIUIUSUIUUUIUUUUSSUUUIUUUIUI.IUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.UIIIUIUUUUUU.SUUIUUIUI.III ILS UPU US SR LUU LUU U U IUSUUU 11111 UUI U UII US UUUUII UIIUU US UUU ISUlU 511111 U U UUIIUIIU U UI UUUIIUU Ill IU UUUUU UUU U UI US lULl LU U U U LU UU U UI U U IU IU U 111111 U•Sl U IUILUUUUUU SI U LUU U U IIIUUU U UIU U U U UIIUUU LU UIUU U IUULSIU UUU US LUll IIUUUUUUUUUSIUUUUIUIUIUIUUUUUUUUIIUIUUIIUIUUUUUIUUUUUUULUUIUUUUUIIUIUUIUUUUU..UUUIUIIUUIIUUIIIUIUIVU SUIUU UUUU IIUIUUUIS U U U UUUUUU IUUU US U U U U U U UIIU UUIUIU SUI Il......... U U U UUUISIUIUUIU UUUUU U U U U U UI US U IUIUUUU UUIU UI IUUIU U U U U U UUUUUUU SI US U U U III IIUU U UIUU UI UI LIII U U UIIU III U U lUll I U U U US U UI U UUIU U ....UIU.UIU UUUU USU U sees: SUISU U UI UI U USI U UIU II UU SUUUIUU UIS U Il U UI U U USSUU UIU U UUIIUUUU UIUISUU UI U U U U U•UII U USUUIUUSIU I U UI UIU I UI UI U U LUUU UUI IUIIU U U II UU 1111111 UN SIIU IS U'l US U US U U U IIUIUUU IUUSU IUIIU U U U U UIISUUU UIIIU U U •UU 11115 U U lUll UIUIUUI IUUlUIUSIU US USUUU UU• U UU UIU USU UIU SI U U UUU UIIUUUUU UU lU U UI U UIISU U IUUUU U U UU U U UI U LUUU IS UUUU UI UI U II UIU UII II I-SI SI UI UUIUUII LUUU SI U U UUIUIU US IUSIUU U II U UI U 11111 LU U UI U U Ull I U LU U U UUIU UI UI U U IUIUUI U UIIIIUU U U 1111 II U U IUIUIULUIUUU "MA UU-UUUU "as .U.. _BUUUUUUUUUUU.UU. •UUUUUUUISUUUUIUPUS UUUUSUUN ULUSPUU UIuUSIUjflhIIuIlIIiiII)ifl _••U•UUUU1U If lS11IlflhIIhIU IIIIuIIulIIIIIflhuIIIuI....UUI.iu,,s,., IIPIuIultlUhl(lilflM....U.IiIulISlIiiil11l1ll1It1111111111111ll$t11lffl1IflTh R • U u u i U U I I I L I I l mansommilleggi I uulliuliflhlifi hiltillill. HIIIIlhI II II II ••Uuuuuiilhhpfl luuiiuilhihhil hllthIlhH111ll11i1i1i1lh111l11lltIW..R.U.UuuIIlllPIl1 uu..0 snilnin nm i mmn ......uI Iuuulhhhi uhhlihhhl 1111115 iIIU lii IhlIllIJIl II 11111 • • •B• .111115 ShIn lisuuuhiilftifthlwllii liii siufi liii It4IIIihJ •a • • U l 1111111111 IUU Shill jiuuilhililiili Lnit - .. . .i.u..., s . .. 1pihuuiiPitlhl(.tl &.....I.iIIlihhhhihilhhhlhlllIllhhlhhIhlllhllIiillHutIitUUUIliIiiIS,hh,i ItHuJutlh1Il ...ui.uluulhlI5ulllhllluhhIhlUlHhlhIllUliliUUw.....i.suuuuuul .uIuhuUluI1,t1HlMRW1I....UuuuIllhlHhIhhllllllIuullihIihhhlflhhhIliiHiIfllflRN.IllI h l I u h h h u l usuuigusm .,uuiisiph N CM uuuhuPiri hlhhhliliiilLiiltti....uuu IlluhIHil ULMILOVIIII .I.11uhhhllhihlhihlflhllullhlhhlhhllhuhhllih ill tflhth••••a..IIu.uiiumt unimuinin hl1flUlNLk.P1UllhUlhIIlhIhllflhIIllIIIhIhIiihh1hhhhlihiiiiitillttSNUUUUUII U l u h I I H I IIil.IiuliSlhihi Mi lli I.I.,ILjuluIulllilihhIhllflhllIuIIiiIliIillllll flhlIihl1UUUIUIliiihu$i,li fill uIIuIhIuI jji uuuliiuifluihlluliiuhuiaillhtflhll IiIiIUIflflhtI•.NUU.Iiiuuu5ui,i 1111111111 11111 IIh liiiiChhI1.: Fill UI lift 11.101111111111111111111111111 riffilifuman.. Susan monellizu rini al 111111 uI 11111111 Ii 111(1 Ufli 'sp'iWa. ur.is siim Ill fll uliluhul I IiiIlhilfl liii 111111 U' u R Ulfi 11111 Shill Be I II t19 IlUlhU 11111 Belli IlliihiH iii lI.•..•.IIIIII,u Ill H ItliuhhIn hll ulluilliillllfl dl kII Iii hlhhhllhllll 11111 III IhlhIlIJlIli 11111 1111 • - NU •II 11111 IIlI1 uluilulili I IllIhhilIll ii uuu ll 11 uuihift 1IUllhiiflflIUBI.u.uuIlrn1lhlbfllès:qIhltuuuuuiliiuhuiulIhllijl:jiw1I . . . • I u u . n h I U l f t IUhhuhhllIhhJhhhllflHlflhiHt...NkluUEIlIlbIiIuI,lIllluU 1111111111111111111111fl1.R.I U I u J 1 i l , l f l , IhIhhlhIlhhIftlilhIiltIlIlI1I.a. among smile h,,i, hlilihiIliIiUtUfl .U...iuuui 51111 Pint lUhlilIUhlWhlflNu1HIiut.......uuIa..11iuiI:.mIIhIhIuhIIiIlIlmulflhIIiiIi:flm..swu n g i i i l u I l l i l hlllhlflhllllljtflU~ Iulln i III. IIIIlIUIiIIrtIiflIflU.IuIluhIhIIII 11111 Hhltlhlhlltliit .aU..UIIlIhhIIlthlll 1lullIHh',lll,hihIIiilItitU man ..luuills hIhUtifflIlllft1111 uuamflthwimhj ....u.IluuuuuuIIlHInHtiIuul.uJlmIs.4lIhi:uujh....a.uluIIlu,hh ltlhuIhlhlKlllflhl1iiUIiiU.....uuuuuIlhnhhhhihIJuflbluuli"liIhip:JiiIh _•...ui.,ui,fl,,, IluUhllhhhIIlHtiiHliiI1fli it 1111"111511~l:! 111 ;7 IulhIfl5*llfltlhlhlillIIIHIin= H`fl 11IUlhilIHHfl.1urntmtiuIjII.u..I..uuuhu,uhluhiIIiflhl 46Z R.L-,Imzqqammmo: ll::In 1HIihWSHfflWl0tll1itiUI••U•a•luuulhlllhhhllulflhl PIl1IlhIlh51iflhhltIillHlfl•••IIuluIlhIIllIIhtflffllIllhhlIlhlllilhflllhii II hlltflUuhjllflnrflnfll.......lullulh Rill uuullmhlHllllulluulluh,hh,,ll iii Ilium UU...uullhhlullri Ii hhlihlhIhlHhIliiIl1tIHI....•..luuulhlluuuullflhliulhulluullluullhhlillwflniu....luUI l I l u I u i flhflUihhIHUlflUIfl....UU.uIhuhIhlhihhlhhhliIIlllIIhIhllhIIhIhhlIhI()IIiIn..U.N... u l u l h . l f l h l 5II$hUllIliUhh1JIII •IllIIlUIIIhlIIII0IIIliIllhulhIIllIllllIUlLthLtJ1lUU•I.lg.UU5,,lil Ti IIfl1flInut 111•MulllilUhililllfllflflhlllhlhllhlilhi,luum,uilmlit itt.......uIlIhIlIIlhhilfllltlhilIllIhhIll(JuIlUtIlI$UU'itmon ..lIhn1flmmlnil hit u..IuluuuuflhjiInflu I lululuihlllllllflfllflifllfltl.a....uulnh,lujp 5lhlhllumi Ii 11n1..Ua.uliluuhllhlllfluhlll I lllllllihllllnllililfllIri1tIu.....lu u h u u n h , I LUI•lllhhlillillhlljiii lttt U.•IUlUlhuIlIllIUhIII fllIlIIlhhlllIU$hIIIUllllJUifl UUU.iu.s.1i Ea. mim He H. j ggggm 9'. 1 11 in Imh ow jig all, j lb'!-- t 21' 1 m n 0,1 FFIN 1 IllhZI .10,59 HF111 UIUIHI1. IS Ell ME IBM g r;q __ ..a SWL MINIMUM.= 41S. iggi - I on 10 slope HUN M1III 11 1 vertical wol! iL .I. q1 liii U IIIIIHfflU14U11 U**1I 11tH IflhIU III a •iIu1l Iii I I11 III 11 11 Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS • INTRODUCTION Page No. 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 GENERAL SURFACE CONDITIONS 3 North End 3 Middle Area 4 South End 5 Slopes and Beach Profiles 5 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 GENERAL COASTAL CONDITIONS 7 General 7 Maximum Tide and Still Water Level 8 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SHORE PROTECTION 9 Rock Revetments 10 Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall 11 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 13 Existing Utilities 14 Existing Underground Obstructions • 14 Coastal Environment 14 LIMiTATIONS 15 REFERENCES • 16 Appendices • Geotechnical Investigation• Calculations b/Ijl8 • i Project No. 9051141E-d001 Woodward-Clyde Consuttants DESIGN MEMORANDUM CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT NO. 3307 INTRODUCTION Carlsbad State Beach - Area 3 generally covers the area from the south end of the jetties at the entrance to Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the north end of the residential development along Tierra del OroStreet in the City of Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The subject portion of Carlsbad Boulevard within Area 3 where the shore protection is proposed is approximately 3,600 feet long. Carlsbad Boulevard is directly adjacent to the beach along this area and drops down to its lowest level, approximate elevations +13 to +16 feet (City of Carlsbad - Mean Sea Level Datum). This area of the roadway has been histrically subject to erosion and damage during high tides and major storms. Much of the walkway, parking area and west side of the road was damaged or eroded away in the 1983 storms. In 1988 and 1989, this portion of Carlsbad Boulevard was widened and improved; a bike lane, parking and a sidewalk were constructed along the west (beach) side of the road. Plans for the Improvement of Carlsbad Boulevard - Phase II were prepared by Keitner & Associates, Inc. and are dated September 15, 1988. In order to protect these improvements, as well as existing underground utilities in the roadway, and to reduce maintenance costs, the City of Carlsbad wishes to construct shore protection along this portion of Carlsbad Boulevard. A feasibility study for the shore protection project was conducted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants and the results were issued in a report dated August 8, 1988. Based on the results of the feasibility study, it appeared that a suitable shore protection structure would consist of a vertical, steel sheet pile wall with a concrete cap with rock revetments at each end that tie into existing jetties or groins. It was also concluded that the structure would have an acceptable Benefit-Cost Ratio. b/1j18 -1- Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward Clyde Consultants BACKGROUND INFORMATION In order to provide a basis for design of the proposed shore protection, input was obtained from the City of Carlsbad, California Department of Boating and Waterways, California Department of Parks and Recreation and California Coastal Commission. The plans for the improvements of Carlsbad Boulevard between approximate stations 20+00 and 56+00 were used for preliminary evaluations and design. A new ground and aerial survey was performed by SB&O, Inc. (July 1990) to provide base maps for final design. A reduced copy of the topographic plan is presented on Figure 2; Geotechnical and coastal information from the feasibility study was supplemented with additional investigations by Woodward-Clyde Consultants. The geotechnical information has been combined and summarized and is presented in Appendix A. Design calculations are presented in Appendix B. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The primary purpose-of the shore protection project is to protect the subject portion of Carlsbad Boulevard from damage and erosion during high tides and major storms. Other considerations include public beach access, handicapped use and access, protection of lifeguard facilities, vehicle access for lifeguards and emergency equipment, beach encroachment, access for San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) equipment during beach nourishment operations, visual appearance and other public faáilities (benches, trash containers, etc.). The city of Carlsbad is also considering the inclusion of a public art element. In order to minimize encroachment onto the beach and to avoid any major excavation or rebuilding of Carlsbad Boulevard and the existing improvements, a cantilever sheet pile• wall has been selected as the primary shore protection structure. Based on the above considerations and the general site conditions, the selected project generally consists of the following: Improvement and repait of the existing rock and rubble revetment from the jetty at the north end of the project (approximate station 20+00) to b/1j18' -2- Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants approximate station 24+04 (stationing is from the Carlsbad Boulevard Improvement Plans). Existing rock and rubble extending beyond approximate station 24+40 will be removed to provide more usable beach area. A new cantilever steel sheet pile wall-with a reinforced concrete cap and a toe stone apron from approximate station 24+00 to approximate station 46+50 and from approximate station 48+50 to approximate station 51+50. Three new beach access ramps with lifeguard pads, handicapped viewing area and public facilities at approximate stations 29+00, 35+50 and 42+50. Two new beach access stairs with public facilities at approximate stations 32+00 and 39+00. A new rock revetment at the south end of the project to protect the road fill slope between approximate stations 52+00 to 56+00.. This revetment will tie into the existing groin at approximate station 52+00 and the existing natural bluff at approximate station 56+00. A new rock emergency access ramp for lifeguard vehicles along the toe of the new south revetment. This ramp will be covered with sand and cobbles during normal weather conditions. GENERAL SURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed shore protection will generally extend out from the existing Right-of-Way along' the west side of the Carlsbad Boulevard Improvements within the subject area. The project starts at the north-end (approximate station 20+00) at the existing jetty and bridge. This end of the project generally consists of an existing approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) rock fill slope extending down from the sidewalk along the western edge of b/1j18 -3- Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward' Clyde Consultants Carlsbad Boulevard to the cobble beach. The top of the slope ranges in elevation from approximately +22 feet (MSL) at the north end near the jetty to approximately +15 feet MSL) at the southern extremity (station 24+04) of the proposed revetment. The toe of the slope encounters the éobble beach at about elevation +4 feet (MSL) in this area. The beach area is nonexistent or very narrow in this area and is generally covered with cobbles. The upper. portion of the slope has been eroded and damaged to a near vertical condition. The middle and lower portions of the slope are partially protected by. dumped rock and rubble. -- Buried rock and rubble are present throughout this area. The exposed existing rock in this area generally ranges in size from a maximum of approximately 2 tons down to 5- to 10- pound stone. The average size is estimated to be about 400 to 500 pounds. Some rubble mixed with the rock generally consists of broken concrete of various sizes. Middle Area Starting at approximate station 24+00 the road levels out with gentle undulations extending for the next approximately 2,400 feet (station 48+00 at the SDG&E warm water outlet). Low spots along the sidewalk in this area generally range from approximate elevations +12.5 to +13.5(MSL) feet and high spots from approximate elevations +14 to +15.5 feet (MSL). The beach area along the west side of the sidewalk is typically about 150 to 200 feet wide (to Mean Lower Low Water); it narrows at the north end near the jetty at the entrance to Agua Hediona Lagoon and widens at the south end near the jetty for the. SDG&E. warm water outlet. There is typically a relatively level, sandy surface about 40 to 60 feet wide adjacent to and west of the sidewalk. This area grades into a cobble berm that slopes down at an inclination of approximately 5:1 to 10:1 (horizontal to vertical) to elevation 0-feet (MSL). The beach surface below 0-feet (MSL) becomes sandy again with some scattered cobbles and flattens to inclinations on the order of 30:1 to 50:1 beyond this point. Existing dumped rock extends out from the sidewalk at approximate station 44+50 to the end of the warm water outlet jetty (approximate station 47+50) and protects a relatively level sandy pad at the south end of this area. bllj18 . -4- Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward. Clyde Consultants South End The area on both sides of the warm water outlet have been built outward and are protected by dumped rock and the rock jetties for the outlet. These areas are fenced off and generally extend from approximate stations 46+50 to 47+30 on the north side and 48+20 to 49+00 on the south side. The road has a low elevation of approximately +12.5 feet (MSL) at approximate station 48+50 on the south side of the warm water outlet and then begins to climb in elevation to the south. The beach between the south jetty for the outlet and a rock groin, along the existing fuel intake line (approximate station 52+00) appears to be relatively wide (200 feet or more) and relatively stable. The warm water outlet jetties and the fuelintajciine groin appear to maintain the beach sand in this area. A new road fill has been placed for the Carlsbad Boulevard Improvements from .;D. approximate station 52+00 to approximate station 56+00. The top of this flu...làpe along the west edge of the sidewalk ranges from approximate elevation +20 feet (MSL) at station 52+00 to approximate elevation +35 feet (MSL) at station 56+00. The fill slopes down from the sidewalk at an inclination of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and encounters a cobble berm at an approximate elevation of +12 feet (MSL). The slope is currently covered with sparse vegetation and weeds. There is a relatively level, sandy portion of the beach at the toe of the fill adjacent to and south of the fuel intake line groin that is partially protected by dump rock extending out from the groin towards the fill. The beach narrows to the south of this sandy area and becomes all cobbles beyond about station 53+00. Bedrock is exposed at the base of the coastal bluff at the south end of the fill (approximate station 56+00) at an elevation of approximately +12 feet (MSL). Profiles at the north area generally indicate that the existing fill slope ranges in height from proxiy.6 tol7 feet and has an average inclination ranging from_approximately 1- 3/4:1 to 2-1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical) from top to toe. The top of the slope along the west edge of the sidewalk ranges from approximate elevation +22 to +15 feet (MSL), decreasing b/1j18 -5- Project No. 9051141E.0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants from north to south. The top of the existing rock protection generally ranges from approximately +12 to +16 feet (MSL) and the cobble/sand beach along the toe begins at approximate elevation +3to +4 feet (MSL). Profiles in the middle area indicate that the sand surface generally extends out from the sidewalk at an elevation of approximately +14 to +13 feet (MSL) for a distance of about 40 to 60 feet. A cobble berm is exposed at this point which slopes down at an inclination of approximately 5:1 to 10:1 (horizontal to vertical) to approximately +0 feet (MSL). Profiles at the south area generally indicate that the new fill slope ranges in height from approximately 6 to 18 feet and has an inclination ranging from approximately 1-3/4:1 near the north and to 2-1/2:1 near thesouth end. The top of the slope along thewest side of the sidewalk ranges from approximate elevation +20 to +35 feet (MSL), increasing from north to south. The cobble/sand beach along the toe of the fill begins at approximate elevation +10 to +14 feet. Beyond the general beach area, the surface flattens to inclinations on the order of 30:1 to 50:1 within a distance of approximately 200 to 500 feet offshore; within this area a sand berm generally develops in the profile during the winter. This berm is generally flattened during the summer and disappears after major storms. Beyond a distance of about 500 feet, the bottom surface appears to be relatively stable and has an offshore inclination of about 60:1 to 70:1 extending at least 2,000 to 3,000 feet offshore. A series of profiles taken by Tekmarine near the middle of the project during the period of September 1987 to October 1989 are presented on Figure 3. GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The project area is located along the lower lying coastal margin of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Agua Hedionda Lagoon represents the backfihled channel or "drowned river mouth" of Agua Hedionda Creek. Similar to other coastal lagoons, longshOre drift has produced a barrier beach along the mouth of the lagoon. The subsurface materials along this beach generally consist of medium dense to very dense sands, gravels and cobbles. Along the Carlsbad Boulevard Right-of-Way, west of the sidewalk, the soil profile generally consists. b/1j18 -6- Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward Clyde Consultants of I to 3 feet of dredged sand underlain by 6 to 8 feet of sandy gravel and cobbles which generally range in size from approximately 1 to 6 inches in diameter. The gravels and cobbles are also exposed on the beach foreshore. Underlying the gravel and cobble layer are interbedded sand and gravel deposits of probable beach and channel origins. These materials extend to a depth of over 50 feet along most of the alignment. The sampler penetration values in these materials generally range from approximately 20 to over 70 blows per foot, generally increasing with depth. 1 Buried rock and debris may also be encountered along the entire alignment, but particularly / at the north end near the inlet jetty, and at the south end around the warm water outlet and / the area near the fuel intake line. Bedrock (consisting of Tertiary sedimentary formations) is exposed at the far south end of the project (station 56+00) at an elevation of approximate +12 feet (MSL). The bedrock surface generally slopes down to the north and was not encountered in any of the borings made north of the warm water outlet (maximum depth explored was 50 feet or approximate elevation -38 feet (MSL). It is anticipated that the groundwater level along the proposed shore protection alignment will generally follow the tide levels. Measurements of the water level in the lagoon (east of Carlsbad Boulevard) indicate that there may be a one to two hour time lag between the water level in the ocean and the water level in the lagoon. The average water level in the lagoon also appears to be 1 to 2 feet higher than in the ocean. GENERAL COASTAL CONDITIONS General The subject area is located along a barrier beach at the mouth of the Agua Hedionda lagoon between the inlet jetties for the outer portion of the lagoon and the beginning of the coastal bluff approximately 400 feet south of the fuel intake line groin. The elevations along Carlsbad Boulevard in this area, which extends along the berm at the back of the beach, generally range from approximately +13 to +35 feet (MSL). Carlsbad Boulevard is bllj18 -7-. Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants partially protected by the beach which is typically 150 to 200 feet wide, including a 6 to 10 foot high berm that is generally composed of gravel and cobbles. The sand levels vary seasonally and are mostly removed during high tides and storms during the winter. The subject area is generally situated near the middle of the Oceanside littoral cell. A recent report by Tekmarine, Inc. (1988) indicated that the Oceanside littoral cell is basically "sand- starved." However, despite the deficiency of sand, the coastline of Carlsbad manages to maintain a finite beach width; this appears to be due to the abundance of gravel and cobbles in the area. The subject area also receives sand nourishment every '2 to 3 years from dredging of the lagoon. Erosion of the beach and damage to.the roadway due to high tides and storm waves occurs on a periodic basis. The maximum recorded erosion since 1982 in the subject area along the west, side of Carlsbad Boulevard during astorm was down to approximate elevation +6 feet (MSL). , Maximum Tide and Still Water Level Based on observations from 1906 to 1970, the Army Corps of Engineers' Shore Protection Manual gives a maximum observed extreme storm surge water level at San Diego of +8.3 feet above MLLW. The corrections to the high water predictions are 0.90 for La Jolla, south of Carlsbad, and 0.91 for San Clemente, north of Carlsbad, irplying that conditions along this portion of the coast, including those at Carlsbad, are fairly uniform. Flick and Cayan (1984) have examined extreme high water levels at San Diego, including the 1982-83 winter, which included high astronomical tides, meteorological effects associated with the many storms, and the extreme effects of El Niño. The highest recorded level at San Diego is +8.5 (MLLW) feet in late January, 1983. This was nearly a foot above the' predicted level. Applying the correction for La Jolla - San Clemente gives 'a value of 0.91 x 8.5 = +7.74 feet (MLLW) for the Carlsbad site. Adding an allowance for .0.35 feet sea level rise in 50 years, and 0.5 feet for local wave set-up, gives the following Design Still Water Level: b/1j18 -8- \ Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Maximum Observed Tide Sea Level Rise Local Wave Set-Up Design Still Water Level or approximately 7.74 feet MLLW (Mean Low Low Water) .35 .50 8.59 8.6 feet MLLW (or 5.7 MSLD) It is further noted that Inman and Jenkins (1989) indicate that during extreme events, such as the combination of the perigean spring tide and an El Niflo, a predominate swash component to the runup can result in higher than normal runup on seawalls. NOTE: In the calculations, Mean Lower-Low Water (MLLW), the datum for both nautical .charts and tide tables, is taken as the vertical datum. The Mean Sea Level Datum of 1929, which is generally used for onshore topographic maps, is approximately 2.9 feet above MLLW. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SHORE PROTECTION A review was made of possible shore protection structures and the various options were discussed with the. interested government agencies. Based on this review and the discussions, a cantileveréd, steel sheet pile wall with a concrete cap was selected for the primary structure with stone revetments at each end to protect existing fill slopes and to tie into existing stone jetties and groins. The main structure will have three ramps and two stairways through it to provide beach access and other public facilities. The south revetment will also have a rock ramp for lifeguard access. Portions of the north revetment and the cantilever sheet pile wall will be below the anticipated run-up during maximum tide and storm conditions. This is to provide better public viewing during normal weather conditions. This may result in short periods of flooding of Carlsbad Boulevard, but should not result insignificant damage. The design criteria for the shore protection structures are summarized in the following paragraphs and design calculations are attached in Appendix B. b/1j18 -9- Project. No. 905.114 1 E-000 I Woodward-Clyde Consultants The design criteria used for the rock revetments is in general accordance with the criteria contained in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Shore Protection Manual, Volumes I and II, 1984 and the data gathered as part of this work. The following coastal engineering criteria were selected for use in general design of the rock revetments. Elevations are referenced to City of Carlsbad - Mean Sea Level Datum. Highest Estimated Still Water Level Maximum Depth of Scour at Toe of Revetment Average Near shore Slope (vertical to horizontal) Design Wave Height at Toe of Revetment Kd for Two Layers of Armor Rock Specific Weight of Armor Rock Slope Inclination of Armor Rock Maximum Run-Up on 1-112:1 Rock Slope = +5.7 feet (MSL) = -I to -3 feet (MSL) = 1 foot in60feet = 6.7 to 8.7 feet = 2.0 = l6opcf = 1-1/2:1(H:V) = +17.5 to +21 feet (MSL) It is estimated that maximum scour depths should generally not exceed a depth of -1.0 feet (MSL) during normal storm conditions. However, maximum depth of scour during extreme conditions is estimated to be approximate -3 feet (MSL). It is further estimated that scour will generally be deeper at the north revetment than at the south revetment. The design depth of the revetment is based on a scour level of -3 feet (MSL) and the armor rock size is based on a wave height of 7.6 feet. For the maximum design storm and a scour depth of -3 feet (MSL), it is expected that damage to the revetment would be on the order of 10 to 15 percent (0 to 5 percent for normal conditions) and that run-up may exceed an approximate elevation +20 feet. The rock revetments will consist of a five-layer rock system underlain by geotextile filter fabric. The top of the revetment is at elevation +20 feet (MSL), except for a portion of the north revetment which is at elevation +17.5 feet (MSL). The level is generally at or below the sidewalk level, except for a portion at the south end of the north revetment where the sidewalk is at approximate elevation +15 to +17 feet (MSL). For the extreme wave design condition, 2 to 3 feet of overtopping may occur where the top of the north revetment is at b/1jl8 . -10- Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants elevation +17.5 feet (MSL). The toe of the rock revetment is at -3 feet (MSL) and the face has an inclination of 1-1,2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The rock layers consists of 2 layers of armor rock having a design weight of 3 tons, 2 layers of underlayer rock having a design weight of 600 pounds, and a 12-inch thick layer of bedding rock (quarry waste). The rock is underlain by a geotextile filter fabric which is supported on a prepared subgrade. The north revetment ties into the existing rock jetty at the north end and extends down in front of the. sheet pile wall at the south end. The south revetment ties into the existing rock groin at the north end and into the coastal bluff at the south end. The existing rock within the area of the new revetments may be saved, separated into appropriate sues and selectively used in the new revetments. All concrete, asphalt and other debris must be disposed off-site. The design criteria for the cantilever, steel sheet pile wall with a reinforced concrete cap and toe stone is generally based on data developed from the coastal and geotechnical engineering studies made for the project. The subsurface soils at the site generally consist Of hydraulic fill and beach deposits composed of medium dense to very dense clean sands, gravels and cobbles (localized buried ou1ders may also be encountered). The general soil characteristics used for design are: 0= 38° (angle of internal friction) C =0 psf (coheion) Yc = 125 pcf (saturated total unit weight) The average design ground surface behind the wall was assumed to be elevation +15 feet (MSL). The design groqndwater level was assumed to be it an elevation equal to the depth A of scour. The toe stone is assumed to be. placed adjacent to the wall at an elevation between +) and +6 feet. The sheeting size and depth was based on static conditions with a b/1j18 . . -11- Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants. maximum scour depth of +3 feet (MSL) elevation and no surcharge load. The wall was then.checked for cases including surcharge loads due to vehicle parking, a 3-foot water differential due to tidal lag, a seismic load due to earthquake of 0.2g. and a maximum scour 'depth of 0 feet (MSL). Maximum deflections and moments occur under earthquake loads and ur depth of 0 feet (MSL). Significant permanent wall deformation and damage to Ctoe Qcct!r if scour depth exceeds approximate elevation -3 feet (MSL). The U.S.S. Steel Sheet Piling-Design Manual (1984) was used for our. analyses. The results of our analyses give the following design: Design Section: U.S.S. PZ22 (or equivalent) Minimum pile rip elevation . . = -13 feet (MSL) Average length of pile 30 feet Estimated maximum design moment with scour @ 0' . = 319 in-'kip/ft Estimate design deflections with scour @ 0': . . at elev. + 15' . = 0.5 in, at elev. +6' . = 0.2 in. Estimated maximum moment with earthquake load 0.2g and scour.@ +3' = 317 in-kip/ft Estimated deflections with earthquake load 0.2g and scour @ +3' at elev. +15' = . .1.0 in.. The recommended design section is U.S.S. PZ 22 (equivalent, or greater) with the following properties: Weight = 40.3 lbs/lineal ft. pile = 22.0 lbs/sq. ft. of wall Section Modulus = 19.0 in. 3/ lineal ft. of wall Moment of Inertia = 91.1 in.4/lineal ft. of wall Mjl8 . -12- Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants 11 The upper portion of the sheeting is to be covered with reinforced, colored (Mesa Bluff) concrete with a wave deflector. The top of the concrete should be 3-6" above the sidewalk and follow the profile of the sidewalk. The estimated top of wall will range from approximate elevation +15.9 to.+18.8 feet (MSL). The west side (ocean) of the concrete facing should extend down to elevation +3 feet (MSL); the east side (lagoon) should extend approximately 12-inches below the sidewalk. The oceanside of the wall should be provided with two layers ofj -ton toe stone with 6-inches of quarry waste bedding and filter cloth. The toe stone protection should extend a minimum of 15 feet out from the wall. For design storm and scour conditions, it is anticipated that some overtopping of the shore protection will occur in the low spots along the wall and revetments. For anticipated extreme storm and scour conditions most of the wall will be overtopped and wall deflections may result in some damage to the wall and the associated faàilities. The sheet pile wall is designed such that it should not fail during scour to -3 feet (MSL) or during a seismic event with horizontal ground motions of up to 0.2 g. During storm and scour conditions the wall will be exposed to wave impact loads. It is anticipated that these loads will cause some deflection of the wall into the soil and the adjacent sidewalk. The connection between the sidewalk and back of the wall should be provided with a compressible material approximately 2-inches thick to lessen possible damage to the sidewalk. A wide joint filled with flexible material should also be provided between the existing and new sidewalk. The upper portion of the wall (upper-3.5 feet) should be designed for a hydrostatic load equal to 64 pcf plus a uniform load of 192 psf. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS The proposed construction is in a relatively active beach and traffic area. In order to accommodate these conditions, a traffic plan and beach use plan will have to be prepared for construction. There are also numerous surface and-underground facilities/utilities that need to be protected or maintained. In addition, there are certain subsurface and coastal environmental conditions that need to be considered for construction. A general discussion of some of these considerations is presented in the following paragraphs. This discussion b/1j18 -13- Project No. 9051141E-0001 . Woodward.Clyde Consultants is not intended to relieve the contractor of his responsibility to familiarize himself with all of the site conditions, but is intended to provide input to the design of the shore protection. Existing, Utilities Existing utilities within the Carlsbad Boulevard Right of Way include a 4-inch high pressure gas line, electrical lines and street lights, lifeguard telephone lines, a 12-inch water main, sign posts, storm drain inlets and pipes, SDG&E dredge spoil outfall line and offshore oil pipeline, lifeguard towers, fire rings and other associated facilities. It is anticipated that many of these facilities will not be within the construction area; however some of them may have to be re-aligned or extended through the shore protection. Two in particular are the lifeguard telephone lines and the SDG&E dredge spoil outfall. Existing Underground Obstructions It is anticipated that there will be numerous underground obstructions (in addition to utilities) along much of the proposed shore protection alignment. These obstructions generally consist of natural gravel and cobbles along the entire alignment and dumped rock and rubble in various areas. Therock may be. up to 3 or 4 tons in size and should be primarily in areas where rock is exposed at the surface, but could also be encountered in other areas. Other types of material, such as wood and metal, may. be encountered in localized areas. Sandstone/claystone bedrock will be encountered at the south end of the project. It is anticipated that most of these materials will be encountered within 10 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface. Excavations for rock revetments and driving of tee1 sheeting should take these conditions into consideration. It is anticipated that most of the existing rock can be re-used in the' new revetments. All concrete, asphalt, wood, metal and other rubble and debris will have to be disposed off-site. Coastal Environment The subject project is located on the beach adjacent to the pacific ocean. This area is subject to the action of high tides, waves and along shore currents. These conditions should be taken into consideration by the contractor during construction. Protection of the area may b/1j18 . ' -14- Project No. 9051141E-0001 . . Woodward-Clyde Consultants be required at certain times during construction and damage to construction may occur during adverse weather or tide conditions. Groundwater will be encountered in excavations. Therefore, it. should also be anticipated that dewatering of the excavations will be required. MUTATIONS Only a very small portion of the pertinent soil, groundwater and coastal conditions have been observed. It should be anticipated that variations in underground conditions along the shore protection alignment will occur and that coastal conditions may change: If unanticipated undesirable geotechnical or coastal conditions are encountered during construction, Woodward-Clyde Consultants should be consulted for further recommendations. This memorandum is intended for design purposes only and may not, be sufficient to prepare an accurate bid. Geotechnical and coastal engineering and the' geologic sciences are characterized by uncertainty. Professional judgements presented herein are based partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience. Our engineering work and judgements rendered meet current professional standards; we do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect b/1j18 -15. Project No. 9051141E-.0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants REFERENCES Fischer. Michael L., 1983. "Preliminary Report on January, 1983 Coastal Storm Damage as prepared by Mary Lou Swisher, Geologist, Energy, Technical Services Division preliminary report to California Coastal Commission. Flick, Reinhard E. and Cayon, Daniel R., 1984, "Extreme Sea Levels on the Coast of California," reprint from the 19th Coastal Conference Proceedings, ASCE. Howe, Steve, 1978, "Wave Damage along the California Coast, Winter, 1977-78" prepared for California Coastal Commission. Inman, Douglas L., 1976 "Man's Impact along the California Coast Zone" prepared for State of California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. Inman, Douglas L. and Jenkins, Scott A.,.1989, "Wave Qvertapping at San Maio Seawall, Oceanside, California" Shore and Beach. Keltner and Associates, Inc., 1988, "Plans for the Improvement of Carlsbad Boulevard- Phase II,". 126 sheets. Kuhn, G.G., and Shepard, F.P., 1984, "Sea Cliffs, Beaches and Coastal Valleys of San. Diego County: Some Amazing Histories and some Horrifying Implications" University of California Press. Kuhn, G.G., and Shepard, F.P., 1979, "Accelerated Beach - Cliff Erosion Related to Unusual Storms in Southern California," California Geology No. 32. Marine Advisors, 1960, "Design Waves for Proposed Small Craft Harbor at Oceanside, California" prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Meteorology International Incorporated, 197.7, "Deep Water Wave Statistics for the California Coast, Station 6," Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, 1980, "A Climatology and Oceanographic Analysis of the California Pacific and Outer Continental Shelf Region." Scripps Institute of Oceanography, 1984. "Coast of Califonia Storm and Tidal Wave Study," prepared .for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Planning Division. State of California, 1977, "California Coastal Engineering Data Network, Second Annual Report, January 1977 through December 1977" Department of.Navigation and Ocean Development. State of California, 1977, "Assessment and Atlas of Shoreline Erosion along the California Coast," Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. b/1j18 . -16- Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward- Clyde Consultants Tekmarine, Inc., 1988, "Semi-Annual Beach Profile Surveys and Analysis for September 1987," City of Carlsbad. Tekmarine, Inc., 1988, "Semi-Annual Beach Profile Surveys and Analysis for April 1988," City of Carlsbad. Tekmarine, Inc., 1989, "Semi-Annual Beach Profile Surveys and Analysis for April 1989," City of Carlsbad. Tekmarine, Inc., 1989, "Semi-Annual Beach Profile Surveys and Analysis for October 1989," City of Carlsbad. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984; "Shore Protection Manual," volumes I and II, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Reearch Center. United States Steel, 1984, "U.S.S. Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual." Waldorf, B. Walton, Flick, Reinhard E. and Hicks, ,D. Murray, 1983. "Beach Sand Level Measurements - Oceanside and Carlsbad, California - December 1981 to February 1983 Data Report." S10 Reference No. 83-6. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1988, "Feasibility Study-Carlsbad Boulevard Shore Protection," for City of Carlsbad. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1989, "Design Memorandum - North and South Rock Revetments, Carlsbad Beach Park Area - 3," for City of Carlsbad. b/1j18 -17- —. I- 1W I wv FWV I - • SR NC dA CAMøfl .)( m I A - 1 .P.t.' :.'#'. - _1 1 S 5k 1 1! .:'rrff ' 71 J4 31 — 32 A' jpi ..'. \_ \ <• 'AM -S. x\ \ Aztz.- - - \•. \ 44 I • \:ç • .. \. T 12 ,, ••_ • • I I•••1 -. .•. I I , ' \\\V'.. ,'\ \.,*"V" I cdv Jim AV CHNSTNUT - 1 . •• '' S \ \tK 4A \kt> \ 7Y\ \ L \i \\ASJ \% *'k)(cpla 4r- 0 \ \ s vpIl:;.•..LaP.\, \ \\\ *A' h Carl.b.dDeuch S t\P.,k . ' D'•' It L t) \ . 31 .• \ :- , • ' PROJECTJMflS\ \JE \ Plant..... \ -- ..................... SCALE: 1" = 2000' LOCATION MAP CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION DRAWN BY- cb I_ CHECKED BV."41 PROJECT NO- 9051141E.0001 J_ PATE: 9.26-90 FIGURE NO: WOODWARDCLTUt CON5ULTANI SCALE: 1. - 200 • • •• .•.5.., •-•k•••- ••,-t: H • •• • - U sJ v : ii$-; _A• - i ,.. .• I • • •• rn • •••• • LEGEND - - B-It INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST BORING T-I M INDICAtES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT ( SITE PLAN CARSLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION oaa. U, 07W I CSISCIIO .vj,t'J,/ PuoIs • 2 DAIS 92790 PDOIICIIO 1103II4IE000I OOOWAIID.CLYOI CONSULTANTS Line CB820 30. . : OCT89 25 ... APR89 -25. • -•-•- OCT88. - -'- - - APR88 - 20. JAN88 -20. SEP87 • FROM TEKMARINE . SEMI. ANNUAL is.. BEACH PROFILE SURVEYS (12/89) — - ( 15 3 • . •• -J -j :\.•. . . . • ,• • • 10. '.\' • C .2 5. \•••%%• • . • .5 . o > • • ' . • • • • LU. 0. MLLW -0. • . . "-••- • -S.. \ . •- •••- S.'. . - --s. • -10. . -. • 'S.-.. .-.. -.... • 'S-- --- —10. -15.- , i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •I I I I I I I I I 1 0. 100. 200. 300. • 400. 500. 600. 700. 800. 900 1000. • . Range (feet seaward of range line monument) . -. BEACH/OFFSHORE PROFILES • I . CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION 11 • . • DRAWN BY: Z!4J CHICKI PROJICTNO: 9051141E-0001 OATt: 9-27-90I Fie ' innnisnn ri vnr . rs.Ir Project No. 905 1141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION b/1j18 Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECFION CARLSBAD BEACH STATE PARK - AREA 3 Project Location The proposed shoreline protection project is located within Carlsbad State Beach - Area 3 in Carlsbad, California. it is generally situated along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard between the San Diego Gas and Electric cold water pond intake jetties at the north end and the bluff located approximately 400 feet south of the San Diego Gas and Electric fuel intake line at the south end. The total project is approximately 3,600 feet long. Field Investigation On July 11, 1988, four test borings (B-I. through B-4) were drilled at the approximate locations shown on Figure No. 2. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 3 feet to 42 feet. On July 10, 1990 three additional, test borings (B-5 through B-7) were drilled on the north and south sides of the warm water outlet at the approximate locations shown on Figure No. 2. These borings were advanced to depths of 30 to 50 feet. The drilling was performed by an 8-inch diameter hollow stem auger mounted on a mobile B-61 drill rig and under the direction of an engineering geologist from Woodward-Clyde Consultants. The geologist logged the borings as they were advanced. Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained from the auger cuttings and by using a modified California drive sampler (2-inch inside diameter and 2-112-inch outside diameter) with thin metal liners. The sampler was generally driven 18 inches into the material at the bottom of the hole by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler was driven less than 18 inches where gravel or cobbles prevented penetration or caused excessive damage to the sampler. The disturbed cuttings from the auger were placed in plastic bags and the thin metal liner tubes containing the relatively undisturbed samples were removed from the sampler, sealed to preserve the natural moisture content of the sample,and returned to the laboratory for examination and testing. On September 5, 1990, five backhoe test pits (T- 1 through T-5) were dug at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The test pits were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 11 feet with a 580k case backhoe. The test pits were observed and field logs were prepared by an engineer from Woodward-Clyde Consultants. A Key to Logs is presented as Figure A- 1. Final Logs of the Test Borings are presented on Figures A-2 through A-11. Final'Logs of test pits are presented on Figures A-12 through A-16. The descriptions on the logs are based on the field logs, sample inspection, and laboratory test results. The ground surface elevation at the boring and test pit locations were estimated from the topography on the "Plans for the Improvement of Carlsbad Boulevard," City of Carlsbad, Project No. 3205. A disturbed surface sample of the exposed gravel and cobbles was also obtained from the beach area. bl1jl8 . A-i Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants The materials observed from the auger cuttings and in the samples obtained from the test borings were visually classified and evaluated with respect to strength, dry density, and moisture content. The classifications were substantiated in the laboratory by performing grain size analyses of representative samples of the soils. A gradation analysis and specific gravity of the gravel and cobble sample was also performed.. Moisture content and dry density determinations were made on relatively undisturbed samples from the borings. The results of the moisture content and dry density tests are presented on the Logs of Test Borings at the corresponding sample location. The, results of the grain size analyses are shown on Figures A-17,. A-18 and A-19. The specific gravity of the cobbles is presented on Figure A-19.. One sample of sand was also tested for corrosive characteristics. These tests were performed by Clarkson Laboratory and Supply Inc. and the results are presented on the attached Laboratory Report (Figure A-20). General Geologic Setting and Subsurface Soil conditions The study area is located along the low-lying coastal margin of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Agua Hedionda Lagoon represents the backfilled channel or "drowned river mouth" of Agua Hedionda Creek. Like other river courses in coastal San Diego County, Agua Hedionda Creek incised (or eroded down into) its channel during the last major late Pleistocene glacial low stand of sea level (approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years ago). During the past 10,000 years (Holocene epoch), post-glacial sea level rise to its present level resulted in a reduced capacity of the creek to transport sediment. Consequently, predominantly fine-grained sediment was deposited within the channels. Similar to other coastal lagoons, longshore drift has produced a barrier beach along the mouth of the lagoon. The migration of the lagoon's outlet channel at.the mouth of the lagoon has, in the re cent geologic past, eroded away older Pleistocene and Eocene sediments and deposited the sand and gravel materials encountered in our subsurface explorations. Elevations along the existing Carlsbad Boulevard, which extends along the top of the beach, vary from roughly 13 to 16 feet above Mean Sea Level. Our subsurface investigation encountered beach and channel sands and gravels to depths of. up to 50 feet from the ground surface. The.upper 9 to 15 feet of each boring was generally composed of 1 'to 5 feet of recently dredged sand underlain by rounded gravel and cobbles approximately 1 to 6 inches in diameter. These recent gravel and cobble deposits represent back-beach berm deposition by high energy winter storm events. The gravel and cobbles are also exposed on the beach foreshóre.' Underlying the cobble berm are interbedded sand and gravel deposits of probable beach and channel origins. The sampler penetration values in these materials generally ranged from approximately 20 to over 70 blows per foot. Most of the higher values were influenced by gravels. The moisture contents and dry densities in these materials generally ranged from approximately 15 to 25 percent and 90 to 100 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. ---• Bedrock (consisting of tertiary sedimentary formations) is exposed at the far south end of the project at an approximate elevation of + 12 feet (MSL). Bedrock was also encountered in test pit T-1 at a depth of approximately 4 feet (+1 feet MSL) and in test borings B-6 and B-7 at depths of 24 and 26.5 feet, respectively (-11 feet and -13.5 feet MSL). b/1j18 , A-2 Project No. 9051 k4 1 E-0001 Woodward Clyde Consultants Large rock and debris are exposed at the surface within the project area, particularly at and near the intake and outlet jetties and the fuel intake line groin. Refusal to drilling was also encountered at a depth of approximately 2-1/2 feet in boring B-3. Buried rock and debris should be anticipated along the entire alignment. The current groundwater level along the proposed shore protection alignment generally follows the tide level. Some measurements also indicate that the average water level in the lagoon is about I to 2 feet higher than in the ocean. It should be anticipated that there may be some lag of the water level behind any shoreline protection structure. General Geotechnical Design Criteria for Sheet Pile Wall The subsurface soils at the site generally consist of hydraulic fill and beach deposits composed of medium dense to very dense clean sands, gravels and cobbles (localized buried boulders and debris may also be encountered). The general soil characteristics used for design are: 0 = 38° (angle of internal friction) C =0 psf (cohesion) yt = 125 pcf (saturated total unit weight) The average design ground surface behind the wall was assumed to be elevation +15 feet (actual ground surface ranges from approximately +12.5 to +16 feet MSL). The design groundwater level was assumed to be at an elevation equal to the depth of scour (actual groundwater level varies from approximately +6 feet to -3 feet MSL). Additional possible loads on the wall include vehicle parking, afoot water differential due to tidal lag and a seismic .load due to an earthquake generating maximum ground accelerations of 0.2g. Toe stone is used to help control the depth of scour. Only a very small portion of the pertinent soil and groundwater conditions have been observed. It should be anticipated that variations in underground conditions along the shore protection alignment will occur. If unanticipated undesirable geotechnical conditions are encountered during construction, Woodward-Clyde Consultants should be consulted for further recommendations. This geotechnical information is intended for design purposes only and may not be sufficient to prepare an accurate bid. Geotechnical engineering and the geologic sciences are characterized by uncertainty. Professional judgements presented herein are based partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience. Our engineering work and judgements rendered meet current professional standards; we do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. b/1j18 A-3 Project: Carlsbad. Boulevard Shore Protection KEY TO LOGS Date Drilled: Water Depth: Measured: Type of Boring: Type of Drill Rig: Hammer • . In • — Material Description Surface Elevation: 0 — DISTURBED SAMPLE LOCATION — • Sample was obtained by collecting cuttings in a bag. • — DRIVE SAMPLE LOCATION — • Sample with recorded blows per foot was obtained by using - a Modified California drive sampler (2 inside diameter. 2.5 outside diameter). The sampler was driven into the soil 5 — at the bottom of the hole with a 140 pound hammer falling — 30 inches. 10- •• • • — — FdI Sand Clay : 15_ • •• • — • • Gravel - Sand/Gravel • 20... — 25 • — GS - Grain Size Distribution Analysis •• — 30 Project No9O51141E.00O1 . Woodward-Clyde Consultants . Figure: A-I J_Project:Carlsbad Boulevard Shore Protection Log of Boring No: 1. Date Drilled: 7.1.1-88 . Water Depth: 14.5' . . Measured: At time of drilling Type of Boring: 8 HSA Type of Drill Rig: B.61 Hammer: 1400 at 30 drop . see Fig. Al _Key _to_Logs. .c In . CL — . . . Material Description — . _•In Surface Elevation: Approximately 14 MSL. 0 - 2.5 Asphalt concrete; 7.5 gravel base over moist, light. — - . gray brown, silty sand . FILL 1-1 • GS Loose to medium dense, moist, gray, sandy gravel and gravelly - sand with 2 to 4 cobbles (GP-SP) — 10 — Medium dense, wet, gray with light reddish brown (mottled locally), .. poorly graded fine sand (SP) 1.2 17 ;::;:.:. . 18 96 GS 15 - 1-3 — Dense wet gray gravelly sand (SP) with sandy gravel (GP) layers- 1-4 12/ • 6 0n gravel 20— — 15 31/ 6 / 0n gravel • I Very dense wet gray, poorly graded line to medium sand - (SP SM) with silt and pebbes and shells locally 25— . • — - 1.6 76 On gravel 18 111 GS 30 . Project No:9051141E.0001 'f Woodward-Clyde Consultants Fure: A.2 Project: Carlsbad Boulevard Shore Protection Log of Baring No: 1(Cont'd) a Material Description 0 C a o 30 - (Continued) very dense, wet, gray, poorly graded fine to - • medium sand (SF-SM) with silt and pebbles and shells • locally - 35- • • - 18 60 17 112 GS 40- • • - 1-9 p 95 - - - - • • • Bottom of Boring at 41.5 feet 45- • - 50- • • • ¼ - 55- • .• • 60- • - 65., - • ___ ProjectNo:9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants • Fure: A3 • ( Project: Carlsbad Boulevard Shore Protection Log of Boring No: 2 Date Drilled: 7-11-88 Water Depth:. 13' Measured: At time of drilling Type of Boring: 8 HSA Type of Drill Rig: B61 Hammer: 1409 at 30 drop .' see Key Fig. AA _to_Logs, E CL - I Material Description U C CL Cn 75 Surface Elevation: Approximately I3'MSL 0 2.1 - - T Asphalt concrete; V gravel base over moist, gray, silty sand 2-2 FILL - Loose to medium dense, moist, gray, sandy gravel (GP) • with rounded cobbles (2"-4) - 5- - - - '-Gradesto...__________________ 10 - Dense, wet, gray, gravelly sand to sandy gravel (SP-GP) - 2.3 51 - Medium dense, wet, gray, poorly graded fine sand (SP) with layers of shells and pebbles locally 15- :- - 2-4 101 On gravel 24 90 GS - 6 20 ] Sandy gravel layer (GP) with shells - 2-5 4 ' 6 Nk. 'On gravel - Bottom of bo.ring at 21.5 feet • • 25- -. - 3O.,, • • ____ ____ ____ Project.No:9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Figure: A'4 Project: Carlsbad Boulevard Shore Protection Log of Boring No: 3 Date Drilled: 7.11-88 Water Depth: None encountered Measured: Al time of drilling Type of Boring: 8 HSA Type of Drill Rig: B61 Hammer: 1400 at 30 drop see Key to Logs. Fig. A-i CL= CL Material Description Olt 0 Surface Elevation: Approximately 13 MSL 0 - Dry to moist, brown, silty sand with gavel • :"- FILL - Loose to medium dense, moist, gray, sandy gravel (GP) with • - • . ':1L; rounded cobbles (3"-4") - Refusal at 2.5' on cobbles - - 5- 10- 15- 20 25- - 30 %, Project No: 9O5114iE-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Figure: A-S 1 Project: Carlsbad .Boulevard Shore Protection Log of Boring No: 4 Date Drilled: 7.11 .88 Water Depth: 14' Measured: At time of drilling Type.of Boring: 8 HSA Type of Drill Rig: B61 Hammer: 1409 at 30 drop g= E 1A 0 see Key to_Logs. Fig. A-i 2 . Material Description lot CL O w 0 Surface Elevation: Approximately 15.5' MSL 0 - 6 Asphalt concrete over moist, olive brown, sandy gravel - FILL - 4.1 . - Moist, olive brown, gravelly, sand FILL : 4-2 Loose to, medium dense, moist, gray, sandy gravel (GP) 10 5— X., . - 10- p Medium dense, moist, light gray, poorly graded fine sand (SP) 4.3 16 with unterbeds of silty sand shells and fine gravel layer - 6 94 GS r 15— - - 44 10/ On gravel 24 98 OS - 20 : - Dense, wet, gray, gravelly fine sind (SP-GP) : 61 0n.gravel . . . . tDese, wet, dark gray, poorly graded fine sand with gravel (SIi Bottom of Boring at 22.5 feet - 25— '30 1 Project No:9051141E'OOOl Woodward-Clyde Consultants Figure: A-6 Project: CARLSBAD SEAWALL Log of Boring No: 5 Date Drilled: 7-10.90 Water Depth: 9.5 feet Measured: At time of drilling 'r. #f flrill tn' R.1 P.AthilA Hammer: 1401b. at 30 drop iype of ouring; o nw 'yr . .... . ... - . - see Key to Logs. Fig. A-i VA Material Description " .— ca a Cn Surface Elevation: Approximately 12' MSL Datum O • FILL Moist, gray, sandy gravel and gravelly sand with 2-4 cobbles • GS. PH 5.1 SULF • RESIV 5- — BEACH DEPOSITS Loose to medium dense, moist, gray, poorly graded sandy gravel • • and poorly graded gravelly sand with 2-4 cobbles (GP-SP) rounded 10- fly,— • Medium dense, moist, gray, poorly graded sandy gravel (GP) - 5-2 rounded - GS - 15 — .-::::. Dense to very dense moist gray poorly graded sand with zones of gravel and fragments of shells (SP) 32 RN No sample recovery - 20- — 25- — 5370 - 7 138 GS 30.% • • ____ ____ _____ Project No: 9051141 E-0601 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Figure: A-7 CARLSBAD SEAWALL _ Project.' Log of Boring No: 5 (Contd.) Ecc Matenal Description 08 a U) cc 30 - - (Continued) dense to very dense moist gray, poorly graded - sand with zones of gravel and fragments of shells (SP) 35— - S. No sample recovery 40 • • • \45—j MM Bottom of hole at 50 feet , 55-1 .65 H LL ••• • 1.• I Project No: 9051141E-0001 I Woodward-Clyde Consultants C Figure: A8 Project: CARLSBAD SEAWAL Log of Boring No: 6 Date Drilled: 7-10-90 Water Depth: Not observed Measured: At time of drilling Type of Boring: 8- ASA Type of Drill Rig: 5.61 Mobile Hammer: 140 lb. at 30 drop see Key to.Logs, Fig. A-I XF E a Material Description - . ,øu 0. .c 01.6 Surface Elevation: Approximately 13' MSL Datum FILL Loose, moist, gray, poorly graded sand 21 BEACH DEPOSITS ZY Medium dense, moist, gray, poorly graded sandy gravel to 411 poorly graded gravelly sand (2-4) (few 6-8') (SP/GP) - - COY • • Increased gravel - - 10 - ZIP • • • Medium dense to dense, moist, gray, poorly graded sand 1 5 - with occasional zones of gravel (SP) and fragments of shells - 20- .• - SANTIAGO FORMATION • 25 - Hard to very hard, moist, pale olive, sandy lean clay (CL) - • 7 with zones of reddish brown, silty sand (claystone/sandstone) 30 - - ••/ Project No: 9051141E-0001 •. I Woodward-Clyde Consultants Figure: A-9 I Project: CARLSBAD SEAWALL Log of Boring No: 6 (Contd.) Material Description.. . a 30 - . (Continued) hard to very hard, moist, pale olive, sandy clay (CL) - - with zones of reddish brown, silty sand (ciaystone/sandstone) • /. / 35 . . . . . 40- S Bottom of hole at 42 feet . 45.,. 50-' . . . .- . 55- 60- 65J . . - . . .. Project No: 905114%E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Figure: A.10 Project: CARLSBAD SEAWALL Log of Boring No: 7 Date Drilled: 7.10-90 Water Depth: Not observed Measured: At time of drilling 'r... .4 o..... O• UQA Tuna of Drill Rio- R.1 MthiIR Hammer: 140 lb. at 30'drop 17VwWI Will l. see Key. to Logs, Fig. A-i Material Description . c a In - Surface Elevation: Approximately 13' 0 BEACH DEPOSITS - c Loose, moist, gray, poorly graded sandy gravel to poorly graded gravelly sand (GP-SP) - ry 5- I Yr Medium dense to very dense, moist, gray, poorly graded sand 10 — with zones of gravel and shell fragments — - Becomes more dense to very dense 15- — 20- 25- — SANTIAGO FORMATION • • Hard to very hard, moist, pale alive, sandy lean clay (CL) • with zones of reddish brown, silty sand (claystone/sandstone) 30 Bottom of hole at 30 feet • Project No: 9051141E-000I I Woodward-Clyde Consultants Figure: A-li Project: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION Log of Test Pit No: TP-i Date Excavated: 9-5-90 - Water Depth: Dry Measured: At time of excavation - Type of Excavation: 36 Backhoe Type of Rig: 580K Case Extendahoe see Key to_Logs, Fig. A-i Material Description c . c.) Surface Elevation: . Approximately +5 feet BEACH DEPOSITS Loose to medium dense, moist; gray and dark gray. poorly graded medium to fine sand' (SP) with gravels and cobbles - - 4— SANTIAGO FORMATION - Very dense moist light gray and tan silty, medium to fine sand_(SM)._slightly_cemented - 3 - - . Bottom of hole at5lost . 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 12- 13- 14- 4o: 9051141E-0001 . Woodward-'Clyde Consultants Figure: AI2 Project: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION I Log at Test Pit No: TP-2 Date Excavated: 9-5-90 Water Depth: Not Measured Measured: At time of excavation Type of Excavation: 36 Badchoe Type of Rig: 580K Case Extendahoe see Key to Logs, Fig. A-I In i - I Material Description 0 U1 CL , 0 Surface Elevation: Approximately +5 feet A - - - BEACH DEPOSITS - - Loose to medium dense, moist to wet, gray and dark gray. - poorly graded medium to fine sand (SP) with gravels and cobbles 2 - 3•- - 4 ,. Water seepage on test pit sides at approximately 5 feet, - caving at depth - - - - 1 - - Bottomofholeatloleet 11- - 12-. 13- 14 - 15 Project No: 905II41E-0001 J Woodward-Clyde Consultants qW Figure: A-I3 Project: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION Log of Test Pit.No: TP-3 Date Excavated: 9.5.90 Water Depth: Dry Measured: At time of excavation Type of Excavation: 36 Backhoe Type of Rig: 580K Case Extendahoe see Key to Logs, Fig. A-I U, Material Description a Surface Elevation: Approximately +13 feet - — FILL AND/OR BEACH DEPOSITS V Loose to medium dense, moist, light gray, medium gray and - light brown, poorly graded fine to medium sand (SP-GP) with 1 abundant gravels and cobbles — 2 - 3 — 4- 5- 6 — Mostly gravels (GP) at depth — - — — — • a — 1 1 — Bottom of hole at 11 feet caving 12- 13- 14 15 Project No: 9051141E-000I Woodward-Clyde Consultants Figure: A.14 Project: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION .Log of Test Pit No:TP.4 Date Excavated: 9-5-90 Water Depth: Dry Measured: At time of excavation Type of Excavation: 36 Backhoe Type of Rig: 580K Case Extendahoe see to_Logs. Fig. A-i _Key (A w - Material Description zi 0 Surface Elevation: Approximately +12 feet - FILL Moist, light gray, poorly graded medium to fine sand '1— - 2 — - - FILL AND/OR BEACH DEPOSITS - Medium dense to dense, moist, light brown and gray brown, 3 poorly graded fine to medium sand (SP-GP) with abundant gravels, cobbles and boulders - 4— - 5 - Mostly gravels (GP) at depth - 6- 7- 8- 9 Bottom of hole at 9 feet caving 10- 12- 13- 14 —. - 15 - Project No: 9051141E.0001 J Woodward-Clyde consultants Figure: A-IS Project: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION Log of Test Pit No: TP-5 Date Excavated: 9-5-90 Water Depth: Dry . Measured: At time of excavation Type of Excavation: 36 Backhoe Type of Rig: 580K Case Extendahoe see Key to Logs. Fig. A-I CL Material Description • 006 Surface Elevation: Approximately +8 feet - • FILL Moist, light gray, poorly graded medium to fine sand FILL AND/OR BEACH DEPOSITS - : Medium dense to dense, moist. light brown and gray brown, • poorly graded fine to medium sand (SP-GP) with abundant 2 - gravels and cobbles - 3- 4 —':.;II. . - 5- -6- 7- 8- 9 • . .. . . 10 - Bottom of hole at 10 feetcaving . - 12- 13- 14-- 15 • . . Project No: 9051141E-000i Woodward-Clyde Consultants Figure: A-I6 100 0 I SYMBOL BORING o i-i o 1-2-4 A 1-6-4 o 1-8-4 Remark : 905114 IE-0001 Woodward Clyde Coneultanta San Diego, CA I . UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION I GRAVEL I SAND I COBBLES SILT OR CLAY 1UZ mm I U. R I GRAIN 1E IN ImL.rER DH MS ___ DESCRIPTION POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP) POORLY GRADED FINE SAND (SP) POORLY GRADED FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT POORLY GRADED FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SP-SM) (SP) CARLSBAD BLVD. SHORE PROJECT GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Figure No. A-17 I 1tITII -• MENNEEN, U I=E1110mmtiImmi IMONSON ImI I- II liii I I -- II 11111__I E110011111mom E111011rn_---ui .JIJ I) C, I 100 78 80 UNIED eCIL CLAZ1FICATIO1( AVE'L I SANDS I COBBI2S F GAK - , NE SILT OR CLAY U.S. m mcm I U.S. SIANDA31D SM No. HYDROurm 3 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 4080 1O 200 GRADI 3= IN M111BEEM SYMBOL BORING DESCRIPTION 2-4-4 POORLY GRADED FiNE SAND (SP) 4-3-4 POORLY GRADED FiNE SAND (SP) A 4-4-4 POORLY GRADED FiNE. SAND (SP) Remark: 905114 1 C-0001 CiRLSIM BLVD. SHORE PROJECT Woodward Clyde Con.ult.inta GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Figure No. A-18 San Diefo. CA 20 '1. >. Im 40 z 100 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION I GRAVEL I. SAND I COBBLES I COARSE I FINE ICQARSEI MEDIUM I FINE. I U.S. SIEVE 525 IN INCHES I U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No. I 3 - 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 140.200 SILT OR CLAY I{YDR0ITER GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETER DEPTH U PT. SYMBOL BORING (ft) () () DESCRIPTION o 5-1 POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP) O 5-2 . POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP) POORLYCRADED GRAVEL WITH SLT AND SAND (GP—GM) COBBLES POORLY GRADED GRAVEL (GP) AM SPECIFIC GRAVITY : 277 Remark 9051141E 0001 CARLSBAD SEAWALL Woodward Clyde Consultants GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Figure No. A-19 San Diego, CA LABORATORY REPORT Telephone (619) 425-1993 Established 1928 CLARKSON LABORATORY AND SUPPLY INC. 350 Trcusdale Dr. Chula Vista, Ca.. 92010 ANALYTICAL AND CONSULTING CHEMISTS Date: 07-19-90 . Purchase Order Number: Job # 9051141-E0001' Account Code: WOO To: * * WOiJABD CLYDE 1550 Hotel Circle North, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92108 Attention: Lou Lee Laboratory Number: -2590 Customers Phone No: 294-9400 Sample Designation: * One soil sample received on 07-16-90, from Carlsbad Sea Wall, sample #5-1, Job No. 9051141-E0001. ANALYSIS: By Test Method No. California 643, 1978, Department of Transportation, Division of Construction, Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts. SAMPLE PH . 8.7 Water Added (ml) Resistivity (ohm-cm) 100 . 37920 50 18960 50 . 12010 50 . 9160 50 6320 50 . 5690 50 5690 50 5690 The above results indicate 62 years to perforation for a-16 gauge metal culvert. . Water Soluble Sulfates 0.0006 % Aim aOrtega AFO/rw FIGURE A-20 Project No. 9051141E-0001 Woodward-Clyde Consultants APPENDIX B CALCULATIONS b/1j18 f, caL1Cl ev\ 14 9% +t- • L ,.- . c.3"Yi IoccC' - - . . . • 2 64 ptf • . To . " -- - tt. 16,/4 • . :34's v I( un . ' -. . . -ri' • tL~• tc- CA FA 2- s-dc. i .ie'iI (9K M1.0 ;f dccq .r- . +o o Ili L SUYrLII Lo-cL: . - t' vc(e 1:_: i ('o' f(.. L - Woodward-Clyde Consultants 0 JOB NO. S"u1E - 1550 Hotel Circle North . DATE 6 21 ) C) San Diego, California 92108 • I I I . I • DRAWN BY L-iJL PROJECTNAME tL"' C;s.- CHECKEDBV.L .. 'I , •. rc'c - ! •.rkl M4'icv1 - e. t ''uict. £CccW Q aE4kL f\Qq1 c (. Gc) .a. ,i.j-.• eoW'eei,4 S %c 7S SI _?_ • 67 .6 Icp oil v 14.9 2 ____ P SI! 1SZ 36 11 •: .7S .l3 1 W2.. &..:v'•' .(ç tct ftJ J,*M14I. .o1 (. 1L: o.ss o.sqz-6 t. icxeCjsc 4.o'(o rot.S.f.; p i. V. 6h. use D IO r^,,'- Am,, y 1610.iisf (I2) Jt1 G.33. • ,...k;f - l•.2 • - !&_ .S. •••• .c .z•vz. •' -, ok ______ Ot :0 • it ¼i - • . ArA Woodward-Clyde Consultants mr JOB NO. 95II43 F - rf 1550 Hotel Circle North San Diego, California 92108 • • .• DATE tfZ1 /q•,') I DRAWN BY i_JL PROJECT NAME CIr!..... _•LP)L • CHECKEDBY = ',- + 'AD = •zo'. Lc Pt, '/2 K C6 - 2IJS c( op(ckv.$) . P+- io E, I r- ... oj 1'.I ct)t s (Jo2,3 _7d+x/98 +.20 13. e) 444.. c o'°) —(!SZ Ic 10')+ *13 9 1 a 191 *LF (,c01S--:— 895 *.1413) (a.. :0.47 i'i. cc Cocce -. 1• ' rr I ' Ei I4' etttc.4 •C &'eltiic /oe4, 3 c;'r 14% 310 I , 4-fEf . (. ) A f'c 4 scf'. uLC K•p T '(lt.rl '0 S41 I. . 6 6 (I1X1I4. 10.1 ok :' , L( cc, Ur r'c v4io $.1(4. •c.r(cr v 0ccfC.CI 0.O5 (F.:, ia,) Voodward. Clyde Consultants £ 1550 Hotel Circle North San Diego, California 92108 PROJECT NAME :L Piri q JOB NO. 1O.5iI'f3E- 060/ DATE 3/v 7LS c DRAWN BY . LJL CHECKED BY I ,.LJie'tJ yvt,riek L 4o u.*kr cifeie'tii( - )+ (..It i'z ,o 17) LB •tI3•Z c,o5 'C .ic 'i• t-a .c44s/c.4 (1ecfCcJp4.c!;vc) dic 1 4% - T4( rvtON'k - I5Z. +.S5 A 441' i''( dd19h.. uc Jv uc*cI ct(c(e'r"( - Ims ,.,., F6J- jt3ff - &P - 2.58 4 ziB /L IJs/c. AJ - 'c ,Jc L; c(C' 1_oc19I soo 110S ç - e.64Q (y) fp. . 1.1. Q158.9 11 9 -ISCIA Xc . [ . . isa ,- "Y ok I. fre.tc. - ro4( 44.= S. Woodward Clyde Consultants £ 1550 Hotel Circle North San Diego, California 92108 PROJECT NAME lb" Iik JOB NO. °iOsl!U.3E- ODO/ DATE a/2F/o. DRAWN BY L.JL CHECKED BY pc Ic) = 319 T JA E =oltS Y4 Izp OIZ.' CsI o.'LS = ,Tp/XA r "3 . O.(D5) '1r%4v O4'o13gCI 27B 14$C c1'c0 To A._2 I C% C.., -rc 4r.mc— +-4I6 L 04.1:1 +0.to,oq..4-.o. -J Noodward.Clyde Consultants ArA w 1550 Hotel Circle North San Diego. California 92108 PROJECT NAME h JOB NO. DATE Thr/7r) DRAWN BY CHECKED BY J9 ..__c if, CIA . o e tteI 4r6t' r+4 cj.jjJ•6' M 4 = 0.51 'c o is g6Y 69)3 = z iq 7t 2 :..• j5 .t. . 5 . 20. = Yi. IK izs (623S) V. jf7• 330S L. fç.'' "A •#t.S 1 TO ceot. -(r £cor *o 4•0 IoU '(I'. 8,147 Pqrt- 0 IE7 '3 a o1s.c Ctsi = 4 " -r OLe;e: _• t.,- s .5! c) +%c To'1 /c", •( pc 2.S+\3. = 4' 4 A Woodward-Clyde Consultants vW JOB NO. 905(1E oc0!. 1550 Hotel Circle North DATE 6/24 190 San Diego, California 92108 DRAWN BY L. DPOJECTNAME - C; e.-..:.J-' --'-i f...--•' CHECKEDEY _70c9 cLk (,- £cc"% fc — 3 ' &A $L) 1.1 - is' •' -tic o.sTv. 18 .q%q L 2.3 0, Z3.50 '' yo I),,, 11(4 %3.di L. 32. '• 'f•ltS 445 i•' .I(;f o.S v 0.7.35 "61 Ib) 'i çf: ! -t7.c Z z.c.t'1 !,L K jzS'o.t3c iL = 1-7 59 X 3.7 It :'210'' st A Woodward-Clyde Consultants iW 1550 Hotel Circle North San Diego, California 92108 is I • p1 ' I. PROJECTNAME q •f ,• A. ritc'— ( JOB NO. I43 — ô) DATE DRAWN BY • LJL CHECKED BY ell (4J;4L 0c jqv.a m4t ' ,c C. 4c pv4ce ?4L( 4,v cnSs' SC04V 4 +' L'iSL' ctcuL evc 13 7-0 = es;', PeL e mi *o vt ' .r 64c 15j 10f ot' stt .t'Ac cLtq. + cpL k 3.0 ,".isL (Iec&. 6' e AU oteL o't,.Ic4" d14 7' s+,j#c Att krir-. ti tv.-i' (o ,4L A4- 4oC 6 geYw; • '• :P:1 ;=Z7O g -z. 041 F;. -r- r.o ,ç CrA 4 -2. '7 JO o.ocrrl 2.00 )Ll. 0.006010 .2 4 - i' .oO03.S Z. 7-0 Woodward-Clyde Consultants £ 1550 Hotel Circle North San Diego, California 92108 PROJECT NAME L1 r)1_'(.•Ji q JOBNO. 910SI1L13E_ofYiI DATE /VI) DRAWN BY LJL CHECKED BY !/ffr f2.0 k :Lk-c- 1t 6 yj N33 3 oz.q LIfe '4_+C" e'(' A4. .ck.c .•:. CT :37 I4$C .31/L, 'S 6 2J L4JØSIC 't(• (° Tpcc( eSi .cec!koi - COE circIr-'ce. C .'. bece ti • '4 Pli • • III '• 4Liik UAAC k• 4.Itn 4 it C. — dta'k c0 Ir =i to.o J3Zi I! 10, 1 °•°05 vJ — 1L Woodward-Clyde Consultants £ 1550 Hotel Circle North San Diego. California 92108 PROJECTNAME • e'.b,c' diotr P.4crc(vL,. Jc' JOB NO. • cPO5II43E...ccoI DATE - DRAWN BY LJL • CHECKED BY REDUCTION FACTOR (R) OF K. FOR VARIOUS RATIOS OF -&i -0.7 -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -0.0 10 .978 .962 .946 .929 .912 .808 .881 .864 15 .961 AN .907 .881 AN .830 .939 .901 .862 .716 25 .824 .787 .752 .912 .860 .808 .803 $375 20 .759 .711 .666 .878 .811 .620 30 .746 .520 29 .686 .627 .574 .836.752 .674 .417 40 .603 .536 .475 .783 .682 .592 .512 .425 .375 .316 45 .718 .600 .500 .414 .339 .276 .221 .174 90.0 BOB 70.0 60.0 50.0 30.0 20.0 I I I I 1 I IjjrP5u2t cc It M 10.0 Mi 9.0 lip 1, SPIRAL, 8.0 Ka = Ul 6.0 PASSIVE PRESSURE I 5.0 IPV-kM'I2sI-I'p...EiP.-P Who E- NOTE: CURVES SHOWN ARE 4.0 FOR 11--to Ru -. 3.0 K,-IKFoRoI•.-.0 C) P.711 . 4 us 2.0 4 - 8 4 - - - • 1.0 , - R- -' - - - -- - 7 bq ç L ku .4 • -1 FAILURE .3 . .\ - SURFACE - - - PH LOGARITHMIC - - - o jr. I SPIRAL z 2_)U3Pa I -1 ACTIVE PRESSURE - - - - P1.k,Th'12 U. us Pu _PJ E 8 I - -A 6.0 ::: :: ::: IIWO -t4 0 10 20 30 40 45 ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION 0. DEGREES Fig. 5(a) - Active and passive coefficients with wall friction (sloping backfill) (after Caquot and Kerise128) 1-f Efiln NOTE: CURVES BASED ON @#I! MAE DF !!Ih1ll 11111111 IIIIHHHHIi Steel Sheet Piling Sections - - - Ddv. • weight MenIng Section Modulus Moment of Inertia Prolile Section loft District Rolled te Web Per iS Per Square - Per Per Foot Per - Per Per Foot per Pile Foot I Foot Pile of Pile Pile of - - of Wall - - - Wall - - WAN - - In. - Lbs. - Lbs. - In. - In.' - Iii.' - In.' In.' - In.' - i j sxn H. 164 44.0 32.0 na 5.1 3.7 TV • W6 PS32' H.S. 15 40.0 32.0 ½ 2.4 1.9 11.77 3.6 2.9 • _____ fr Nq PS28 H.S.15 35.028.0% 2.4 1.9 10.30 3.5 2.8 "I. PSA211 H. 16 37.3 28.0 ½ 3.3 2.5 10.98 6.0 4.5 £ 0 PSA23 ILS.16 30.723.0% 322.48.99 5.5 4.1 PDA27 H.S. 16 36.0 27.0 % 14.3 10.7 10.59 53.0 39.8 €.1 .2 4k( . PMA22 H.S. 19% 36.0 - 22,0 - % - 8.8 - 5.4 - 10.59 22.4 - 13.7 - lL• IF PZ38 H. 18 57.0 38.0 % 702 46.8 16.77 421.2 280.8 1 ",4 I. ... PZ32 H. 21 56.0 32.0 % 67.0 38.3 16.47 385.7 220.4 17 mew cp .._ M W MO 7S cr .2- ir PZ27 H. 18 40.5 27.0 % 45.3 302 11.91 276.3 1842 a, - sr ! "Sections PS32 and PSA28 are infre. Quently rolled and we do not advise their use in a design unless an adequate ton. can be ordered atone time to assure imum rolling. mplete data regarding these sections Will be found in a separate publication entitled **USS Steel Sheet Piling." '-Homestead. Pa. (Pittsburgh District) South Chicago (Chicago District) Suggested Allowable Design Stresses-Sheet Piling Minimum Yield Allowable Design Stress. Steel Brand or Grade Pant, psi psi' USS-EX-TEN 55 (ASTM A572 CR 55) 55,000 .35.000 USS EVEN 50 (ASTM A572 CR 50) 50,000 32.000 USS MARINER STEEL 50.000. 32,000 USS EVEN 45 (ASTM P.572 CR 45) 45.000 29,000 Regular Carbon Grade (ASTM A 328) 38.500 25,000 nfl - -.-. ..- 27.•_ I I II II II - I, III II II II II II MEN 'MEMNON MMEMPEN Wammom WEEMEM MENNEN MINES SMEM MORAPH p Pam ~dm 700 a F--, Ed - IIjiJ'I TIEITh ; MOEN JTflflTrT7TrE ii II roiuui.iiouii 4Ur.1kSr& IJWW VII 5•I•un•y Vi•U IluI.0 Rankine Earth Pressure Coefficients for Level Back Fill 0 100 12.50 150 117.5- 20° 22.50 250 27.50 300 32.5° 350 37•50 40° Ka 0.70 0.64 0.59 0.54 0.49 0.45 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.30 027 024 0.22 Kp 1.42 1.55 1.70 1.86 2.04 2.24 2.46 2.72 3.00 3.32 3.69 4.11 4.60 --- - I U • • I i.i U I p. • ..i • I V •i.i. I .Ij. I - ______ _____ _ = - - __- - - __ - _____________• . .. . ..__._.___._.• g. • •• •UU•••L•••• T4 R ..4UM ... a•. au _==-=-=-_==_-= ______ ----,--=-- 1-6401) 90A17TW . . .s •_..:: ...•. . . :.. • .•. . .: .. .1 . I. •1 4aI4ggsvjg (71) 4L_i I . : '— 4f7e:cL—: :—— SB. . p'6'J OF CDMCCrrLr CAP Rio 0 ''s_"•I I #4 (V) e ;—• 940) e IC 'i'. e 12 .,..141H)e490 - .IfESD 70 ill 17 FACE Dir P/t3 SNEEr p/IJS 3' 'I##jt. LISE Jr irRv 3ETaVW,'E*4 JgEL /AZ 23 .SVO &rEE. SFZ-3 4tU)-.W(SDMC(OF Pan ArR AI SATURE . JOB G. • . CESIOI4BY . I C1EQBY 1E . • TNQ. . fç7. /0 . t • -•.. /fD 1/ 1: SB&O, INC. 3615 Kaany M& Road, 5ióto 201 Sai Deo, Ce]iIia M23 (619) 560-1141 FAX (619) 560.8157 .: .. I LSO O9S (69) XYi ILI19 (6L9) 1Z6 'JPD °!Q 9 g Lwi S 'o',as. j... '2i L I ia I Q/1S36frf . . .. . (7k. 75-.,')iç •.• H 1 ,b'Z'fr JL1)(scz'sv)rz .••:• . • .. .....-.. . . . .... ... 33'r.g1 T, (Ifrol YYTAT,vkl)f.L jyi. (74yw ff3: NI1//. J2NS ?22J$ ? OL d37 QNY Qbfir/. a2AV: 2s1i j 337 A P777&t ,,jj_).. IQ H42 V .tV 51 Lr1IQ J.,tiI 3/fL YO p NAIm 1920feell L,'P37 9,1311.Lt4 V 0-'!300w 37 hIm ?'SP &3I L11dw' dfI7() 3/IL J7F .L-L?#S. o'? 3.L3aQ7 01:R ° 4) -nj)u5r yv2dvs : SZ7I00- SORE-23 •i'/ 4coo,.; CPAZVV (60) :s Jvj 23 .'•i--4 -•.-•,-- / - r. .. -. ..• .- -- - WI WA,jTTD •IWD wg, ;j Ar THE orroi OF THE 140. AWD A 7114r WT JA/ 7W(. 5er..7-Io' - • • FAC SPZ -23, 5: 31.3 dP43/fj •r 209 SD, ao#(j. 7W/S A. ,4 W recraw e C f4 ..'. / . rt. X om IT so, OVA ,4DQEL is, w14s43 e 2's.t. .1 o SL -to ow tr TI/I TOTAL Hotizo" T4S (H(.1.( 70 SE I CSISTE.0 /A 1•Ii( 12 FEE-7. 'iIEtE ComcoterC CA,Oce.uts is 1? •25 (4000)(4)() .ba •w;1L( •-24 ........ . .. "N:.. 47oD(24.) , _j4;ao#• Vt .. . 7gy,000' 1/ 15'? 000 _v wE v*#JT rp tAItLY 7016 101# ii'qr i'sri, Wjit1 A aq Mi .1 STEEL j • * t.IstnD"r.IL) To Ti/I FACE OP 7H WE WILL VS( • 4 MILO WCIO.CV TO J,V(E7 lLC . •1Hj5r. F/hi £'( - ' — - - PITH 4 fL4tE ..- . . - --.--.• -. ..--. ... . . frEZD £T 6&6T$ r t3.7Z3 J6': 7Z,'ØA& ..Fi'SLLE.i.4TIj - • £LELTLO0& SGMATURE • .jmw. ES1G4EDVf Q€ BY. . ..mia 1449097 /o I ' ••• : t/tD 13/61 EB&O. INC. 3615 Kcmny We Road. Suite 201. San Diego, C.EIcna 92123 (619) 560-1141 FAX (619)560-8157 C'jjcx sUIT PiE 4 IM £1#Fk'4Lk . () .PES16 PJ Poit &1 . iiynorti, 1W . ... 4J4II . --#1.,a -; -H2 OX) /'a . 22f( )( y) //7 .:.4457 7633" ..!°'" . . . ..:: 30000 ••:..' ---- ...... - . . - : •- - . . .-. -.. . 4 OUPE E5GNEDY OQ(EDBY W3 . • ET .. W7/O •. pp INC. 3615 KmM VX&P"d, &*t 201, &a Dis, CEfcgà 92123 (619) 5604141 FAX (61?) 560.8157 . .. . & 0 D(U& ai - owe, NO e. 4'o' c.c. ,'t4 F roCi9' 200 Soo e $1- .-40 . ::.' .c ,,tri,Lt...:::._......:•.. wNkr 13 CA#.4ITy Of FIiTUEE ' cz .7C.S(40a.)) : ioo C: 2300C 2) p . .. .2 . . ...-.. ( 1.t7.j: .75" . . .. • r j •..:: • - •..'. . :$à) . S1A1U . • . -. -. . . .. .. • CESDY. ceEary 1E . I 41:. /0 •1 :.:/ .1i R M 315 Kswq IWa Road. Oda 201, Sm Diso, WdorWa 92123(619)5604141 fAX (9) -. : -p-•.-•-. ----..:•• jIAJDiC4IL. D(rAIL. (ST,CvcrL'14L v,#vEwr ) j -ArfA(H •ro -f4(ker PEE £ 4UT S fD 4S VN l#IVM PIPE ya • WJX'5OLTJ i/3fl,Al -. -"swVWU.' now • --•••... (rAsNLfIz J7UL) • • • MiAl • S 61 Iiritic toLT I. 5GNATU j vwpmf~l DATE I • • 14FOOS710 . • to/v/to 1 114C. 3615 KeaM %lfli Raid, &Wt 201, Baa Dàp, C.Bkra 92123(619)560-1141. MX (619) 560-8157 • • / . S. • •••.• -- ?'c 1e3_••: 'pJ•vq De.q -. gek vc*pne,yJ .. .:__. ( IN 8.6/ALLW . : ___ __ .1MSL L Ti rJWs;i____ —.o' L i ET_ -- -- _c o !.SO( (!4* 4ofl _ - _ uJe if&e4, 14 Ft, vqvi S 1:11.1 III I I. ;. - . /OJ_.002.oB.o,C. - . . .. . i'ILLo.000 o.°.s i lB 0-0006* .0-99 I _. _. _: _I _____ • U,i,e4'ie4eJ_DtpJocr _w&.ie -(F. A I — 1 - - —_—_- I_I_I •..._••_•'_••••••_•_• -•...-- - — 13 10 a_00 ZOO :S7_I ___•I,, L. __—;_............._.....LJ Wq.je ______ T kI.MsL )OOWL _S7 -Z XT U /0.c7 - ... 3.3 9... pt o.000 ..2.,80 . IS ó,000L7 z.3'f 3.50 Jo.oI 11.66 (c- ho' i.c'q..c' ; cI.s(.c) . p. . +t-i.s- Woodward.Clyde Consultants 0 JOBNO._ 1550 Hotel Circle North . DATE _7/2] /o San Diego. Calornia 92108 a DRAWNBY____________________ PROJECT NAME "' &" "i" 1 5'°Q r4O' rI" CHECKED BY _ ....... - z.3 --.'r4olc. 3'N c7' pYAL wl.j.IA T lB 4o2.b . . ML "_. •..__.._:JQ_L..ao 210 . 8.31 . o.c)oZ38 1.39 •S. 918 , ___..B .o.oô2 •. -. 8.CI 003 2.11. o.0007 • 2.l 37' ç JTiii : T&_i_i Toth T32Jo_Jè. z a p.p=19 2.30 3 q. _ji..LIS.o;......._.. __- -_____________________ cott•__D1Li_4: . iszoTo — . . . .---------- - I . . I . - .: : —. •_;. rock _sTi 6 -_i'i.3T -- 2 I I VJII -----------: — S 2.0 SoT th -._._.- __•7__t'YF da L_1.13 '715 1L : . U..$ObO 1. - . .. .. ..•... ...jk/ •..-. • •. . \ I, 't%IJCf {4.& - w = /t =•goo k ; Z'%('°/6) Woodward-Clyde Consultants Mp JOB NO. _9OS!JfF _OO/ 1550 Hotel Circle North DATE San Diego. California 92108 LJL f I I ! I • DRAWN BY PROJECTNAME _C 4C) CHECKEDBY .. . ... . ( . . Pe3 A 111A VA A Oil \fe4cr'( •Jc.I( — (.7i' e7-I3) (4v Scc1r 40 1' 1M L) i 41 R ( . __ T 7 A' L tev. LNd L4Z jo o.cc..I3t /.SI 2.7 11.5 J.19.I . 2.39 ILf 0,0003'l i1T ?.. iJ! # 14.1 -2.66 /5 0.000 27 z.3'I 3.1 9.-9 /0- q- i- l6 I .9c.ol.& .o -3ivseL) (8 jo_ooia i,'t6 ti\1e.& Pe.su.'c 0" jet4icc.( tJ4IT:.........._..._. ____ ;c +Lc is .':" .qlooic t!ic .ccI(.._pi*. se ci4 dce Scpu 4ou_fL e ta.J4(l oqet40.j Pat.( aic ike Urper . Oj :d' (,.e.(. -- Ir Des k; (. .... - - -vul __ 39z iLf.c. ave4s WJ41 :.. r1vc'-1.b7 Z 1° 3 44 0r kMj 4dt0( iJ$pI'CJSt1( oAfg I. Its P. V xrC ,sLo(cV tccUeD lb tLc aLvic po*c. 3S K )t &A- Woodward-Clyde Consultants. qW 1550 Hotel Circle North San Diego. California 92108 PROJECT NAME fill en.' ((le4 2.it JOB NO. 901/*Lf ocoj DATE er/i/c/o DRAWN BY_LJL CHECKED BY ....u...UU U•UUU•SU U U.U•SUIUUSSUUS•5 UWIU5Ut1 csus.uSu.1uu-UUsu I SU No on" 82 ..saiu.suu.uuuUuuuUsu1uU1ui1UsUU1uUUuu•uuuuu••uuuauwus1UuutssS•Uuuu•.sUEI I I .u_m..uUuau_UuUu.uu.UuIUuIU55_uUUU5UU1UUUUUUSuuU1UUUuUuUu1IUUUlB1UuUW1uuuiU_1UUI5UIiuH I _.s....ai.......uu....s.ms.u.uUUu.UiUuss.SU.suusUUusuUuuuUsuu_5sUu1u_55u5u3usuuUsuul so Ross Weems amitsommonsonoHnuffang am Mang"We I .W .I.,UuS5s.uUUUUUUuU •uus*..is .g...ua.. ..uau .55 U u• I II$1 US UI uuu iUUU Us. 1 1,nAnrrl ...u_u ..u_5..u.uuUauusuuuuu•55 tU••••I MUM — sau U U.S..... ........ us Ul..U.UUSiUU.U.5555UUSU5UUUUUIUU5 l5usuuuil I ••• .5 UIU•UUU iIUU UUU U U iUUUUI•l u_u UUUUUUSI s I5iu UU• US U.S...... 5 •5I•U•U•U ______________ .....u.. U US UUSS Su us..... u.s U See Uu SAN U uusu ________________ ....•...I uu.uuws.••.I.uUS•UuuUuuusUUUeUi .....u,.' .u_.amSUUiUI5UU ...u.....uUui ________________.5S U Ui. uSes us.. as US u-i .su_s.... u_u_u.. _______________ S. Si UI iIUu uiusUisu• us. uauIU5UUU.U. _____________________________ UU55UUI Wi.. sauus.•u•suU .. I.. UUSUUU... ___________________________________ u5UUU 51 I5i uU UUI• u_u.... U...... u•uuluuui• u......i --us.... ••Ui.iI 4• U U.S...... siUS WI u_ia... u.s...... us. u.s... ___________________5u Morass 1 u Ui *aw. Ui 5. U S U .••.u. u_ui...... - ____________________ _______________ .u.u...uI I.. s us... — u.s..s..... s u u.. ui..0 _________________ uu..55I uu Ui"t'frIIiUS. U •U• S U• ..uu.uui Uui awn Raman S5U5i usa ssU s u-a'ii ssu u.s.... u_uus.uus. .5.. s... u.uma U I /?U SUiiIIuUU U5IUIIUUU 5__ . . uluusuu u .s. - us •,uaus. us u.sus.•uu u•.uusaus u.0 u u.suuuu u.s...... . I I. .Ilii• u.s..... u.s I......... Wit USUUS b.4,.11u u_u. u_u...u.. I5is isa•u.usu us...... U 5•U•i•U ....u...0 u_u...... su..•uu.j uu-. •si us..... as uI%s u u uis.0 UIU •UuUJUuUUU u.ssuiu ..sui.. .uuuu.. SUI U...uss.s usais. ui bz'i 1,515i u.s.. s ii s.Uus•uu.s s..u..is.0 U. u uUUuuuu v. ui u.s..... su u.s...... u u usu us u u.uu.s... us. I -ts.'wa U U Ui U UU uu p15.uU5 uuuuuuuui UUS •usuus. .u.s...u.....0 s• U U UUUi5UUU U Iuuuusuuu. 5. .u_.. 55 UU-d P.0 a. uuuuu1 uisU•uu u-Is•u.uuuu U U us .uus. IN .5Us.uuiu .. one . us u.. ru ug -ns.u• • usus z- j asu..u. si.. u iS5iuU5U uls.UuUuuusU ua.Uis.sa.. ..... none ..s.u..0 5. Us...... u...u.u. U us..... u.s. us ..•ms us .u.ua u.s . uasau u_u. 5. 5US 5UUU i U • UUs.5UU U U5U UU U U5Uiimass 55. U... • U. Bassoon ... .s.zu U. U uuUI1uu us .....s. w... uuIaIsuUu usuusluuuu s us.. u .s-a....0 U. us. u.s.... u.s...... UI s. us s • u ..us..u. iii .. us.. u_u_uu.u.. u u .0 UU U u I U UI...... U U U u. uss.0 u.s ulu .u.u. suu !J!uU us... u1* 5U UISUI5 55 s - U U u u.u...au.. iu U u U U U U UiU use. U u...ssu..su. uiuu.uuu u.s si ulu.uu•s ulu. zu u uu5UUUuU5 5.--a su us.. ussu. u .. . u u .suu.s.sus u_u usu U •ii. u u u uu Usti U US I••... -su u.s..... ss..: - s u u u..ss. ill ,. uuiuu•u•u us u . . ui u.s...... u Eugene means ma u1 U US UI UasU..UUI I.. - - 51•I USSU i u. - = us...... 55 .- ••....s....us I U5SiIIU ....uuuu. 5 u us.. u Me 44s...uuu. .as.ui. A am mom" Sol .. is.. : - u U U 55 usu.. ..; - .upasuUS. . . Z .Uuluss u U •5 U UIso sUuUsu• u UU1 ___________"I—IImf ISO .m .auu uI.0 15.1 lu_u_i!! _ - aUs IM !!Ji! j ____________ 1555.. UU U • m ______ - - -.....__: -. - I lilUiliti 1ssu .s.u..uiihhiiTu i55uusUUU.UIUsusUSuUUuuUuUsuuuuuu.usU.uuuuuU.....u..s...uu.u.u.u.u.uuuu..u....u.u..u.u.s.....s.u_u.. u. s.SUI u. u uu U U UUIUU uas u. U US5Ui .. u.s... us.. u.. U U U i us. UUI U U S U UU u U U U U u U U I U5UU UU5Uu.5uu u U U U U U .515 ussUuuuUssuususuuUuu•Usuu•suuUuuu.uu.sU..a.uuU.uuuuu.....uu.uu......uuu.....su.u.u....u.uuuus.suu.I ....—...su.u_.uUuU.u..u..U.ss.Uu..SuUU.....UU.U.U..U....uUU...uUU.UU..su.0 man U..U..u.Uu..u.li.I us.. u_sssuu... u.s.suu. U U UUI U U 5 ususuu suu USS u.s u_u.us. u.s u.s...... s...s.uu UUIU• us... suuUuuUusU•uusaUUUuuuuUsu.IusuuUus..uuu.suuu.....u.uUu.usuu....Uuu.........sUUuuU.U..U.uuus..u...I u..s.u.—U..u...55....s.I...U.UU.au..uU..uu.uu.uu....u.sU....uuu..u.s.U....usU.IUuI.u...s.uU.Is..uUu u .su uu s u.s...... us u_•. u.s u_u.s...... U U u• iSUU s.su u ussuai U 55IU 5 UU u Ui USUUUUUIU 5 UU•U •uIUssuUs.aS SSIUUUSUIUSUiU•SuUUS55iUU5U55U5Uu_UU5uUUSUUa.U5U55U.U..uu.....UU.......s..........U.......UI u_uusI5UUuUUUIUUuUIsU.u.......u_....UU5U5........U..........U...........U............su....U...s.I I...U...i.uu.uiu.U.u...U.us.U..uuu.UsU..us........u.i....U...uU..u.u..sU....us..s.u...ss..Si...i me S.0686": .. 5I ussiUs UI U U .usu.s... iii an one U u u on us son UIUusuIU as uo u uusu• s•uusuuIs. ..uis.su. Ui no UUu.USWSiSaS.Uu Uu..a.a.U.u.s..... .....u... BE MUMMONSM MUMAMMEiuU •••U•U55• 5UuUSU5UU54 rnhsuiipIuuussIlttn,uu tSIIuIIIlIIIfl •USUUUUu polls IflhIuIIImass uIItuS(IlI IiuIiflhIIiJill •MR•U•UlUuuuiII IUuifiWuuUuuu,iflult Iu1,IlIIU,11.....u..uuuuUlullullullllull u••uuljauutus usiu,,us, lull uiuiiuuuuullflhi uiliuinl,U,......suuuuuuuuuulllll tutu uiuu,usuuuuuu uuutullIrt1JI.....uuuuuuI,unu lilui uiunuuiu fit ,tthini.....uuuuuuuuuuuIltll liii' •U•iillllliili IIIIUIIU Iu1.••uu.uuuu•uuuuuiul idlii uiHiluilssuiUUii iii uhuuUlb....uuuululu,IHluII ululHIIIIIuIPuIlIuuluuuJIIIflI w......iui.iusuln pp flhlululllflhlHll flhlll)11tI1Uk =in.UUSUUIuIuuuIuullluuuuutIlluuIlSuuutIlSluuulluIJItI 1rn1..U..i.uuiuiuuu, 1uiu,iuuului uuIL1luI ntui'.....uiuiuuuuuuuPHuuuuinhuiiuuuuuiliuuui uuiflul Hin........u.Iuuauu11u ,iuisuuui e.uuIIuIuIuIllluuIullIlIUIIUUPul 11111uult,iuUrtI........Iu.iu.uuiu t uiniiiuuuniflUii :s uuuihi......iuIuu,uuuuuuJlIhuluuluuIIuuIII uuuuuuuuuuitijtuiii.......u.ui.usuuua lun ltUultsiushdfl ,huUi ilk .......u.uuiuiiiiluisuuiutUi gas uIIII IuuIluhIJItIIIw ...uu•ueIIuhI uinnuuuuiu.uuluniulut 'nwih•UUu•uUuIIiuIlllItIluulII u.,I,uuuuluII1uuuuuIu1uuI 1n •••ai•iuiiuiiiu I one tall '.Ilililill •uu.luIufluuuuinlnitifli ii sun iuuu III iuIII fflhuiUuiuIsEinlnIuuuuIlutlniiu..uu.IIuIuuuultI uuuuului uui.iuuuuiniiuutui uiiiiw:........u.ii,iuuil iulttlfluiiisffldflul 1lHth11K1IIu.uuuuluIuuuIl uuuunu •uuuiiuuii,ui,iuui uiutlillr•uuluuuluuunt lbllflhhInuiIiinflhuln'ulluJlth,.LUII.uIuIuuIIll Illittill uulluuuuluuluuuuutt iiiiiIii.u.a..Iluuii,ni luilul 11111 wipp uul.urluuuutuittufl ffltn4I...kcJ.uuuIIiflhtlluui,l,utuuIuuuIupIuuuu$uuItItflHuIIfl..Ua.Ult.ui.flflI thU u..uuuul. uuufluuuluhuuhluiui uuuin uini......u.,u.uuiaustt r.uElse main thil ututuiuuuiiitiuuu iuuttu nnII••..s•uuusiahsut iltituu.E,iljhluluu lluitflHltiUJ mom NUUtI eggs i$IIhi unI,u,m ij BBuuiuhItInuhtIRutI:.!'I%4u.'f.IIIIIuhhhhu,tnIttIuIuuIIhuututI Iuihh1mIuunuuI1InhIluUnhIIliflhIW. i.ur.IuuuhuI utultuutuiuuiuuiuutuiiu uuuituiiiulin.........uiiu,,,uuu luthtUuIUUuUuhIhIlluhI 11 Jill uiiiiihiiuuiuIliiiiiiitiuiiiii .u•uuuuuuiiiii iuiiuiiuiiiii..ii.0 loll III ui Mini slastou HflhllIlI "Noll IflhlhlhtI 1111111 UlHUIIIuIIIIIIIHIIIIIII III UI II Ill IlIuhhiflhuuiuuphul II 1111i..uu...uuuuuiuuutpu m11thutuuuIusIuI,ul;ul I iii u iii uu.iuu•uuuuuuuuhuui in ii ....u.•.iuiiuuiiflu lUHufluuInpuuIuhhu111,111I u in u.Iuuuiuiui;uiin'iuuultu IuIlhhUhhihlIllUlt III liii i....U.U.uiuihhhiuli u ..uuuuiuiuuüu:uuuu u.u.uuiuuuuuutituuu iii iuiti........uiuuiuuuii lflhIUtU1uuu lull lUuhtItt1UhIliIUi•••IuUE'uuIbilflt Iil.uiiuiuuuutu, lit II? Ihfll• MEN ••UuIIU11uuhIU lllllttflhlUUluuhulluuhluuhhl utiiu.....u.i'uuuti'iiih'ti fli,luuuhhhhuuhlI4 III II UHIN•UUUUUuIhlhhuhl lhfllHt4twuulllu,flhutluiutli uiiiIu .uu...0 'uuius'uuuiI,: ilz'i,uu,uuutiui uuiiii uinN..•u.•uuuuiIhuuuI tgthluitiiiuulfl.nhufutu(uif 1111111 ihI....uuuIIuuuk'uuuulRIIlI'uuhuuuthIulhtltIJtilIIIU..SU.u.uIuuuuluulu lhhhlnthuullftUhlwlfflulutK Mw nuuu11.uIIiu,u-uIunwituttiitti....u..uu.Iuu'huImqtIiIn,.qu'luutuuulu ii n1n.......uuuuiuuiuuu lluluftuuuuu.avniluuuhuilii loll luii iii........iuuu momemimmoviessiall uiu'tit,iitiiiin:uiuiui,uti it 1t1u•mu•uu.uuuuiuuuuin IUtIitl1IIUIIflhhuuItu1ihi tiltili Lull 1 -44 Bi- lUllHtphluuuufljfltuljlH 'iii unit iui. S Stilt iI ut fllfl uu Lii li - • mange molls j 1111111 It 11111 I'U liii i' 11111 hI lIti ,fl - U• • ..uI.uui 11111 hlhltlfflhluhuhlhhlflltlltlHlu$HIII Hill tlhlttltiullliulull lutllulhttiiiiHi Iu....u.uuuuluutuutulhlu iuuuuus,:. uliuit.:'Iuip .....uuuuuuuuisui lufflfluIuuuuuI IuluuunUUUi,...u..u.uuuuuu,uIuIIulrII uuuushuuhu,:uuuhpIusi.uu.uu.u.uuuuuIH lltflhlhiftuuuw NITluv1,Iw1uuuuuuu1nhuttl,Huui.....u.luu.uuhuuu III uIuuuuuu,lhuttutIuuuIutI uftutuUlluluuuuuftuuuuhutThntulh.uu...uuuusuhuululuulutiuuuuuuhhlluhlluuutuii iIiIIIUU.u..uIuuIhhhIfl mit I 111tH 11111111111111u1u1 U i14 ii Ki ... u • • uuuuuuu iii ii1111111 rii uuuuuuiuuu tutu iutu i tin l LAM 11112111 rum - - •-•• •• U 11111 III hi Inns I1I1UIUIuUflhhIt11flIflhltfl ltU...SRPUIIUUUIIIIII1I1tUHIUIIIIIiISIIuUIIIIiIIIiiII#11••NUUUUIUUUUIIIII1 01 Ml uiluuiuUflulsnlstiutliiil iI...u..u.uuuuhhhuuItLflluflhIuuuuhhuIuIUIuILJltiIMU .aUU.IUUIluuSuuuuI Intl 11411u11,tultflltluiutl ui i ...IuluuuflhnnInHuu tiuu..uuuulfluutuntn!lunuhil......uuuurfluuuul intl uiuuu.uuuuuhluuiluuut ii ini.....uuuI1uuhIIluflhIIU lIIuuluIlhuuIhIt1uIIlihfl!Itt1Ii•.UUUIuuu,flhui i-iuu inlullhuulfltuiiiuiuiuul niii cow ••••uuI•ushuuIuIUuutl uuUuusiulIlutuuuuuiUtiiuuln.. manse games In" IgEligoggp EEE CZM B* ci Iq .1m=URIP .Riggga-mm. .4'.mmi FS M4 MM"M a Pow" 'm u.. i - - ""Bij PII I EMH 114 4im irnlil P I =M=m m 115, 10 FE RMA. In ds ___I a Ti UHH-C.N.9919199151, -- Itu - ItI 4 iui tJIIIU1UI1U1Rt1IflhIIfl iii U I III1IIiiI inn 1.0 0.9 R o.e H'0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 -.1 .1 \'• p4 0.001 0.002 0.004 H'0 gT2 0.01 0.02 (oiler Savllle,19561 Im m m 9 1 a I Em 99 me sm @ 92 -~, 4 M 146 R1 9 0 H f 9 P. a I I it 9=0 OR, ff!.% = PERINI 9, RHOM 119rofflEm"Hi , i1111111m,S! U II! _ _ oil 15 m 19 39 9 A U ME- 9. t9m I Il Mm I 19 ap, 9 Pl IMM"n, 9 2 "i* is 9 19 115 9HY =9 9 9 1 at fill Vin AI I Ennui Sol 1-6 m 11NOCUMMUM lam 1:611 ,11" Hufimi 0 H F im I WJI liii II !IIfllUIiitIIHIWfl& 0.1 0.00004 • 0.0001 0.0002 0.0004 See Figure ?-13,correcflon for model scale effect. 2 Figure 7-15. Wave runup on impermeable, quarrystone, 1:1.5 slope versus H/gT 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 DESCRIPTION TITLE SHEET I AERIAL PHOTOGRSFHSISURYIY INFORMATION 2.4 SEAWALL PLAN AND PROFILE 5.7 RAMP AND STAIRWAY PROFESS 0 FINE GRADINGINORGIONTAiL, CONTROL AT ACCESSES 540 REVETMENT DETAILS II SEAWALUAcCESS DETAILS 12.13 EASEMENTIRIOHT.CF.WAY DATA 14.10 SPECIAL NOTES: 1. THE HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT OF THE WALL IS DESCRIBED BY BEARINGS AND DISTANCES *110 CURVE DATA V.14101 DESCEILE THE CONTROL LINE. WHICH IS THE BASIC (STREET) BIDE C THE SHEET PILING. SEE OETAIL9 - a TOP OF SHEET PILING 61.01001 BELOW TOP OF SEAWALL . SEE DETAIL 3. WATER SERVICE LINES SNAIL BE 51014USD BY JACKING UNDER EXISTING 19PROVENSIVIS. CONNECT TO THE 2 PVC (PRESSURIZED) LINE IN THE MEDIAN - NO NEW METER OR METER BOX IS REOUIRED. CONTRACTOR SMALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WAD' INSTALLING WATER SERVICE LINES. CONTRACTOR EI4ML TAKE PRECAUTIONS MOTTO DAMAGE THE CONCRETE CAP WHEN PLACING THE TOE STONE. S. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTION & RELOCATION OF EXISTING TELEPHONE BOXES. RISERS AND TELEPHONE LIES, I.•. SEE SHEET 10. 7. ALL LIFEGUARD TOWERS 54 CONSTRUCTION AREA TO BE RELOCATED AS SHOWN . . OR PER REOUBISMEMTS OF STATE DEPT. OF PARES & RECREATION. . 7 AS BUILT" RCE EXP._DATE a -le REVIEWED ST. LOUIS LEE RCE: 14129 I SAMUEL F. SAFBIIO RCE 13177 ________________ .EXP:EXP: ENGINEER DAIS I CITY OF CAR SBAD1F5 1 / -ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ILG CAAD BOLLEVAND SHORE PROTECTION TITLE SHEET RE14SION DESCRIP11ON OW SONWAL / NOTE: THE BENCH MARK IS TO BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT ONLY. IT DOES NOT MATCH OTHER CITY DATUM. BENCHMARK BlOc.. INW TOP OP 5405*090010 WEIA OOINBNI LOCA?ANpNGEBSECTWN OF CASOc. 00*0 AND CARLSBAD SOIBIEVAUD MPOUD PROW IS*SBTWIIA4SRO CITY OP CARLSBAD D*15*._C!'V OF 11*0110*0 CITY OF CARLSBAD VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE LOCATION MAP - NOT TO aCME SOILS ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE I. LOUIS J. LEE. A REGISTERED GIOTEDINICAL ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PIUNCIPALLY DOING BUSINESS IN THE FIELD OF APPLIED 805.3 MECHANICS. HEREBY CERTOYfliAT A SAMPLING AND ElIOT CF THE SOIL COHOmONE PREVALENT WITHIN INS SITE WAS MADE DV ME. OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. BETWEEN THE DATES ROE. IMA AND OCTOBER. 1090. ONE COMPLETE COPY CE THE 505.5 REPORT COMPILED FROM THIS STUDY. WITH MY RECOMMENDATIONS. HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OP THE CITY BEMAEEBI B,Il,,E1'4 1r frz-fl- R.O.E. NO 512 LCUIS.L LEE II EXPIRES: 3.31.05 FRM W000wARO.CLVDE cOIEULTANIS PHONE: 094.0590 DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I IY CESE THAT SAM TIE ENGNR OP WORE FOR THIS PROJECT. 1)4*? I HAVE EXERCISE RESPONSIBLE EXAINBE OVER THE DESIGN CF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION SF03 OF THE BIJEBESS *105 PRORMSOM COOS. 4105 THAT 1)45 DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. I I1IDEBETAlAD THAT THE 04501 OF PROJECT ERAINWOS NO SPECIFCAT)OIG By THE CITY OF C*ALSBADIS CONFINED TOA RENEW ONLY AND DOES NOT RELIEVE ME. AS AN ENGINEER OF WOBI OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT 8(3101* LOUIS lEE. RC.E. 44109 5SF: 3.31.03 DATE F. CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHORE PROTECTION AOUA Mid D,oN:oA LAG 3.0.0.4 5. 53010* POWER STATOfl (000TU EUTSARCID PACIFIC OCEAN KEY - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHEET. 0- PLAN & PROFILE SHEET 4 KEY MAP SCALE: 1= 400' LEGEND SHEET INDEX FEATURE TYPICAL OWAWING EXISTING ELEVATION NEW ELEVATION TOP OF WALL ELEVATION EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING GAS LiNE EXISTING BURIED ELECTRIC LINE EXISTING BURIED TELEPHONE USE EXISTING FENCE - EXISTING STORM DRAIN WATER 5ERA SORROW.' (Sim.) DEMOUNTABLE P001 scim Will NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SCRED 044 LIFEGUARD TOWER pIEW LOCATION) NEW GUARDRAIL OVER SEAWALL (AT SOUTH SEAWALS. EXTENSION ONLY) WORK TO BE DONE I. GNACINC,AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AND 51 CONFORMANCE WITH 1.45 CITY ER CARLSBAD STANDARD DRAIWIGS. 2. REMOVAL OF ALL WAlSH. VEGETATION AND DEBRIS WITHIN CCIISITWCTiON UNITS 2. CONSTRUCTION OF RPRIP P.EVETMEMT IL CONSTRUCTiON OF SHEET PILE WALLS WITH CONCRETE CAP *110 ICE STONE. S. CONSTRUCTION OF STAIRWAY AND RAMP ACCESSES. IL CONSTRUCTION OF WIDENED SIDEWALK BEHIND SEAWALL 7. COSISTRICTRIN OP FACILITIES AT VIEWING AREAS AT ACCESSES oil Eli Oil Eli SPECIFICATIONS: 0j 1. CONSTRUCTION SMALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH APPUCARIETSTNCAID j SPECIFICATIONS PLISUC 1100913 CONSTRUCTIOE (GREEN 800IQ. IMP EDITION WITH IMP . I • S(WPIEMEIET. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE PROJECT DRAWINGS AM C_, I SPECIFICATIONS. a TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT HAVE BEEN PREPARED AS A SEPARATE I ( DOCUMENT. S. ISOUDITIONOF '12050091 BUILDING COMET rL0CATION OF BENCH MARK BOUJ,VARD GENERAL NOTES: -i1 lj NOTES- AM EXISTING UTLOTES OR STRUCTURES REPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING COMPARES ARE NOCATED .1 lo HEREON BASED 051 INFORMATION OF RECORD. THE CONTRACTOR IS REGAINED TO TANS ol a .0110 flI05y MEAS%_S TO PROTECT THE UTILITY 10955 SHOWN MASON NC NIT CRIMP 0 E EXISTING IEEE NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SMALL BE - RESPONSIBlE FOR MIRING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE RELOCATION OR 30&IOV*. OF EXISTING UTILITIES 4110 AGREES TO BE RELY RESPONSIBLE ICDANY MO ALL DAMAGES WSSCN 100105 BE OCCASIONED BY PAR FAILURE TO LOCATE NO PRESERVE NIT MD ML UPIGERGRM*9DUTPJTIES.48 SESEE FROM TO WORN CONTACT: SEWER: CITY OF CARLSBAD P540515: RMSMI WATER: • . PHONE. • TELEPHONE. P*IC TELEPHONE 0940105 0959009 GAS I ELECTRIC: SOG&E P540505 2354212, GlEE T.V:ONAIELS CA&EVISIGN WHOSE. 405.7105 DREDGE OUTFALL LOIS AND FUEL INTAKE LINE BILL DYSON AT S.D.E. LB 0940105 0314097 BILL FAST CALIP.DEPT.STATE PARES AND RECREATION PHONE: 739.3547 1. THE CONTRACTOR SMALL VERIFY BOTH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF ALL EMITTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COIAMENONG GRADING OPERATIONS. S. COMlAACTqR WILL 5*4145 EXPLORATION EXCAVATIONS NO LOCATE EXISTING FACILITIES SUFFICIENTLY AHEAD OF CONSTRUCTION TO PERMIT REVISIONS OF FLAIlS F NECESSARY BECAUSE OF LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES. 2. LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS. TOES MET BY WORK 70 BE ROBE. SNAIJ. BE CONFIRMED BY FIELD MEASUREMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WORN IL GRACES SHORN ARE F011514 GRACES. CONTRACTOR 544AU. DETERMINE NECESSARY SIXICRACE ELEVATIONS AND SAIALLCOPIETRUCT SMOOTH TRANSITION BETWEEN FONDA GRADES DETAIN IL CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SMALL ASSUME SOLE AND COUPLETS PESPONSIBUIYEOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DIMPIG THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF 1505 PROJECT. 590105105 SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND .GIIrT THAT INS REQUIREMENT Slt&U. APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE 1*1115010 NORMAL WCRIWIQ HOURS: AND THAT TIE CONTRACTOR SMALL DEFEND. INDEMNIFY *10140W THE CITY OF CARLSBAD *1101195 ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM AIR AND ALL LIABILITY. REAL CR ALLEGED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON TIBE PROJECT. EXCEPTING FOR USEJLJTY ARMS ERMI THE SOLE NEGLISESICE OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD OR THE ENGINEER IL THE CONTRACTOR SMALL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE V.17)41)45 PWOMEIOIIE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY ORDERS. (CAl. I 0514*) T. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING THE EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT. GIRD AND GUTTER, 4140 SIDEWALK 011 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD. THESE IMNIOVEMENIIS SHALL NOT BE DAMAGED VI NIT WAY CSIO CONSTRUCTION, IL 55409 $4140 LEVEL AT SEAWMLNC MPRDP REVETMENTS WILL VARY OIlS 10 TIDES. WAVES ANO WEATHER, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ELEVATION OF 5*140 AT PACE OF BEAWMLATTOE OF COSISTRIJCTIOS& THE EXCAVATIONS 514*11. BE MSIIFILED 70 THE SAME ELEVATERI, ALL INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: PAT ENTEEND CITY OF CARLSBAD • PROJECT MANAGER 435-1151 EXT. 4358. LOUIS LEE W000WARD CLYDE CONELILTAJITS - ENOVIFER 294-11400 SAMUEL F.SAFINO, 88*0 • INOL - ENGINEER 300-1141 WOOD WARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS CONSULTING ENGINES. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS GESIGNED BY CHECKED BY 1550 HOTEL CIRCLE NORTH SAN DIEGO. CAI.FORNIA 92108 jpj IN ASSOCIATION WITH DRAWN BY At SB&O. INC - SCALE dyE. AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS DATE 7190 PRE-LOA 3815 HEAlTHY VILLA ROAD OE. C*RWA92123 .10/0 im ca0t Mi OF - RAMWO AG(a NEDIQVDA SO z .44 W — - —. a • - I. j • q - rr Mr.u. .?f-' J. " 2.47 - , 1 - I5 - ' —IS — --uI.2' N 780015-M -. - . - .. ...4.L • —.-•'-'.,t-• .. . . . - - - .. !p rav CL ______ __ _______ :- ••C'•• 160A. SURVEY CONTROL POINTS ____ SSA I CFSST Alam 93 EIIVATION DESCRIRnON ASS 2P.GLU 4O.IZ (UT lilIan 16106.70 14,71 P.R. NM. I M70*L CROSS £53 3S.DIAP 41.04 (UT 67I 3637150 IllS P.M. NM. a 316341. CPA= Aal 46+3650 - 5538190 3698136 1113 PA NM. I 41OS61FT 306361. CROSS AS BUILT -. WM m LOUIS LEE ROE: 14129 SAMUEL F. SAF0 RC 13177 EXP: 5jj EXP: 33143 1 - ENO9800R - DAN WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS I9SU.l?4G D08IEERSo.oGjSrS No BOI*.ENTAL S1ISTS cc~w -- vp — - - - - i_il CITY OF 1'ADT AD lrn ENmNERlI4GcfPRRmcJfl____jL__. - — - __________________- isso o!a CIRCLE NORTH _____________ . BY SAN DEGO. CAIFCRNA 92108 — = ______________________ = = = C*.S8*D BOU.EVARO SHM PROTECTION 11 ASSOCIATION WITH Al = = — = =AERIAL MAP AND SURVEY INFORMATION ___________________ SB&OI INC Sc" • / = _______________ aft No STRUCTURALeiEs ND - - - - - - - O1Y 501364ESR R 23585 Eli. - DAlE 2615 c,Ev VlJ ROAD -- -- w- DYWBY:.............. [ PRO.(CT NO. NC SAN DEGO. cPLFORMA 92123 — REVISION DESCRiP11Ot1 670 apesovao R3 BY= I 3307 I! -8 Eel I I•. -• ••.v : .. .. - .- ____ - ,t... E_1• - I -- P ... - 1• - -mot - ..••.• . -:- - --c:' I ., I. • ' : - -- . - - WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS AP ONSUil'IG Bl4S GE0LoTS AND DIVflOM.4ENTAL 54ROTS ISM HOTEL CIRCLE NoRm OED(ED SY SAN DIEGO. CN.FCRNIA 92108 IN ASSOCIATION WITH AWIIBY i N SB&O. INC SCAM CNL NO SJC11Aj. ENGIEERS 410 LAND SLVEYORS 3615 KEpy ILA ROAD tf SAN DIEGO. C*LU 92123 AS BUILT" NCE ______ . ________ DAlE REYIE eY LOUIS LEE RCE 14129 SAMUEl. F. SAFINO RCE: 13177 EXP: gyp.3-3193 EWGD4EER DAlE - [Ml CITY 01' CARLSBAD] ruff M EWINC DEP*RlNDII 1 ai = CARLSSAD BOULEVARD SH0 PRO1ECTION1 AERIAL MAP AND SURVEY INFORMATION H ••• .;. '..'... - Y. J AS BULLY , £ItP. • DATE 'L / -. /--9. - '. - • I' /Z?Z IE B LOUIS LEE' RCE: 14129 SAMUEL F. SAPINO RCE: 13177 EXP. 23 EXP:ii± ENGNEER DATE WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS CR — — __________________ _r, = = Ei11C1TY OF CARLSBAD' CONSLLTBiG D4G1ERS. GEOLOGISTS AND DIVOI4ENTM. SCIENIGIS O€OCED BY _•__J ENOwBND DEPABNDa 01EL GROLE 01 = - = - [CARLS8DBO(LEW.)SH0PRO1EC1lOW CMWN By = = IN ASSOCIATION WflH ____________________ = = = = AERIAL MAP AND SURVEY IORMAflON SB&O. INC • =1 NC s1JcTIp es,iss _____ OlE. --9.4 I alT iE i3859 E3. — DAlE. 3815 KEARNY VILA ROAD DATE 10190 BY: — O.LCT NO. llcRaNc N SAND __,• 3307 AiG'8 O.CALFORNIAB2123 emoNm or REVISION DESCMP11ON I -... ____---------;--- - - - - __-_--____ - - - •• . F F - F F -, - - - - _-- - - - RLSB0 -- - H - - -- -- - - - - - _- - - - - -- BOULEVARD- - op ARW 24 21-1 _ RAW IS 3:1). 77-- HEN gav&7Afaw WAWr I. J • . . I•. . -.. I NOiTff '5EAWALL' AS VP OFAMPOW .42 am 1w. GAT AS BUILr WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS LOUIS LS E RC4I29 SAMUESAFrn fl O'RCE31 1560 HOTEL CIRCLE PAMN CALE0Aa2IO8 SAN Mb. PJ ASSOCIAT0N WITH - . SB&OI INC WALE - aVLNS1JL ENGWEERS AND LAND SAMORS DM9 7190 PRELM SAN OSKk CALFOWM 02123 ioi REMSON DESCRIPtiON ______ - ____ _ fM J[CITY OF CARLS]E 5 DdNNG CARhliDfl la I CAAD BOULEVARDso o1EC10N PLAN AND PROFILE STA. 204 0070 S7k31 475 VFVRD alT DIa_I 23U9 . bI C.. _....... O.EcT ND. NC.1 - . 3307 3IC,-& OND -_ILL flhsl U Ct Ift j-r.-•I IJ: ••. .1 Hi 4'i _.37 ____ I __ ____ -- -,---r---------_ - .. 9, 13 T —.-----.------.------.------------------------, 27 - .- i°_----1L,--_-------- L BA -jig --- ,--—--:: - .: ---1- so M37 'I Dqp! jj__: -—---—: - - --a----: -—" — -- --— sL_ me wfE .tWl I . ---TTT I. - mp — . •— !°''. :: ... I -' STAIRWAY-ACCESS NO.2 _ ACCESS NO17 € IT NOW A% CFSS NO.3 MOM WAU r - OF 90 at 4 .. 40 • . . . . _____________-- - WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS CCGLLT0IG eas GEOLOGM ito BNROtJTM. sn13Ts 1250 HOTEL GROZ NORTH SAN 01390. CIILF{MtM* 02100 GmEam By omvmw bCIAP IN ASSOCIATI)N WITH _ S B & #. INC SOME /4orH) i' av av AIG s136Jcns AM LAARMORS DATE 7190 PRELIM 3615 KE*Y VILA ROAD SAN CEGOCALf(M 02123 10190 AS BU IE BV LIIIS LEE ROE: 14120 SAMUEL F. SAFINO/, ACE: 13177 EXP: EXP: EER _- CABA0 BOULEVARD SHOE P • PLAN AND PROFILE STA.31.73 TO 57*. 44.30 'FpRDw OTY QtIEE5 am 2300 JDr, DAlE HO6'I. -IF oso.cr iio. 0SAat13 1101 REVISION DESCRIPtION[iiU __aty a,v,A A. ____r_- I t _______ __j. _• . - - - - - - - - - - . . __.1_-__ C. 47 40. i - I - — -=--—-- -- - - - --- -- -- - - - -- -- .LJT. - - - -- - -: _____________ - - ________________ - For - -- . - — -. _5 .:--- - ,.J• 473 jqg r.. 681.1 of m 53 .O4øG' ....• .g.4. ; ZfAV- lk. ANN 12 M. Mal 49.07 , 40054 to AMC Alm ditex 7v WAU - LANDS - I I ,ir.OL LINE AL,GNM5#IT CNEOULE S i 1 ''AS BUILT !, - - - -- - -- -- -- - \(AZXATIEU) RCE DAM I - J. LOUIS LEE f . WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS COSLLTPIO ENGVS. GE0L0T$ NC BlVmoM.ITAL SNTSTS RC 14120 SAMUEL c.SAFIN/ RCE 13177 EXP. EXP 19 ENGRIEM DATE CITY OF CARLSBAD j]i_ I I . . 1550 HOTEL ORCLE NORTh SAN CEGO. C*LFORIM 92108 - = _______________________ . wwBY CA.SBAD BOILEV* SHORE PRO1ECflON PLAN AND PROFILE - IN ASSOCI#TION WITH 00 TO STkSS+0O $ B & 0 we — — ,"Q — Z3ON_LW. —DAlE_I = =1- _9 • avLNCs11Ijc.eRsNQLNlDsIVEYoRs 3815 IA38Y V ROAD lE .1190 PRE __ -- _—.-1 lE -- I tl flBIG NO. 3.307 _ji_3I-8 SAN DEG0.cM.FOM 92123 10190 RE'I.ISION DESCRIP111 -- -- ---- I- -- L 1- -- -- I: ,.. 5224' OF$FRWR £73Nrn - - 5.0.G OFSI/lET 4 PILING cf $ENIEWL ME Of WifYE DEFLECTOR' - CURVE VRTR I S /2E.9R1N0 I9!U5 I £ENS 24 '34 25" 35' I 2 #5'20'05W I srl Z4'$035 s'_._I - EXI$rI#/E ELWS(SS77FA' ,..-PROWDE $MXTM T2$1/$/1/ON y foe wsve. uEpLs7uq(rn1C'L1 . ... ,•EVEl- -- -. • 'j I -:• -. ?. 7J'com20L £0 OP i3 s,ia'r I c 2&. V '—FOE SF55 F .:. :. A'E?7Z"W(R1 OFACAOE A'. 444/50' 'VS R/S543 L-2'SSS' - I? - STAIRWAY ACCESS NO. I -- - - exam",XODPS/DEWOLN 7 ,/WO&?DS RDOM TRRNSffIO#1 r —FiVCE$FSERIVilF.L \ DEFLECTOR I. fWT///E LESS OPSID qj. 51952 DF5ERiVNLA Awl P/LINE O$(NWN14 -/ ) W F$CEOF WAVE DEFLECTOR 'SIDEWtR mDE6xwN2eD -i: I i 6" i — P.4CQ5 -- .w... --- CURVE VR7W 4 /52WR/NS A'REILC3 I £21/6T/F I 241VZ'SS s'-J .5jD. N0"SS'04"E. 503' 3 291ZSS .%303' 1.310• re SWMBZL CUffV2' UNTJY I Q DEL TN laamm I£2WE YR ® 2coa'44 20' &43' ) 20Dg49 20' a.'—j Ic D' .55 EZOV 1 r'S'iV' 1 zs WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 0EDD BY OP I JJ C014.LTTIG ENGINEM 0E01090TS MiD EWVROISIEWTAl. SCNTIS1S 1550 ITB. cpw NORTh BY SAN CEGO. CALEORMA 92108 INASSOCIA7IOI1 WITH 1AWN BY DC S B & 0. INC VL Nl-D STWJCIMAL ENO5r,5P5 AND %.NID 9,$SVEYORS 3615 ICEARWY VILLA ROAD oTE 10190 SAP4DIEOO.CMJVRMAS2I23 . RAMP ACCESS NO. 3; WOJE5 1. R L0CN?'0A' N /MPKC'Ea9f#,'T5V *2.S$ES, SEE sHrErio . ARTISTS PA CADS 7D52 APPLISO 70 $Fl7'RE LENGTH 0PM4LL FACEPT AT ACCESSES AS SNOWMA'ERE. S S0.G • $LAS ON GRADE - - NOPACAOE 52 N1E '2 J 5E5 oV4Wr= 2 40U= 6ES0V 5T/MS 5/2$WRLE raArexrewmv -- - -Ace0~14c 0, - 1(MWRYg7FEPSEC7DR) 0' [ CURVE DRTV DEL TN RRNIUS I LENSrW 4/9'SI" 55 27.49 Z40507 20' &40' 4 Z4/4$J ZO CURVE DRTR I DEL TN j RND/U5 LENG TN dc44'2'P' r z ,q,• t 45t5'a .W 2775' 2r0349- zo -a..' 4 W49 2'S' '-4 ° -09 £ 2F?V RAMP ACCESS NO. t 5:/sr/NE 21/A'S ?EL7TER' RAMP ACCESS NO. 2 FA SEE NOTE 2 AGLOW - s/mFWfzff TO Ar fAT.IWWD ovdolzowle 550' NO FACADE STAIRWAY ACCESS NO. 2 AS aulLr IV t'7EaI /-lpiE. )2..2/_1Lr/Z,E ED BY: Da LOUIS LEE / RCE: 14129 SAMUEL F. SAFINO (7 RCE:I3fl7 -- 1'1i CITY OF CARLSBAD1FD I _!_JI D085C mmiicn II IG cAADaoI&EvAio SWW PRO1CN,- HOONTM. COWNX a20 GMCMAT RAIP £ STARWAY AsEs an' usculm BEE 23w . BY: —1I oici 'so. JABlNo Nol IDI = ll 11*1C wift WaIL REVISION DESCRIPWIN AM J aw cu.ca ( SUTTE.? San w asee OPSIWWRLL ! -bylAw c i.vE,a.cC. OP SMElT PLlsVE (&?—' jj Of SERWNI.L /1071: ELEV41lV3 Ac WiVIE DEFLECTOR EvOj ARE .'ELAlWE- SEE RAMS ED* .d01A (16 VA 7/0VS. ^10' .WEE SERVICE EVS77N0 11ZEPáV 7ODE RELO&9TE1 EX#Sr/N4 DEPRESSED IT ( EX/Sfl.4 EDGE DPSIDEIYRL. '7 I - — 5CIL ov Eva?, ITT') EPX4L F5a 0100ff &WWWM PZR w/,4L 1vcg..a(rø!oa) 10Le.6.WRV#s 70 ) .1 L .- SIEEW8LR FO Be EXTEMDED< w 47 -='Islelffisill 11Z -w see SPECS. NEJVIWD,AW ,.'# u.voa 5.10 Psoaf pa*g 1CW 70 55ff pA575. LAST 2705E PEXP.C.47EOCAPEPIO 5.0.6. • ow 4ADE AAWPAWAWAOS NOTE A: 7Ed5l1 RECEPTACLE NM 661 DS / Sea RAMP ACCESS NO. I EXIST/NI DEPeESSED ,w g4ria'1 7aEAE Als sWiVI'(WM LLVE OEERS&45 cisc VDRWRW F*W 704I8 SEE LAST ?' 70 SE PERPORA TE CAP END *IZAAFA SER&114C5 EXIST/NI EDGE OF SI5ciYRLA' ED SE (Al O5WEN4 FLAWASOACH me At,7EA:M5NRECEPr4CS6.UEoff 102 Nc/S 6: er. M- 91M iS 65 NELSI4I. 1.100 .ts,ip GRADE ,I L 4 NIH J',o4 a RAMP SECTION NCS '0 H/RAIL SECTION 664. '0 BENCH SECTION SRC* OFIERP/SIL F A &Al AkIIFIft II -Al2 DMf'U — -CONTROL s/wE/am OF SNEST PILlS/I It OF SENWL SF W.?YE DIPSEl TOR 5770566 AEGREORIE RNISN SWAM &am Me 0-6 o 0 J'-..CC#IflC4C70R TS 7565 ~AOW,g 7V•ANWOULWV #' ç V#APV MAW KIDNEY SHAPED TREE PLANTER PL, a..,D SHAPED TREE PLAN A f,.z IF 56501 IS SAID I- WI - 1 LIMIT 0' 5.0. IF A SUB 0 SEIICI4 SECTION CIRCULAR TREE PLANTER AND BEN ovi L 1w. r AS BuIL LOUIS LEE f ROE: 14120 SAMUEL F. SAFE4O / RCE: 13177 vo. 72-1 cx [CITY OF CARLSBA1rEI /0 I O66IC DMTIRJIT CASBAD BOULEVARD SHOE PAPROVEP.ENI LOCA11OS AT !A=CC!ES=E!S ] Orly oa S S8S C. DATE IDI U ..-IF PR0T flCo*. t=1I 3307 3/G•8 1 REVISION OESCRIPiON or cii SPUR 60ANOmzE AWN. RAILS IpesTs Cyr) —40NORdIL pesT -I A7OMOJC.0VP) II £RPO5EO i! AGGREGATE 3 ,rAGV 195175 1 I RAMP SI kI&T i/RyE DATA NOTEO EARlN0 LENGIN ® ORQ.FRON? PO. 15 70 PAD. st 3oeo0 /1.00 peI1.5,ERIINONE€D. 75 FIG SEAMS. 20 0000 IP.75 ®RO SPINAL ~P SEE SD04W0'I OP .569 I551 S 4N0C4 57 AT 48I9' 2.17 0 57/2' 3J2' 46MA5. @ FANPS/.SND,N.'DI#Ave IN. SEE #667D tEELOW r4w 0000 1.95 •• -p-- 5• tic 5445 GAP SETYSEEN END 1640C411.. ommor I 15 759' 342 e,vo OPM.MCH '1' OO' 440' Q) i4eAI1 ED CO/TIME TDae11D" a? RAMP AMP PLAN - Go piTf PCK UW66 St WA=SS ow i//SAT TE.E. PLAN ,i.rs. ELEVATION T6. SECTION VAtS. RAMP ACCESS NO. 2 ,.•,. EX!87W0 DEPRESSED LWRS7 N ICAINR SEE/lEE L'A'FSTFSE CL'R5 #l f677&lVj S'RJST/NS 1'S(OP SIDESWL171 N#HLYI0NO'tY IEvERSI#R 4'A .5/DEWALE 'DDE ERTEAIUEO-.cç - __________ _________ ,,.,., silcsr OP liEl ALL ______________ OPINEET PILING 40416J7EELj FACE OP SERSWLL FACE OP WAVE DEPLEITOR /SR 40.550 SIlO L to PAINT VEI.LOW i we 51iSJM -: — '.C._./ 1590. IrAXV CW"M RSIS lf3.4L 7DIA4SETYAATS) (owacia iv) 5.0.6. • 5146 ON GM05 /1016 A: 7R.01 RECEPTACLE. 666 S'071 a: u. m. am TOM NEW/25&JNL&VE (R REiSvD8i0Wd PIWAINW 15(6 RANTEA. LAST f' I SIE BED NOTE I facmNA 700 — C4P END RAMP ACCESS NO. 3 • £/FEGI/ARO 7VW5 CONNECT/ON 0E7AIt NOTES: — . WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS OESOCO St DP I. LEEEI&IXD iDlER ID NAVS WOE REMOVED 44'D WOO LI/cHaSED ID MIAMM 5Li -/AA'e,qa! ID(C N/I)? mvmoosTs). AAD EilTN. SCIEVTSIS EASEr DISTANCE SEThDN LIEEOUMO WHIR Sf66 SEAPASLL 105, VETERNINjO WP1660 OVA REPRESENTATIVE op cwzcKw By 572575 PARES ANO RECREA17ON. . 1550 IOTB OR(ZE NORTH EDt ØFD AAEREAUI FaVMt 455 0f TRL6EJJI -or s&ww LEYSRER OR Si .tClfD 69101. . sAN DIEGO. CALSOiSIA gioa A OP £Z0 465666475 StilL SE l ALL TILE lOSE PLACED 57' 0T#IER5 Af7EI COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION • IN ASSOCIATION WITH URAWM St SC SB&O. INC SCALE AS .VOFED OVI. AND STPUC1WAL ENOREERS AND LAND SVEYORS 3515 ICEARNY VILLA ROAD DATE 1019%. SAN DECO. C*W0M 92123 SIDEW.ALR #30- #20 420- exisr sLope (y/,o) £..qp -/I. rrx CLOT/I iN. (rye) 0- -10— £..41 PILTE' - CLOT/I '1lII. #10— 7350 LAYER5 5rOA/e0.1) 12 eeM. LA1E (OuAyimIMTL.) .PFi7Eit CLOThE -I0- OCfl ON (Remove oeeeIs) wymcc or exisT .'r JET7Y Roew w ce / JETrr-NO/tTN REVETMENY 5ci'IC(Il€V) 574. 20.50 TO 574.21..'00 I CONTROL LIIIE-8ACA OF SAISET RUES .E1J5TING .51ORE -7) HANCRAIL I FINISH RWISN GRADE TO&l-3eEPROFILE PLACE PILL MATERIAL APPROX. -axis T OR.4DE TO PROVIDE SURFACE D4AII64*5 OVERIVALL. SOIL REMOVAL FOR. or soyz-.s RECOVERY MRACTION IS gEou,ep. USE ONLY HAND WELD_f low COMPACTION OEWCES VA . 7OE57iE —77I!ELEYAT,ON.is. VAR.ATENDD — I 7YP/'I1 $F 7/aVdr$aId7I/s.wr1a éZPF//SION If • 50L/TH E,/DJ1OIVN REVETMENT 5LE IIO(N 4 VJ 574. 2200 10 57.4. 24.0 GRAIL . I ,poqrp.4a. .. .. .... :•• 1•••• E1 512M6.4LV SLEEVE NIT/I JEE REQO CTIONMOOUIJ/S . :•. gaa.s 5,, • o saos ' : V P0575 5,.Sy.0.5OG2m : ..: Ac 6EV EOG,1 COVER i 6 /IARDRA/L CASE CONNECTION. F, ,w,Y,,,/z4u/1 AN MN VSIV II © NORW END -1./ORTII REVETME/./T 0C&4.,. /.IO'(N€V) 67N.w.so to 574. 21.00 TflT %P s 67T1OPcC44P see pgop,e S )TPIWJI £ FfffiV5/&Y IN? IClif ALIDUS.fl &4UfG V(0TE5. -, ALL HAFEWS ILLITj rA,LIT AUIUI ALLOY 603-TG CLEAR ANO00LD. 2 ALL T541135LL5 MALL £CCI?t ANT CCirCL4L of fww ASWLT MAT AC 5WAC 4 RAUC SCSIGN CAPACiTY MALL AC 20 PCiR BY LICAL TOOT HCiITALLY4 btITItiLLT AFFLAIV 515t r4fEaT. 5 35A PETAL RALWG POSTS NOWUL TO ?'BL C 6 CDVTRACT00 5IUL "AS BUILr IETAL £IUC SMALL AC ADL5I AS ACOLE TO Off R(OLgD. TAM A SO1Pt AMP L14OOf PROW MATQIVC PEAL MA1Z GRACE trip . TO RAUiG Tail AlTOS R ______ ______ UP. DATE 7 Roam COANSIOV .fl5 ?5J5T SC VPOD AS ,-- 9& RBYft By.. — - RqE 18177 LOUIS LEE ROE: 14125 SAMUEL F SAFIN EXP..3 LIP L95 e.oaEEs . -. DATE BY __ W000WARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS LJL — — ----'--- — — — — l[ _ CITY OF CARLSfl{un J CONSULTING 9AS. CLODSTS NO D4VOt&EHT*3. S4TSTS • - — — lU AI35Ifl la 050120 BY — — - — — _______________________ 1550 HOtS. CO.E NORTH SF•.5 — ____________________ — — — — I C N.SBAD OOU.EV* SHOE PIt1kaI SAN DEGO. CN.FORMA 52108 — — — 08AwNBY — — _______________ — — = 1REVETMENT DETAILS AND VI ASSOCIATION WITH SOUTH SEAWALL EXTENSION DETAILS ______________________________ — — PIPPR0WD SB & 0, INC ---•- = = = — — CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL, ENGIEB4S NO AS .5AW.V — — — ow 01011720 R 21559 M. 1 3615 KEARALY VILLA ROAD ir! ioieo - •;z5r .............j PROW NO. 11055WN6 NO1 5431 EEGO. C*LFOL3 A fl33 REVISON DESCRIPfl4 ow ., RV BY== 3307 5168 .. 7 OP F/C 57QIE $iORES 5 #vNeIcO 1P OF ORES VP :.. M4ZIAL CIVPACT. 10 95% MAX. DAY D&V5IrY ' (.49rM 01557) ,swmK is 15 10 18I#I — 7 JAW'S LV SAI517NA 31I9A W (4 PER 5A0 0-ID %j2 1 =1 go f_ OP SE4AMSALL f 7YP,cAL iV/DENV SIDEIVAI..k Il IJo'. .5'C' I 4 1 0 FO* MP E2 -I- /2' viRiss- 556 RAMP PPOPEES 12' - LLVIV SELMESS Ea'm • . 30?70N T30W NI TED 014CR CELlS PROCLICTS COR.f! cumom 3WES Q-C4L-O5WC -MItUIAL or mum CUOR -UEffF EAWD&.EST RM%V I 1WIg,1LXS "AS BUILT' DAIE / c / J(y;' *h 58 LOUIS LEE RCE 14120 SAMUEL F. SAFINO hr ! F1I LLLJI CITY OF CARLSBAD 1ISI 1 Olc CNIW ILLEJ CAS8AD BOUL"AW SWIM PMO1ECTàfl DETALS AM SECTIOEG -j STY Emcwm RCE 32.IU• IMP. DAlE DI 511 _II =JL33o7 PRDLCT NO. fla"-8..I HMA IsDI 0ED RY OP Q(01C0 IV 3P3 AWN IV H SCALE AS S/SVM O1E 10190 REMSON DEScRIP1IOu commPILES £/4_ 0, SUE 7 RetCAP !ACAP_ .4- S1le2EX- ?c NA - --.• 'i'lD. £ - ___ 4-IM 5ffl4L ________ 7. 7.vrA4mp,M7Awo V $AAS704LL A z10Y j Ri 7DRAWArf S7IRO$QMV-TDM1 SI00INLR/SLAb - LEFT IN PLACE £LAB/IIØI.L ç9?1ET1m1 - 7120P SEaWZL SEE 56; TYPICAL WALL SECTION 7VPFC4L 5T41RW4'r SECTIA%1 ((4IJO G TYPICAL $Z4IRWAY VO• 7 i . 12 12 12 I i*.57D QLLIIVMtIW . PIPE I , L •O _______ • I2.'2 7ECW7 FEW FE70 djArW ffA4lkWZ COOI/Am LAW~ Ace AU6NMOYT P .gAN ' IT. . . I 4U141 AMC" sraz !LVA0, otollov J: JJj . '2 . 27 15 NAWDRIZ AMA 047 I r I 95% MD.a(ASTM 01557). 4000 MAN .5'AC!NO. s 12 J 55101573W. TO S4AO ZAG. 0tVATIOM D014006 '236"S LOWL. .. ..2. AU ALL/MIMIV JVPEAENT5 SAMU wive A#1 AMODIS ED AZW 7rFic4e secTiv 7Y,4= Acss RAMP SECTION VtS. j' s'. i' M'?ffING At A0 I'/2'1P3 WAStE (45) 12 12 12 PER MPR.___ SWWPT SUPPLY cONNXC7IC1104 PC rw.ara sa.v,CE OT co,d7NAc 7g 1105W OPINIONS JpdrAIN €CL tOMES TOSS WAWS'.WCDEL 3170 (E.7PAGPINlDN) N4LL. • INSTALL. PEP ,.W4UP4C,&4reR 1N57R&CTIO#.1S AND p OSPAIL AS SII0WW I TO P1S4NTR (7rP) WOOD WARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS CONStLfllG ENGWJMM CEOL0GTs NID EWmOMLENTAL SCIEN11STS 1550 HOTEL CROLE 1IORTII SAN DEGO. C*&FOPPIA 92108 14 ASSOCIATION WTTH S 910. INC CIVIL. AND S1UC1tJRAL ENGNEERS AND LAND SIVEYCRS 3815 KEARN? VILLA ROAD SAN DECO. CALOM 92123 flog APROC. DESIGN im !.A OE SEE SNEETq 2F PA CADE LOGE $3 4'aJiR WWR (liP) .SvEf7 PILES x3dLavd / 6ITh'tR gEiEmvZ #5123 S1D 67E6L SF33.3 G Yflcât COA'CRETE CAP (Ll.0.IIL) /5 U/JDIITIIEDCD SOIL I 7YPI4L SECTION- C44CREW CAP MT. 2 13 1 •T MIC41 AE/NPOIcCEMENT 44Y01/7 NTG. —L PIPE CROSS/AE 57 57.09 Z (5C455 PLy: ASA' ALVEThSEAPT IE LOT. \gvgr 6aND(7/,$) CONNICT AWN 10 IRON PIPE TO 6.CGT I4IT31V PIPE WIY COLLAR 34 R€ouhfD. NA#1 SW OFflIS7 PIPE. PART/AL W4LL ELEVATION (S,OEPo%Lg SIDE) Clrf TO5UPPLVCONrRAC7O v.f37WGErr P7sEcr,OIIsopMOO PM THE PACADE SHOPOCCONrICACTM 70 IN5TAI4. MOLD W00000 sor#1ArPAc.4oE !SMONOLJTN,C IWTN WALL. PIW.W WE8 ID I ff1VS L31D#OFM.0 Al A€CecSsl As-cvAwv&wAvAwr 9AAf0IQR PER CIrrEFIGINEERS OIREC7ION_ Ir WAWR% FEE YD ' AND - A' ,...I8SAND -- - -r WIMP PAGEIC GRIND MI6C. ON-SuE GROUND ROCK •. . I ___ - I: MCI OF to 04 3531W ! J_V 5I2T?U . ' 5 - 1PICIL GPLCE 5P371I4 5E0I0IsJ AT PIPE CROSSING 'fr.P f 7YP1OL 4!EZA/R WSVD# t Aff VEX WA P3(3 2C4/5 QD coOwoz A 4 1 EWI#I • fl -- - 23 MAX.•- - 'MAU P333 cowrncL JaN79 SMALL 36 SPAcED vp_R9S'g pw . E APPgOFSD EOMI$ 20'IF47iMDJAM" 563 TEOSED CON& 6 L4rIv OF JDINT5E'W4 (OGEE5PQYDPOA 1A7 IN 7W 5/IfET PILLW. CO1'NLW H. FE/NP TA*E/ISW JOINTS. 7YP1A(. CONTROL JOIN/S Nt9f\ 7COb COMM JO//ITS W1. NTÔ (a\ . 14.IT5 (iI 13 \11 uJ SOUTH ACCESS RAMP r LOUIS LEE WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS CONSLLTI08 B. GEOLOGSTS NC eIVRONTAL SCENUSTS 1550 HOTEL ORCLE NORTH SM ORGO. CALFORM& 92108 IN ASSOCIATION WITH SB&O. INC S.VEY0RS 361$ KEARNY VLLA ROAD SAN OGO. CALEORIP. 92123 ST OP D€0c50 ST 515 AWN0T N SCME 45 5NOWN DATE 10/90 RM 14120 REVISION DESCRIPTION . • owL a!, a.J* .%•zw - -I tIp.___ SAMUEL F. SAFINO , ACE: 13177 - - - - FflI CITY OF CARLSBAD 1I 1 14 ONEERIP4G DARW iLL CAS8AD BOULEVAM SHOE PR01Ec1 RIGHT OF WAY DATA ] ,PROWD aTY CINM R IMS! EIp. DATE BY: —I r PROECT NO. IIoRAIc 1101 mvDWd .3307 J 3166 I - .. a... • I 1:1:1 I I I• . I II - iI-.Ii•i 1 I I I I I I I I I ..-' .. '-...-...- — -: - - ----i—I —' —I - - - a NOW 777777 . ME — - - - - - -- - — ---1----- - -- --- -- - - - .- - -.- - ,- - -- -.=- -=. --. -=i-=.2=- - - = -=-- -. --=---r-- I -- = I - - .- - - - - ri -- Zz-- - - - -- - -- -- - -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P. -= - - -=-----=. - - - -- - TV a -- —4---- I -- - -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- - _- - -- - • I:-:_ i - :: :: :: ::: I ________-=-=----------: -- -- -- -- - -- -- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I - -. - 1-- - - - - - - - - - - - I -.-- -..-. .==r.r.r=. :. - - .. I - : I I I III - - - I a : a - - -- - : a a a a a . a - - - - a a : a : a : - a a a a : a a a -: I a _a - ......a_.:1-.:- - - - ._i --- _-:..:r_rr---4aa,.a1=.. _ - - - TZ - - - - - - - - - - - _---- - - - - - - - - - - ; h -i--___:—_- - - - F - - - - - I - 17 FT - - - I T - F - - I - F. - - - I - 1 _TT :: : ------- = : :-- I - -- - -______ - a.. — - .- •-.= - -1- — I— I I . • . . .-•-- ..•;;;•.. . :-::. -.. L A /J1 JiVC) 77 • - - - —-------------"----------ff. .........' ............... Pj BOULEVARD .-______ ____________ — —•- 9--- — aA DISBAD ... ________________________________ - - — I2 '0 30 - -- - - _________ - - -.--=---- - --.. - -- - . - I I I I 111 IFF riu1IIii. i . . - JJL- _______ - - - - - -Am - A. I- - - - - - - — - - - _________ j. - - -_=_ - -- - --_L__H_- - - -_1 _ TT _____________________________ I_[_:E EE EE EE EE H _I_ _ I_---9_--C_ _ IT — - -- - = - - - - 93 Mel re _-'.-----.-- CARLSBAD... . - BOULEVARD . ------ -- -T - - - -:=Z7.- - --924 sjV- - ............. PARCEL-----:.:.- ---- .. -- -.-- . •:. ;-_.•--::-:.:,ARQEL-9 -r r jL' .. ... , -- 541224~- s14 la:c fl4 /,c SEE SHEET IS - - —..UMLLOF EXJSTINS EASEMENT ' - - -.- -- - —.---..-.------.----- .- - -- EXISTINEASEMENI - - I S -. -. - ..........................- - > . U - - ._ - - - -- - - -- •_- - i'JOS ( -- - 'AS BuILr. '--' LOUIS LEE/ RCE:14129 REVWNW _i4'. SAMUEL F. SAFINO RCE: 13177 EXP: i93 3-51 jEIIG.EER DATE ' msts __ = ________ rs-g—=71 CITY OF CARLSBA = = I • - . 155OHOTE1CLENORIH SAN 0590. CaLFCM 02108 —I CAM.SBjAD BOU.EVA IO PROTECTiON RIGHT OF WAY DATE IN ASS01=71MI WTM ac S B & 0, INC = ________________ f4d(& . = - — OtT DIGINE R I - ___________________________ AkSnRA e.o,s ø svvos 23e19_gW,— 0k1E 3015 ICE*RNY VILLA RIM WE 790 PRELIM. - DAW -.. i W0 ] oa %#IW I! BV I 7"307 _J - SAN 0500. CMFOIA 02123 10/90 RESION DESCRIP1ION ;-;4 -. 1t ' ' '' ' '. ...: i•j -I=i-- i '#=i 41 i: - - 1 - -- - 9- - - .' ----- 1- -i--4-1 - 13 M I -=- :. . • 1 - - ----------- ••.. -- - --J J r —L - t --!- - H ftN -- - -- - - -• - - - - - - - - - - - -- I 4i • - -J----- -=-=-1 -- - — i- _________________________ I - -__ - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. ----r i•-1I Iii 'CARLSBAD, - - -r- .=-=- .----------- -= - -:: - - - - A. - / .---- -Ao- - - .- . . TPOB PARCEL C PARCELC _.. . .. ......PARCEL - . . P.OaPARCELiD -: --- - -. POINT p p 01, MY EXISTING EASEME IT bF EXISTING EAS191.. 01> UMIT OF EXISTING EASEM~;T/ 'N F ~t. EXISTINGEASEMEN AM 5M :ii-. .... !. 5E1FIC4WOV5.P9L9VZaCFIAI11? AS BusLr l • Cc RCE W. DATE . LOUIS LEE RM 14129 SAMUEL F. SAFINO RCE: 13177 -• •- I — — EXP:19 ENG5IE DATE WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 1_F_ ilt OCROMED my lrw rs CITY OF CARISBAWIM I = 1 AR1IIT _JI BY D CHECKED 1550 NOTIEL CACLE NORTH SAN DEGO. CALFORNA • = =1= RIGHT OF WAY DATA V ASSOaATION wrni SB&O.NC v Diwt 5 2B E. flair - :'—' CIVIL AND s jcim. Dias AND LAND vycs I - - - ..•• 3615 KRlY y.I ROAD DATE 7/00 -•.• - — 25MDA f =1I NO RVAD 9 —.1 L____0 - SAil DGO. GALEOM 92123 - 10/90 J DESCRIP1ION US Army Corps of Engineers In Angeles Distrià FINAL REPORT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SECTION 103 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Appendix D MCACES Cost Estimate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 April 1996 Pu, 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:3 E( f. be 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California - Feasibility Estimate TITLE PAGE ( LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Carlsbad Shore Protection San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate Designed By: USACE Los Angeles District Estimated By: E.C.M. Prepared By: Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers Preparation Date: 08/01/95 •. Effective Date of Pricing: 08/01/95 Let Construction Time: 180 Days - Sales Tax: 7.75% This report Is not copyrighted, Wt the information contained herein is For Official Use Only. MCACES GOLD EDITION Composer GOLD Software Copyright (c) 1985-1995 by Building Systems Design, Inc. Release 5.308 Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID:94COST UPB ID: RG7938 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers F/f. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CR1801: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California TABLE OF CONTENTS Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY REPORTS -. SUMMARY PAGE PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - Project ..........................................I PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - Feature ...........................................2 PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - SubFeatr ............................................ 4 PROJECTINDIRECT SUMMARY Project .......................................... 7 PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - Feature ............................... .......... 8 PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - SFeetr .............................. .............. .10 PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - Project.........................................13 PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - Feature.........................................14 PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - SubFeatr ................................. . ...... 16 CONTRACTORDIRECT SUMMARY ................................................. 20 CONTRACTORINDIRECT SUMMARY .................................... .......... 21 LABORCOST TO PRIME SUMMARY .................................... .. ........ 22 No Detailed Estimate... BACKUP REPORTS •• • • BACKUP PAGE CREW BACKUP................................................................i LABOR BACKUP.............................................................. EOUPMENTBACKUP .......................................................... 6 • • END TABLE OF CONTENTS • • TIME 09:40:38 'CONTENTS PAGE 1 MOn 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers TIME 09:40:38 Fjf.Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBD1: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County. California Feasibility Estimate SETTINGS PAGE PROFIT WEIGHTED GUIDELINES ** PROJECT: Carlsbad Shore Protection ESTIMATED BY E.C.N. San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate CHECKED BY: Los Angeles District Corp. of Engineers DATE: 08/01/95 PROFIT OBJECTIVE FOR: PH Piime Contractor FACTOR RATE (2) WEIGHT VALUE - (0.03 - 0.12) Degree of Risk 20 x 0.075 1.5002 Difficulty of Work 15 x 0.080 1.2002 Size of Job 15 x 0.093 s 1.3952 Period of Performance 15 x 0.049 • 0.7352 Contractor's Investment 5 x 0.075 • - 0.3752 Assistance by Goverrinent 5 x 0.075 0.3752 T. Subcontracting 25 x 0.105 • 2.6252 - 100 PROFIT FACTOR: 8.2102 COMMENTS (Reasons for Weights Assigned): LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency In DOLLARS CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7938 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:38 F.ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego Feasibility Estimate Cotrity, California SUMMARY PAGE 1 PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - Project ** QUANTITY UGH CONTRACT own furn ENGIDESN SIOH CONTINGN ESCALATN TOTAL COST UNIT COST NOTES .01 Plan 1. CT-Groin WI geachfill) 2231,21 0 223,182 156,227 652,808 0 3,264,038 02 Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) 3,380.814 0 1.00 JON 2,822,493 0 338,081 282,249 236,651 197,575 988.888 825,579 0 0 4,944,440 4,127,896 4127896 03 Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) TOTAL Carlsbad Shore Protection 1.00 EA 8,435,121 0 843,513 590,459 2,461,275 0 12,336,374 12336374 LABOR - 'AN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Cu ...... in DOLLARS: CREW ID: 94C0T IIPB ID: RG793B Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:3E Iff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE ** PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - Feature QUANTITY UGH CONTRACT own f urn ENG&DESN 51011 CONTINGN ESCALATN TOTAL COST UNIT COST NOTEC 01 Plan I (T-Groin w/ Beachfill) 01.01 Hobitlzation/oemobilization 1.00 JOB 57,690 0 5,769 4.038 16,874 0 84,372 84372.28 01.02 350 Feet Groin 350.00 Li 805,696 0 80,570 56,399 235,666 0 1,178,331 3366.66 01.03 200 Feet T-Ends 200.00 Li 293,041 0 29,304 20,513 85,714 0 428,572 2142.86 01.04 Beachfill 346000.00 CY 1,075,393 0 107,539 75,278 314,553 0 1,572,763 4.55 TOTAL Plan I (T-Groin w/ Beachfitl) 2,231,821 0 223,182 156,227 652,808 0 3,264,038 02 Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) 02.01 Nobilization/Demobitization 57,690 0 5,769 4,038 16,874 0 84,372 02.02 Permanent Project Signs 2.00 LA 1,243 . 0 124 87 364 0 1,818 909.11 02.03 Sheet Pile Wall-North 2504.00 Li 1.219,222 O 121,922 85.346 356,622 0 1,783,112 712.11 02.04 Concrete Cap-North Wall 2016.00 CY 574,070 0 57,407 40,185 167,915 0 839,577 416.46 02.05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 2.00 LA 1,972 0 197 138 577 0 2;884 1442.12 02.06 Beach Access Ramps/Pads" 3.00 LA 26,052 0 2,605 1,824 7,620 0 38,102 12700.52 02.07 Sidewalk-North Wall 8260.00SF 21,188 0 2,119 1,483 6,198 0 30,988 3.75 02.08 Toe Protection-North Walt 1.00 JOB 284,378 0 28,438 19,906 83,181 0 415,903 415903.48 02.09 North Revetment 1.00 JOB 595,670 0 59,567 41,697 174,233 0 871,167 871167.05 02.10 Sheet Pile Walt-South Wall 240.00 LF 112,687 0 11,269 7,888 32,961 0 164,805 686.69 02.11 Sheet Pile Wall-South Watt Eiiten 368.00 Li 172,425 0 17,243 12,070 50,434 0 252,172 685.25 02.12 Concrete Cap-South Wall 206.00 CY 58,367 0 5,837 4,086 17,072 0 85,362 414.38 02.13 Concrete Cap-South Watt Extenslo 290.00 CT 82,639 0 8,264 5,785 24,172 0 120,859 416.76 02.14 Anodized Aluminum Handrail 368.00 Li 21,004 0 2,100 1,470 6,144 0 30,718 83.47. 02.15 Concrete Cap-Raised Decorative 2118.00 Li 10,533 0 1,053 737 3,081 0 15,404 7.27 02.16 Sidewalk-South Walt 3400.00 SF 8,720 0 872 610 2,550 0 12,752 375 02.17 Concrete Driveway Station 51.65 1.00 JOB 6,081 0 608 426. 1,779 . 0 8,893 8893.01 02.18 Toe Protection-South Wall 1.00 JOB 34,478 0 3,448 2,413 10,085 0 50,424 50424.38 02.19 Toe Protection-South Wall Extens 1.00 JOB 58,258 0 5,826 4,078 17,040 0 85,202 85201.72 02.20 South Access Romp Station 51.65 1.00 JOB 3,730 0 373 261 1,091 0 5,455 5456.67 02.21 Concrete Spiral Ramps 2.00 EA 6,838 0 684 479 2,000 0 10.000 5000.11 02.22 Circular Concrete Benches 2.00 LA 2,288 0 229 160 669 0 3,346 1673.19 02.23 Circular Tree Planters w/ Bench 2.00 LA 4,472 0 . 447 313 1,308 0 6,541 3270.27 02.24 kidney Shaped Tree Planters 2.00 LA 1,271 0 127 89 372 0 1,859 929.50 02.25 Concrete Piers . 6.00 LA 1,011 0 101 71 296 0 1,479 246.44 02.26 Palm Trees 4.00 EA 4,401 0 440 308 1,287 0 6,437 1609.29 02.27 Concrete Trash Containers . 3.00 LA 1,549 0 155 108 453 0 2,265 755.11 02.28 Drinking Fountains LOO EA 8.576 0858 600 . 2,508 0 12,542 418065 TOTAL Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) 3,380,814 .0 338,081 236,657 988,888 0 4,944,440 03 Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) 03.01 Mobilization/Demobilization 03.02 Permanent Project Signs 03.03 Sheet Pile Wall-North 03.04 Concrete Cap-North Walt 57,690 0 5,769 4,038 16,874 0 84,372 2.00 LA . 1,243 0 124 87 364 0 1,818 909.11 2504.00 Li 1,219,222 0 121,922 85,346 356,622 0 1,783,112 712.11 2016.00 CT 574,070 0 57,407 40,185 167,915 . 0 839,577 416.46 LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency In DOLLARS CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7939 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:38 EP. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 3 ** PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY Feature 03.05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 03.06 Beach Access Ramps/Pads 03.07 Sidewalk-North Wall 03.08 1500 Lb Toe Rock 03.09 Core Stone _.03.10 Filter_Cloth__ 03.11 North Revetment 03.20 South Access Rasp Station 51+65 03.21 Concrete Spiral Rasps 03.22 Circular Concrete Benches 03.23 Circular Tree Planters w/ Bench 03.24 kidney Shaped Tree Planters 03.25 Concrete Piers 03.26 Palm Trees 03.27 Concrete Trash Containers 03.28 Drinking Fountains QUANTITY UGH CONTRACT own furn ENG&OESN SIOH CONTINGN ESCALATN TOTAL COST UNIT COST NOTES 2.00 EA 1.972 0. 197 138 577 0 2,884 1662.12 3.00 EA 26,052 0 2,605 1,824 7,620 0 38,102 12700.52 8260.00 SF 21,188. 0 2,119 1,483 6,198 0 30,988 3.75 7500.00 TON 235,122 0 23,512 16,459 68,773 0 343,867 45.85 1120.00 TON 28,422 0 2,842 1,990 8,314 . 0 41,568 37.11 - - 7200.00.SY__ 27,704 _O_ 2,770__ 1,939 - 8,1O3__O . 40,517. 5.63 1.00 JOB 595,670 0 59,567 41,697 174,233 0 871,167 871167.05 1.00 JOB 3,730 0 373 261 1,091 0 5,455 5454.67 2.00 (A 6,838 .0 684 479 2,000 0 10,000 5000.11 2.00 (A 2,288 0 229 160 669 0 3,346 1673.19 2.00 EA 4,472 0 467 313 1,308. . 0 6,541 3270.27 2.00 EA 1,271 0 . 127 89 372 0 1,859 929.50 6.00 EA 1,011 0 101 71 296 0 1,479 246.44 4.00 EA 4,401 0 440 308 1,287 0 6,437 1609.29 3.00 (A 1,549 0 155 108 453 0 2,265 755.11 3.00 (A 8,576 • 858 600 2,508 0 12,562 4180.65 TOTAL Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) 1.00 JOB 2,822,493 O 282,249 197,575 825,579 0 4,127.896 4127896 TOTAL Carlsbad Shore Protection 1.00 (A 8,435,127 O 843,513 590,459 2,467,275 0 12,336,374. 12336374 LABOR Ift- 'IANS EQUIP ID: NAT93A • Cu- in DOLLARS: . • CREW ID: 94CCe 'PB ID: R07938 Mon 18 Sep 1995 .- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:603e E.ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection- San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE - PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - SubFeatr • QUANTITY LION CONTRACT own furn ENG&OESN SIOH CONTINGN ESCALATN TOTAL COST UNIT COST NOTES 01 Plan I CT-Groin wl Beachfilt) 01.01 MobilIzation/DemobilIzation 1.00 JOB 57,690 0 5.769 4.038 16,874 0 84,372 84372.28 TOTAL Mobilization/DemobiliZatiOfl . 1.00 JOB 57,690 0 5,769 4,038. 16,874 0 84,372 84372.28- 01.02 356 Feet Groin . . . 01.02.01 A-12 Stone 2800.00 TON 97,576 0 9,758 6,830 28,541 0 142,704 50.97 01.02.02 A-7 Stone 2800.00 TON 97,576 0 9,758 6.830 28,541 0 142,704 50.97 01.02.03 8-1 Stone 5600.00 TON 175,558 0 17,556 12,289 51351 0 256,754 4585 01.02.04 Core Stone . 5600.00 TON 142,112 0 14,211 9,948 41,568 0 207.838 37.11 01.02.05 Excavation . . 10000.00 CT 84,549 . 0 8,455 5,918 24,731 0 123,653 12.37 01.02.06 Grout . 1.00 JOB 208,326 -- 0 20,833 14,583. 60,935 0 304,677 304677.22 TOTAL 350 Feet Groin 35000.LF 805,696 0 80,570 .56,399 235,666 0 1,178,331 3366.66 01.03 200 Feet T-Ends . 01.03.01 A-12 Stone . 3200.00 TON .111 515 0 11,152 7,806 32,618 0 163,091 50.97 01.03.02 9-1 Stone 3200.00 TON 100,319 0 10,032 7,022 29,343 0 146,716 45.85 01.03.03 Core Stone 3200.00 TON 81,207 - -8,121 5,684 23,753 0 118,765 37.11 TOTAL 200 Feet T-Ends . . 200.00 U 293,041 0 29,304 20,513 85,714 0 . 428,572 2142.86 0104 Beachf ill 34600000 C? 1,075,393 0 107,539 75,278 314,553 0 1,572,763 4.55 TOTAL Plan I CT-Groin WI Beachf ill) 2,231,821 0 223,182 156,227 652,808 0 3,264,038 02 Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) : 02.01 Mobilization/Demobilization 57,690 0 5,769 4,038 16,874 0 84,372 02.02 Permanent Project Signs 2.00 EA 1,263 0 124 87. 364 0 1,818 909.11 02.03 Sheet Pile Walt-North . 2504.00 LF .1,219,222 0 121,922 85,346 356,622 0 1,783,112 712.11 02.04 Concrete Cap-North Walt 2016.00. CT 574,070 0 57,407 40,185 167,915 0 839,577 416.46 02.05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 2.00 EA 1,972 0 197 138 577 0 2,884 1442.12 02.06 Beach Access Ranps/Peds 3.00 EA 26,052 0 2,605 1,824 7,620 0 38,102 12700.52 02.07 Sidewalk-North Wall . 8260.00 SF 21,188 0 2,119 1,483 6,198 0 30,988 3.75 02.08 Toe Protection-North Wall 02.08.01 1500 Lbs Toe Rock . 7500.00 TON 225,773 0 22,577 15,804 . 66,039 . 0 330,193 44.03 02.08.02 Quarry Run Rock 700.00 CY 30,901 0 3,090 2,163 9,039 0 45,193 64.56 02.08.03 Filter Cloth . 7200.00 ST 27,704 0 2,770 1,939 8,103 0 40,517 5.63 TOTAL Toe Protection-North Wall . 1.00 JOB 284,378 0 28,438 19,906 83,181 0 415,903 415903.68 LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A . Curren in DOLLARS - CREW ID: 94COST UPB ID: RG7930 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:3E 5ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBD1: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 5 PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - SubFeatr • QUANTITY UON CONTRACT own furn ENG&DESN SION CONTINGN ESCALATN TOTAL COST UNIT COST NOTES 02.09 North Revetment 02.09.01 Site Preparation 1.00 JOB 288,452 0 28,845 20,192 84,372 0 421,861 421861.41 02.09.02 3 Ton Armor Rock 5900.00 TON 177,608 0 17,761 12,433 51,950 0 259,752 44.03 02.09.03 600 Lbs Underlayer Rock 2500.00 TON 75;258 0 7,526 5,268 22,013 0 110,066 44.03 02.09.04 Quarry Rim Rock 900.00 CT. 39,730 0 .3 973 2,781 11,621 0 58,105 64.56 02.09.05 Filter Cloth 3800.00 ST 14,622 0 1,462 1,024 4,277 .0 21,384 5.63 TOTAL North Revetment 1.00 JOB 595,670 0 59,567 41,697 174,233 0 871,167 871167.05 0210 Sheet Pile Wall-South Wall 240.00 LF 112,687 0 11,269 7,888 32,961 0 164,805 686.69 02.11 Sheet Pile Wall-South V.11 Exten . 368.00 LF 172,425 0 17,243 12,070 50,434 0 252,172 685.25 02.12 Concrete Cap-South Wall 206.00 CT 58,367 0 5,837 4,086 17,072 0 85,362 414.38 02.13 Concrete Cap-South Wall Extensio 290.00 CT 82,639 0 8,264 5,785 24,172 . 0 120,859 416.76 02.16 Anodized Aluminum Handrail . 368.00 LF 21,004 0 2,100 1,470 6,164 0 30,718 83.47 02.15 Concrete Cap-Raised Decorative 2118.00 LF 10,533 '.0 1,053 737 3,081 0 15,404 7.27 02.16 Sidewalk-South Wall 3400.00 SF 8,720 0 872 610 2,550 0 12,752 3.75 02.17 Concrete Driveway Station 51465 1.00 JOB 6,081 0 608 426 1,779 0 8,893 889301 02.18 Toe Protection-South Watt 02.18.01 1500 Lbs Toe Rock . 800.00 TON 28,061 0 2,806 1,964 8,208 0 41,039 5130 02.18.02 Quarry Run Rock 8000 CT 3,532 0 353 247 1,033 0 5.165 64.56 02.18.03 Filter Cloth 75000 ST 2,886 0 289 202 844 0 4,221 5.63 TOTAL Toe Protection-South Wall 1.00 JOB 34,478 0 3,448 2,413 10,085 0 50,424 50424.38 .02.19 Toe Protection-South Wall Extens 02.19.01 1500 Lbs Toe Rock 1350.00 TON 47,353 . 0 4,735 3,315 13,851 0 69,253 5130 02.19 D2 Quarry Run Rock 125.00 CT 5,518 0 552 386 1,614 0 8,070 64.56 02.19.03 Filter Cloth 1400.00 ST 5.387 0 539 377 1,576 0 7,878 5.63 TOTAL Toe Protection-South Wall Extens 1.00 JOB 58,258 0 5,826 4,078 17,040 0 85.202 85201.72 02.20 South Access Ramp Station 51.65 1.00 JOB 3.730 0 373 261 1,091 0 5,455 5456.67 02.21 Concrete Spiral Ran,s . L 2.00 EA 6,838 0 684 479 . 2,000 0 10,000 5000.11 02.22 Circular Concrete Benches 2.00 U 2,288 0 229 160 669 0 3,346 1673.19 02.23 Circular Tree Planters ul Bench LOO U 4,472 . 0 447 313 1,308 0 6,541 3270.27 02.24 Kidney Shaped Tree Planters . 2.00 BA 1.271 0 . 127 89 372 0 1,859 929.50 02.25 Concrete Piers . 6.00 BA 1,011 0 101 71 296 0 1,479 246.44 02.26 Palm Trees 4.00 EA 4,401 0 440 308 1.287 0 6.437 1609.29 02.27 Concrete Trash Containers 3.00 BA 1,549 0• 155 108 653 0 2,265 755.11 02.28 Drinking Fountains 3.00 BA 8.576 0 858 600 2,508 0 12,542 4180.65 TOTAL Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) . - . 3,380,814 0 338,081 236,657 988,888 0 4,944,440 03 Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) LABOR ID: I AJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency in DOLLARS . CREW ID: 94COST UPB ID: RG7938 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:3E Fjf. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE ** PROJECT OWNER SUMMARY - SubFeatr • QUANTITY UGH CONTRACT own f urn ENG&OESN SIOH CONTINGN ESCALATN TOTAL COST UNIT COST NOTES 03.01 Nobilization/Demobilizatlofl 57.690 0 5,769 4,038 16,874 0 84,372 03.02 Permanent Project Signs 03.03 Sheet Pile Wall-North 2.00 2504.00 EA LF 1,243 1,219,222 0 0 124 121,922 87 85,346 364 356,622 0 0 1,818 1,783,112 909.11 712.11 03.04 Concrete Cap-North Wall 2016.00 2.00 CT U 574,070 1,972 0 0 57,607 197 40,185 138 167,915 577 0 0 839,577 2,884 416.46 1442.12 03.05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 03.06 Beach Access Ramps/Pads 3.00 EA 26,052 0 2,605 1,824 7.620 0 38,102 12700.52 03.07 SidewaLk-North Wall : 8260.00 7500.00 SF TON 21,188 235,122 0 0 2,119 23.512 1,483 16,459 6,198 68,773 0 0 30,988 343,867 3.75 45.85 03.08 1500 Lb Toe Rock 03.09 Core Stone 1120.00 TON 28,422 0 2,842 1,990 8,316 0 41,568 37.11 03.10 Filter Cloth 7200.00 ST 27.704 0 2,770 1,939 8,103 0 40,517 5.63 03.11 North Revetment 03.11.01 Site Preparation 1.00 JOB 288,452 ó 28,845 20,192 84,372 0 421,861 421861.41 03.11.02 3 Ton Armor Rock 5900.00 TON 177,608 0 17,761 12,433 51,950 0 259,752 44.03 03.11.03 600 Lbs Underlayer Rock 2500.00 TON 75,258 0 7,526 5,268 22,013 0 110,064 44.03 03.11.04 Quarry Run Rock 900.00 CT 39,730 0 3,973 2,781 11,621 0 58,105 66.56 03.11.05 Filter Cloth 3800.00 ST 14,622 - 0 1,462 1,024 - 4,277 0 21,384 5.63 TOTAL Worth Revetment 1.00 JOB 595,670 0 59,567 41,697 174,233 0. 871,167 871167.05 03.20 South Access Rasp Station 51.65 1.00 JOB 3,730 0 373 261 1,091 0 5,455 5456.67 03.21 Concrete Spiral Rasps 2.00 EA 6,838 0 686 679 2,000 0 10,000 5000.11 03.22 Circular Concrete Benches 2.00 EA 2,288 0 229 160 669 0 3,346 1673.19 0323 Circular Tree Planters wl Bench 2.00 EA 4,472 0 447 313 1,308 0 6,541 3270.27 03.24 Kidney Shaped Tree Planters . 2.00 EA . 1,271 0 127 89 372 0 1,859 929.50 03.25 Concrete Piers . 6.00 EA 1,011 0 101 . 71 296 0 1,479 246.44 03.26 Palm Trees 4.00 EA 4,401 . 0 440 308 1,287 0 6,437 1609.29 03.27 Concrete Trash Containers. . 3.00 EA 1.549 0 155 108 453 0 2,265 755.11 03.28 Drinking Fountains • 3.00 EA 8,576 0 858 600 2,508 0 12,542 4180.65 .TOTAL Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) • 1.00 JOB 2,822,493 0 282,249 197,575 825,579 0 4,127:896 4127896 TOTAL Carlsbad Shore Protection 1.00 EA . 8,435,127 0 843,513 590,459 2,467,275 -- 0 12,336374 12336374 LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A . Currency in DOLLARS: CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7938 Hon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer. TIME 0960:3 ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE ** PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - Project ** QUANTITY lION DIRECT OVERHEAD HOME OFC PROFIT BOND TOTAL COST UNIT COS 01 Plan I (T-Groin wl Seachf ill) 1.934.307 32,386 78.668 167,822 18638 2.231.821 02 Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) 2,928.083 50,988 119.163 254.155 28,424 3.380,814 03 Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) 1.00 JOB 2,445,645 41.517 99,686 212,218 23.626 2,822693 282249 TOTAL Carlsbad Shore Protection 1.00 EA 7,308,036 124,891 297,317 634,195 70,688 8,435.127 843512: ENGINEERING & DESIGN - 843,513 SUBTOTAL ;:; 590,459 SUPERVISION INSPECTION (S & A) SUBTOTAL 9,869099 2,467,275 CONTINGN TOTAL INCL OWNER COSTS 12,336,374 LABOR U)! • JAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7930 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:60:31 ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 1 ** PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - Feature • QUANTITY UGH DIRECT OVERHEAD HONE OFC PROFIT BOND TOTAL COST UNIT COS' 01 Plan I (T-Groin WI Beachfill) 01.01 Nobitizaticn/Delnobil.IzatiOfl 1.00 JOB 50.000 837 2.033 4,338 482 57,690 57690.6! 01.02 350 Feet Groin . 350.00 LF 698.293 11.691 28,399 60,584 6.729 805,696 2301.9 01.03 200 Feet T-Ends 200.00 LF 253,977 4.252 10,329 22.035 2.447 293.041 146521 01.06 Beachf ill 346000.00 CT 932,037 15,605 37.906 80,864 8,981 1,075,393 3.1 TOTAL Plan 1 (T-Groin w/ Beachf Ill) 1,934307 32,386 78,668 167,822 18,638 2,231,821 02 Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) 02.01 Mobilization/Demobilization 50,000 837 2,033 4,338 482 57,690 02.02 Permanent Project Signs . 2.00 LA 1,078 18 44 93 10 1,243 621.6 02.03 Sheet Pile Wall-North 2504.00 LF '1,056,693 17,692 42,975 91,679 10,182 1,219,222 486.9 02.04 Concrete Cap-North Wait 2016.00 CT 497,543 8,330 20,235 43,167 4,794 574,070 284.7. 02.05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 2.00 LA 1,709 29 . 70 148 16 1,972 986.0 02.06 BeachAccess Rare/Pads 3.00 LA 22,579 378 918 1,959 218 26,052 8684.1 02.07 Sidewalk-North Wall 8260.00 SF 18,364 307 747 1,593 177 210188 2.5 02.08 Toe Protection-North Wall 1.00 JOB 246,469 4,127 10,024 21,384 2,375 284,378 284378.4 02.09 North Revetment 1.00 JOB 516,264 8,644 20,996 44,791 4,975 595,670 595669.7 02.10 Sheet Pile Wall-South Wall 240.00 LF 97,665 1,635 3,972 8,474 941 112,687 469.5 02.11 Sheet Pile Wall-South Wall Exten 368.00 U 149,440 2,502 6,078 12,966 1,440 172,425 668.5 02.12 Concrete Cap-South Wall . 206.00 CT 50,586 847 2,057 4,389 487 58,367 283.3 02.13 Concrete Cap-South Walt Extensio 290.00 CT . 71,623 1,199 2,913 . 6,214 690 82,639 284.9 02.14 Anodized Aluminum Handrail . 368.00 LF 16,749 1,675 737 1,533 310 21,004 57.0 02.15 Concrete Cap-Raised Decorative 211800 LF 9,129 153 371 792 Be 10,533 4.9 02.16 Sidewalk-South Wall 3400.00 SF 7,557 127 307 656 73 8,720 2.5 02.17 Concrete Driveway Station 51.65 1.00 JOB 5,270 88 216 457 51 6,081 6080.6 02.18 Toe Protection-South Wall 1.00 JOB 29,882 500 1,215 2,593 288 34,478 34478.2 02.19 Toe Protection-South Wall Extens 1.00 JOB 50,492 845 2,053 4,381 487 58,258 58257.5 02.20 South Access Reap Station 51.65 1.00 JOB 3,233 54 131 280 31 3,730 3729.6 02.21 Concrete Spiral Rams 2.00 LA 5,926 99 241 514 57 6,838 3418.8 02.22 Circular Concrete Benches . 2.00 LA 1983 33 81 172 19 2,288 1144.0 02.23 Circular Tree Planters WI Bench 2.00 LA 3,876 65 158 336 37 4,472 2236.0 02.26 Kidney Shaped Tree Planters 2.00 LA 1,102 18 45 96 11 1,271 635.5 02.25 Concrete Piers 6.00 LA 876 15 36 76 8 1,011. 168.5 02.26 Palm Trees 6.00. LA 3,815 64 155 331 37 4,401 1100.3 02.27 Concrete Trash Containers . 3.00 LA 1,342 22 55 116 13 1,549. 516.3 02.28 Drinking Fountains . .• 3.00 LA 6,838 . 684 301 626 127 8.576 2858.5 TOTAL Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) 2,928,083 50,988 119,163 254,15; -- 28,424 3,380,814 03 Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) 03.01 Mobilization/Demobilization 03.02 Permanent Project Signs 03.03 Sheet Pile Wall-North 03.04 Concrete Cap-North Wall 50,000 837 2,033 4,338 482 57,690 2.00 LA 1,078 . • 18 64 93 10 1,243 621. 2506.00 LF 1,056,693 .17 692 42,975 91,679 10,182 1,219,222 486.9 2016.00 CT 497,543 8,330 20,235 43,167 4,794 574,070 284.7 LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A . curry in DOLLARS CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7930 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:38 F.ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 9 ** PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - Feature ** QUANTITY WON DIRECT OVERHEAD HONE OFC PROFIT BOND TOTAL COST UNIT COST 03.05 Beach Access-Stairs/Pads 03.06 Beach Access Ramps/Pads 03.07 Sidewalk-North Wall 03.08 1500 Lb Toe Rock 03.09 Core Stone = - -====----- -=03.10=Fil.ter Cloth. = ------ 03.11 North Revetment 03.20 South Access Rang Station 51.65 03.21 Concrete Spiral Ranps 03.22 Circular Concrete Benches 03.23 Circular Tree Planters w/ Bench 03.24 Kidney Shaped Tree Planters 03.25 Concrete Piers 03.26 Palm Trees 03.27 Concrete Trash Containers 03.28 Drinking Fountains TOTAL Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) TOTAL Carlsbad Shore Protection ENGINEERING & DESIGN SUBTOTAL SUPERVISION INSPECTION (S & A) SUBTOTAL CONTINGN TOTAL INCL OWNER COSTS 2.00 LA 1.709 29 70 148 16 1,972 986.07 3.00 EA 22.579 378 918 1.959 218 26.052 8684.12 8260.00 SF 18.364 307 747 1,593 177 21,188 2.57 7500.00 TON 203.779 3,412 8.288 17.680 1,964 235.122 31.35 1120.00 TON 24,633 412 1.002 2,137 237 28.422 25.3e 7200.00SY24,011402. 977 2,083 231 27.704 3.85 1.00 JOB 516,264 8,644 20.996 44,791 4.975 595,67O595669.7e 1.00 JOB 3,233 54 131 • 280 31 3,730 3729.65 2.00 LA 5,926 99 241 • 514 57 6,838 3618.8E 2.00 EA 1,983 33 81 172 19 2.288 1144.0 2.00 LA 3,876 65 158 336 37 4,472 2236.01 2.00 LA 1,102 18 • 45 96 11 1,271 635.5 6.00 LA 876 15 36 76 8. 1,011 168.51 4.00 LA • • 3,815 64 155 331 37 4,401 1100.3 3.00 EA . 1,342 : 22 • 55 116 13 1,549 516.3 3.00 LA - 6,838 684 301 626 127 8,576 2858.5 1.O0 JOB 2,445,645 41,517 99,486 212,218 23,626 2,822,493 282249 1.00 LA 7,308,036 124,891 297,317 634,195 70,688 8,635,127 843512 843,513 9,278,640 590,459 9,869,099 2,467,275 12,336,374 LABOR ' IAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A • Curr.Iv in DOLLARS CREW ID: 94C0ST UPB ID: RG7938 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California TINE 09:40:38 - Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 10 PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - SubFeetr a. QUANTITY UOM DIRECT OVERHEAD HOME OFC PROFIT BOND TOTAL COST UNIT COST 01 Plan I (T-Groin v/ Beachfill) 01.01 Hobilization/DefnobilizatiOfl : 1.00 JOB 50,000 837 2,033 4,338 482 57,690 57690.65 TOTAL Nobilizatlon/Demobilizatiofl 1.00 JOB 50,000 837 2,033 4,338 482 57,690 57690.65 01.02 350 Feet Groin 01 02.01 A-12-Stone 2800.00 TON 84,568 1,616. 3,439 7.337 815 97.576 36.8! 01.02.02 A-i Stone 2800.00 TON 84,568 1,416 3,439 7,337 815 97,576 34.8! 01.02.03 9-1 stone 5600.00 TON 5600.00 TON 152,155 123,167 2,548 2,062 6,188 5,009 13,201 10,686 1,466 1,187 175,558 142,112 31.3! 25.31 01.02.06 Core Stone 01.02.05 Excavation. 10000.00 CT 73.278 1,227 2,980 6,358 706 84,569 8.45 01.02.06 Grout 1.00 JOB. .. 180,555 3,023 7,343 15,665 1,740 208,326 208326.3( TOTAL 350 Feet Groin . 35000 LF 698,293 11,691 28,399 60,584 6,729 805,696 2301.9c 01.03 200 Feet T-Ends 01.03.01 A-12 Stone 01.03.02 B-I Stone . 3200.00 TON 3200.00 TON . 96,649 86,946 1,618. 1,456 3,931 3,536 8,385 7,543 931 838 111,515 100,319 36.8 31.3 01.03.03 Core stone 3200.00 TON 70,381 1,178 - 2,862 6,106 678 81,207 25.31 TOTAL 200 Feet T-Ends 200.00 LF 253,977 4,252 10,329 22,035 2,447 293,041 1465.21 01.04 Beachf ill 346000.00 CT 932,037 15,605 37,906 80,864 8,981 1,075,393 3.1 TOTAL Plan I (T-Groin WI Beachf ill) 1,934.307 32,386 78,668167,822 18..638 2,231,821 02 Plan 2 (Seawatls Alternative) 02.01 IIobiIizaticn/Demobilizatiofl 50,000 837 2,033 4,338 482 57,690 02.02 Permanent Project Signs 02.03 Sheet Pile Wall-North 2.00 LA 2504.00 LF 1,078 1,056,693 18 17,692 44 42,975 93 91,679 10 10,182 1,243 1,219,222 621.6 486.9 02.04 Concrete Cap-North Wall 2016.00 CT 497,543 8,330 20,235 43,167 4,794 574,070 284.7 02.05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 02.06 Beach Access Ra,rps/PadS 2.00 LA 3.00 LA 1,709 22.579 29 378 70 918 148 1,959 16 218 1,972 26,052 986.0 8684.1 02.07 SidewaLk-North Wall 8260.00 SF - 18,364 307 747 1,593 177 21,188 2.5 02.08 Toe Protection-North-Watt 02.08.01 1500 Lbs Toe Rock . • 7500.00 TON 195,677 3,276 7,958 16,977 1,885 225,773 30.1 02.08.02 Quarry Run Rock - 700.00 CT 26,782 448 1,089 2,324 258 30,901 46.1 02.08.03 Fitter Cloth • 7200.00 ST 24,011 402 977 2,083 231 27,704 3.8 TOTAL Toe Protection-North Wall 1.00 JOB 246,469 .4,127 10,024 21,384 2,375 284,378 284378.4. LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A • • Currency in DOLLARS . CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7938 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:3 Iff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 11 PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - SubFeetr • - QUANTITY UGH DIRECT OVERHEAD HOME OFC PROFIT BOND TOTAL COST UNIT COS1 02.09 North Revetment 02.09.01 Site Preparation 1.00 JOB 250.000 4,186 10,167 21.690 2,409 288.452 288452.25 02.09.02 3 Ton Armor Rock 5900.00 TON 153,932 2,571 6,260 13,355 1,483 171,608 30.1t 02.09.03 600 Lbs Underlayer Rock 2500.00 TON 65,226 1.092 2,653 5,659 628 75,258 30.1( 02 09.04 Quarry Run Rock 900.00 CY 34,434 577 1,400 2.987 332 39.130 44.14 02.09.05 Filter Cloth 3800.00 BY 12,673 212 .515 1,099 122 14,622 3.85 TOTAL North Revetment 1.00 JOB 516,264 8,644 20,996 44,791 4,975 595,670 595669.7E 02.10 Sheet Pile Wall-South Well 240.00 LF 97,665 1,635 3,972 8,474 941 112,687 669.5 02.11 Sheet Pile Wall-South Wall Exten 368.00 LF 149,440 2,502 6,078 12,966 1,440 172,425 468.5; 02.12 Concrete Cap-South Walt 206.00 CY 50,586 867 2,057 4,389 487 58.367 283.34 02.13 Concrete Cap-South-Wall Extensio 290.00 CY 71,623 1,199 2.913 6,214 690 82,639 284.91 02.14 Anodized Atunini.m, Handrail 368.00 LF • 16,749 1,675 737 1,533 310 21,004 57.01 02.15 Concrete Cap-Raised Decorative 2118.00 LF - 9,129 153 371 792 88 10,533 4.9 02.16 Sidewalk-South Wall . 3600.00 SF 7,557 127 307 656 73 8.720 2.51 02.17 Concrete Driveway Station 51+65 1.00 JOB 5,270 88 214 457 51 6,081 6080.65 02.18 Toe Protection-South Wall . 02.18.01 1500 Lbs Toe Rock 800.00 TON 24,320 407 989 2,110 234 28.061 3501 02.18.02 Quarry Run Rock 80.00 CV 3,061 51 .124 266 29 3,532 46.1 02.18.03 FilterCloth 750.00 ST 2,501 42 102 217 24 2,886 3.85 TOTAL Toe Protection-South Wall 1.00 JOB 29.882 . 500 1,215 2,593 288 36,478 34478.21 02.19 Toe ProtectionSouth Wall Extens 02.19.01 1500 Lbs Toe Rock 1350.00 TON 41,040 687 1,669 3.561 395 47.353 35.0E 02.19.02 Quarry Run Rock 125.00 CT . 4,782 80 195 415 46 5.518 44.14 02.19.03 Filter Cloth 1400.00 ST 4,669 78 190 405 45 5,387 3.85 . TOTAL Toe Protection-South Walt Extens LOO JOB 50,492 845 2,053 4,381 487 58,258 58257.55 02.20 South Access Rasp Station 51.65 1.00 JOB 3,233 54 131 280 31 3,130 3729.6S 02.21 Concrete Spiral Rasps 2.00 LA 5.926 99 241 514 57 6.838 3618.8E 02.22 Circular Concrete Benches 2.00 EA 1,983 33 . 81 172 19 . 2,288 1144.01 02.23 Circular Tree Planters w/ Bench 2.00 LA 3,876 65 158 336 37 4,472 2236.0 02.24 Kidney Shaped Tree Planters 2.00 LA 1,102 18 45 96 11 1,271 635.51 02.25' Concrete Piers 6.00 LA 876 15 . 36 76 8 1.011 168.51 • 02.26 Palm Trees 4.00 LA 3,815 64 155 331 37 4,401 1100.3 02.27 Concrete Trash Containers 3.00 LA 1,342 22- 55 116 13 1,549 516.3 02.28 Drinking Fountains 3.00 LA 6,838 684 301 626 127 8,576 2858.5 TOTAL Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) 2,928,083 50,988 119,163 254,155 28,424 3,380,814 03 Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency in DOLLARS:' CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7938 3 Hon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TINE 09:40:38 ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 12 PROJECT INDIRECT SUMMARY - SubFeatr ** QUANTITY UGH DIRECT OVERHEAD HOME OFC PROFIT BOND TOTAL COST UNIT COST 03.01 Nobi(ization/Oeinobilization 50.000 837 2,033 4,338 482 57,690 03.02 Permanent Project Signs 2.00 EA 1,078 18 44 93 10 1,243 621.61 03.03 Sheet Pile Wall-North 2504.00 LF 1,056,693 17,692 42,975 91,679 10,182 1,219,222 486.91 03.04 Concrete Cap-North Wall . 2016.00 CY 497,563 8,330 20,235 43,167 4,794 574,070 284.76 03.05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 2.00 EA 1,709 29 70 148 16 1,972 986.07 03.06 Beach Access Rasps/Pads 3.00 EA 22,579 378 918 1,959 218 26,052 8684.12 03.07 Sidewalk-North Wall 8260.00 SF 18,364 307 747 1,593. 177 21,188 2.57 03.08 1500 Lb Toe Rock 7500.00 TON 203,779 3,412 8,288 17,680 1,964 235,122 3135 03.09 Core Stone 1120.00 TON 26,633 612 1,002 2,137 237 28,422 25.38 03.10 Filter Cloth 7200.00 SY 24,011 402 977 2,083 - 231 27,704 3.85 03.11 North Revetment 03.11.01 Site Preparation 0311.02 3 Ton Armor Rock 03.11.03 600 Lbs Underlayer Rock 03.11 04 Quarry Rias Rock 03.11.05 Filter Cloth TOTAL North Revetment 03.20 South Access Rasp Station 51465 03.21 Concrete Spiral Rasps 03.22 Circular Concrete Benches 03.23 Circular Tree Planters w/ Bench 03.24 Kidney Shaped Tree Planters 03.25 Concrete Piers 03.26 Palm Trees 03.27. Concrete Trash Containers 03.28 Drinking Fountains TOTAL Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) TOTAL Carlsbad Shore Protection ENGINEERING & DESIGN SUBTOTAL SUPERVISION 'INSPECTION (S & A) SUBTOTAL CONTINGI1 TOTAL INCL OWNER COSTS 1.00 JOB 250,000 4,186 10,167 21.690 2,409 288,452 288452.25 5900.00 TON 153,932 . 2,577 6,260 13,355 1,483 177,608 30.10 2500.00 TON .- 65,226 1,092 2,653 5,659 628 75,258 30.10 900.00 CY 34,434 577 1,400 2,987 332 39,730 44.14 3800.00 ST 12,673 212 515 1,099 122 14,622 3.85 1.00 JOB 516,264 8,644 20,996 44,791 .4,975 595,670 595669.78 1.00 JOB 3,233 54 . 131 280 31 3,730 3729.69 200 EA 5,926 . 99 241 514 57 6,838 3418.88 2.00 EA 1,983 33 81 172 19 2,288 1144.06 2.00 EA 3,876 65 158 336 37 4,472 2236.08 2.00 EA 1,102 18 45 96 11 1,271 635.56 6.00 EA 876 15 36 76 8 1,011 168.51 4.00 EA 3,815 64 . 155 331 37 4,401 110037" 3.00 (A 1,342. 22 55 116 13 1,549 516.32 3.00 LA 6,838 684 301 626 127 8,576 2858.57 1.00 JOB 2,445,645 41,517 99,486 212,218 23,626 2,822,493 2822693 1.00 EA 7,308,036 124,891 297,317 634,195 70,688 8,435,127 8435127 843,513 9,278,640 590,459 9,869,099. 2,467,275 12,336,374 LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A . Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: 94COST UPB ID: RG7930 Non 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:38 ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate BACKUP PAGE ** CREW BACKUP • •• LABOR EQUIP •• TOTAL............................................. SRC ITEM ID DESCRIPTION NO. UGH RATE HOURS COST HOURS COST COST ACARA PROD z 100% CREW HOURS • 41 NIL XNIXXOZO E . Small Tools 0.31 0.25 HR OR 1.45 38.88 0.25 9.12 0.31 0.45 0.45 9.72 NIL NIL B-CARPNTERF B-CARPNTERL Carpenters Carpenters 1.00 tiN 38.38 1.00 38.38 38.38 TOTAL - - 1.25 4810 0.31 0.45 48.55 ACARI PROD • 100% CREW HOURS • 71 NIL XNIXXOZO E Small Tools 0.48 0.25 HR OR 1.45 38.88 0.25 9.12 0.48 0.70 0.70 9.72 NIL NIL B-CARPNTERF B-CARPNTERL Carpenters Carpenters 2.00 HR 38.38 2.00 76.15 76.15 NIL B-LABORER L Laborer/Helper 1.00 HR 29.96 1.00 29.96 29.96 TOTAL 3.25 116.44 0.48 0.70 117.13 ACARL PROD • 1001 - CREW HOURS • 2700 NIL XNIXKOIO E Misc. Power Tools 0.32 HR 5.90 1.45 032 0.79 1.89 1.15 1.89 1.15 NIL NIL XMIXX020 E B-CARPNTERF Small Tools Carpenters 0.19 1.00 HR HR 38.88 1.00 38.88 38.88 NIL NIL B-CARPNTERL B-LABORER L Carpenters. Laborer/Helper 2.00 1.00 HR HR 38.38 29.96 2.00 LOO 76.15 29.96 76.75 - 29.96 NIL B-CARPNTERA Carpenters 1.00 HR 31.72 1.00 31.72 31.72 TOTAL 5.00 177.32 .1.11 3.03 180.35 ACNAB PROD • 1002 CREW HOURS • 89 NIL XMIXX020. E Small Tools 0.25 HR 1.45 0.25 0.36 0.36 NIL B-CEMTFINRF Cement Finishers 0.50 HR 34.93 0.50 17.46 17.46 NIL B-CEHTFINRL Cement Finishers 2.00 HR 34.43 2.00 68.86 68.86 TOTAL 2.50 86.32 0.25 0.3686:68 ACNAE PROD • 1002 CREW HOURS • 241 NIL XNIXX020 E Small Tools 0.45 HR 1.45 045 0.65 0.45 NIL B-CENTFINRF Cement Finishers 1.00 HR 34.93 1.00 34.93 34.93 NIL B-CARPNTERL Carpenters 1.00 HR 38.38 1.00 38.38 38.38 NIL B-LABORER L Laborer/Helper 1.00 HR 29.96 1.00 29.96 29.96 TOTAL 3.00 103.27 0.45 0.65 103.92 ALABG PROD • 100% CREW HOURS • 690 NIL CBOPT003 E Crane.mech.trk Ntd 55 Ton W/ll 1.00 HR 40.44 1.00 40.64 40 64 NIL XNIXXOZO E Small Tools 0.68 HR 1.45 0.68 0 99 0.99 NIL C65NS001 E Conc. Vibr. Concrete Mr. 6" 2.00 HR 0.97 2.00 1.93 193 NIL B-LABORER F Laborer/Helper 1.00 HR 30.46 1.00 30.46 30:46 NIL B-CENTFINRL Cement Finishers 1.00 HR 34.43 1.00 34.43 34.43 NIL B-LABORER L Laborer/Helper 5.00 HR 29.96 5.00 149.82 14982 NIL B-EQOPRMEDL Eq Oper, Medium 1.00 HR 40.12 1.00 40.12 40:12 TOTAL 8.00 254.83 3.68 43.56 298:38 LABOR Fl- . IAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A - Cur- in DOLLARS - CREW ID: 94COC? "PB ID: RG7938 Hon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:38 ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego Cotity, California Feasibility Estimate BACKUP PAGE 2 • CREW BACKUP ** LABOR •• EQUIP TOTAL............................................. SRC ITEM ID DESCRIPTION NO. UGH RATE HOURS COST HOURS COST COST CODES I CY HYD EXCAV PROD • 100% . CREW HOURS 2 NIL H25CR004 E "yd Excav cwlr Ntd 1.00 Cy B! 1.00 HR 37.61 • 1.00 37.61 37.61 NIL XNIXX020 E Small Too Ls 0.11 HR 1.45 0.11 0.16 0.16 NIL B-EQOPRCRNL EqOper,'Crane/Shovl 1.00 HR 39.36 1.00 39.36 39.36 NIL B-EQOPROILL Eq Oper, Oilers 1.00 HR 38.03 1.00 38.03 38.03 TOTAL . .2.00 77.38 1.11 37.77 115.15 COFWK • PROD • 100% CREW HOURS .1 NIL T60KI002 E Trkwater.of f-hwy 6000 Get.* Ca 1.00 HR 69.32 1.00 69.32 69.32 NIL P55GRO04 E Puip,water,sub 6" - 1950 6pm 8 1.00 HR 11.27 LOO . 11.27 11.27 NIL B-EQOPRMEDF Eq Oper. Medium . 0.25 HR 40.62 0.25 10.15 10.15 NIL B-EQOPRNEDLEqOper, Medium. 1.00 HR 40.12 1.00 .40.12 . 40.12 NIL B-EQOPROILL Eq Oper, Oilers 0.50 HR 38.03 0.50 19.01 • 19.01 TOTAL . . . • 1.75 69.28 2.00 80.58 14987 • COKCF . PROD • 1001 CREW HOURS 10 NIL XMIXXOZO E Small Tools 1.46 HR 1.45 1.46 2.12 2.12 NIL C45CA003 E Conc. Paver 25' WIde Slipform 1.00 HR 109.00 1.00 109.00. 109.00 NIL B-EQOPRHEDF Eq Oper, Medium 1.00 HR 40.62 .1.00 40.62 40.62 NIL B-CENTFINRL Cement Finishers 1.00 HR 34.43 1.00 36.43 34.43 NIL B-ROONAN L Roc*nen (reinforcing) 1.00 HR 40.29 1.00 40.29 • 40.29 NIL B-LABORER L Laborer/Helper 8.00 HR 29.96 8.00 239.71 239.71 NIL B-EOOPRNEDL Eq Oper, Medium 1.00 HR 40.12 1.00 40.12 . 40.12 TOTAL . . 12.00 395.16 2.46 111.12 5O627 CPIDV . . PROD • 100% CREW HOURS 2215 NIL C8OPHOO4 ECrane,mech.trk Ntd 40 Ton W/106 1.00 HR 39.65 . 1.00 39.65 39.65 NIL XNIXX020 E Small Tobis 1.35 HR 1.45 - . 1.35 1.96 1.96 NIL P30NK003 E Pile Hatmier1vib With Power Pack 1.00 HR 81.13 1.00 81.13 81.13 NIL B-PILEDRVRF Pile Drivers . 1.00 HR 41.16 1.00 41.16 41.16 NIL B-EQOPRCRNL Eq Oper, Crane/Shovl 2.00 HR 39.36 2.00 78.71 • 78.71 NIL B-EOOPROILL Eq Oper 1 Oilers 1.00 HR 38.03 1.00 38.03 38.03 NIL . B-PILEDRVRL Pile Drivers .. 2.00 HR 40.66 2.00 81.31 81.31 NIL B-PILEDRVRA Pile Drivers 2.00 HR 33.54 2.00 67.09 67.09 TOTAL . . 8.00 306.30 3.35 :122.74 429.03 NPLUE . PROD • 100% CREW HOURS • 8 NIL XNIXXOZO E Small Tools 0.67 HR 1.45 • 0.67 0.97 0.97 NIL 8-PLUMBER F Pluiters 0.50 HR 44.02 0.50 22.01 22.01 NIL B-LABORER L Laborer/Helper • 1.00 HR 29.96 1.00 29.96 29.96 NIL B-PLUMBER L Pluthers 1.00 HR 43.52 1.00 • 43.52. 4352 TOTAL . 2.50 95.49 0.67 0.97 96.46 . . LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency In DOLLARS CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: R67935 Mon 18 Sep1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:3: ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate BACKUP PAGE ** CREW BACKUP ** * LABOR •• EQUIP •"• TOTAL............................................ SRC ITEM ID DESCRIPTION NO. UCH I RATE HOURS COST HOURS COST COST SIWRC PROD s 100% CREW HOURS s 217 NIL XMIXX020 E Small Tools 0.68 HR 1.45 0.68 0.99 0.99 NIL B-RODNAN F Rochnen (reinforcing) 1.00 HR 40.79 1.00 40.79 40.79 NIL 8-ROOMAN L Roc*nen (reinforcing) 3.00 HR 40.29 3.00 . - 120.86 120.86 - TOTAL - - 4.00 161.65 0.68 0.99 162.64 SIWSC PROD r 100% CREW HOURS 17 NIL XMIXX020 E Small Tools 0.72 OR 1.45 0.72 1.06 1.04 NIL W35XX002 E Welder 200 Anp U/I Axle T 1.00 HR 6.78 1.00 6.78 6.78 NIL B-STRSTEELF Struct Sti Workers 1.00 OR 42.86 1.00 42.86 42.86 NIL B-STRSTEELL Struct StI Workers 2.00 HR 42.36 2.00 84.72 84.72 NIL B-STRSTEELA Struct StI Workers 1.00 HR 36.21 1.00 36.21 36.21 TOTAL 4.00 163.80 1.72 7.82 171.62 SlUSH PROD 100% CREW HOURS 11 NIL C75PH004 E Crane,hyd self 22 Ton SmalL TooIs 1.00 HR 39.84 1.45 1.00 1.55 39.84 2.25 39.84 2.25 NIL XHIXX020 E 1.55 OR NIL B-STRSTEELF Struct StI Workers 1.00 HR 42.86 1.00 42.86 42.86 NIL B-STRSTEELL Struct Stl Workers 2.00 HR 42.36 2.00 84.72 84.72 NIL B-EOOPRCRNL Eq Oper. Crane/Shovl 1.00 HR 39.36 1.00 39.36 39.36 NIL B-STRSTEELA Struct StI Workers 2.00 HR 36.21 2.00 72.43 72.43 TOTAL 6.00 239.37 2.55 42.09 281.46 ULABA 1 LABORER .25 FOREMAN SML TOOLS PROD - 1002 CREW HOURS 6 NIL XMIXX020 E Small Tools 0.13 HR 1.45 0.13 0.19 0.19 NIL B-LABORER F Laborer/Helper 0.25 HR 30.46 0.25 7.62 7.62 NIL B-LABORER L Laborer/Helper 1.00 HR 29.96 1.00 29.96 29.96 TOTAL 1.25 . 37.58 0.13 0.19 37.77 ULABB 2 LABORERS. .5 FOREMAN SNL TOOLS PROD • 1002 CREW HOURS = 127 NIL XNIXX020 E Small Tools 0.27 HR 1.45 0.27 0.39 039 NIL B-LABORER F Laborer/Helper 0.50 HR 30.46 0.50 15.23 15.23 NIL B-LABORER L Laborer/Helper 2.00 HR 29.96 2.00 59.93 59.93 TOTAL 2.50 75.16 0.27 0.39 75.55 ULABK PROD 5 1002 CREW HOURS s 333 NIL XHIXX020 E Small Tools 0.47 HR 1.45 0.47 0.68 0.68- NIL T50GM0I2 E Trk1 Hwy 2ax 260000 0.20 HR 12.88 0.20 2.58 258 NIL T40XX005 E Trk Opt. OIX9.51 0.20 HR 18.02 0.20 3.60 3.60 NIL B-LABORER F Laborer/Helper 1.00 HR 30.46 1.00 30.46 3046 NIL B-LABORER L Laborer/Helper 2.00 HR 29.96 2.00 S9.93 59.93 TOTAL 3.00 90.39 0.87 6.86 97.25 LABOR 10 • JAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Curr.-'y in DOLLARS CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7936 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TINE 09:60:3e ff. Date 08/01/95 - PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate BACKUP PAGE CREW BACKUP ** LABOR EQUIP TOTAL............................................. SRC ITEM ID DESCRIPTION . NO. U4 RATE HOURS COST HOURS COST COST IJOENC 22 T CRANE, 4 LORS, FOREMAN, SM TOOLS EQ OPER PROD a 100% CREW HOURS = 11 NIL C75PH004 E Crane,hyd,se(f 22 Ton 100 HR 39.84 . 1.00 39.84 39.84 NIL XMIXX020 E Small Toots 0.60 HR 1.45 . 0.60 0.87 0.87 NIL B:LABORER F Laborer/Helper 1.00 HR 30.46 1.00 30.46. . 30.46 NIL B-LABORER LLaborer/Hetper. .4.00 HR 29.96 4.00 119.85 . 119.85 NIL B-EQOPRCRNL Eq Oper, Crane/Shovt 1.00 HR 39.36 1.00 39.36 39.36 TOTAL 6.00 189.67 1.60 40.71 .230.39 XXQIA PROD 100% CREW HOURS = 1418 NIL L5OCS002 E Ldr1 w/Bh,wh Ldr/8hoe 1.0 Cy F 1.00 HR 13.27 1.00 13.27 13.27 NIL X-EOOPRLT L Outside Equip. Oper Light . 1.00 HR 38.39 1.00 38.39 38.39 TOTAL . . 1.00 38.39 1.00 13.27 51.66 XXQME . PROD • 1001 .- CREW HOURS •84 NIL T15CA007 E Dozer,cwtr Tractor P.S. 1.00 HR 38.35 1.00 38.35 38.35 NIL T1OCAO1O E Trac Blade/Plate Angle Blade H Outside Equip. Op. Medlun . 1.00 HR 4.40 1.00 40.12 1.00 4.40 4.40 40.12 NIL X-EOOPRMEDL 1.00 HR 40.12 . TOTAL 1.00 40.12 2.00 42.16 82.87 LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A . . Currency in DOLLARS . . . . . CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG79B Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:3e ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLSDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate BACKUP PAGE 5 ** LABOR BACKUP *** TOTAL ............................................. SRC LABOR ID DESCRIPTION BASE OVERTH TXS/INS FRNG TRVL RATE UON UPDATE DEFAULT HOURS NIL B-CARPNTER Carpenters 23.80 0.0% 39.8% 5.10 0.00 38.38 HR 01/05/94 19.84 11252 NIL B-CEMTFINR Cement Finishers 19.96 0.0% 24.9%. 9.50 0.00 34.43.HR 01105/94 13.98 1163 NIL B-EOOPRCRN Eq Oper, Crane/Shovi (GROUP 8) 23.58 0.0% 26.6% 9.50 0.00 39.36 HR 01/05/94 21.20 4453 NIL B-EQOPRNED Eq Oper, Medium (GROUP 17) . 24.18 0.0% 26.6% 9.50 0.00 40.12 HR 01/05/94 17.15 711 NIL BEQOPROIL Eq Oper, Oilers (GROUP 2) 22.53 0.0% 26.6% 9.50 0.00 38.03 HR 01/05/94 11.00 2217 NIL BPILEDRVR Pile Drivers 23.93 0.0% 48.6% 5.10 0.00 40.66 HR 01/05/94 23.05 11074 NIL BPLUMBER Plumbers 27.96 0.0% 28.7% 7.54 0.00 43.52-HR 01/05/94 23.92 12 NIL B-RODHAM Roónen (reinforcing) 20.88 0.0% 37.3% 11.62 0.00 40.29 HR 01/05/94 17.95 .878 NIL B-STRSTEEL Struct StI Workers 20.88 0.0% 47.2% 11.62 0.00 42.36 HR 01/05/94 24.06 121 NIL X-EQOPRHVY Outside Equip. Op. Heavy -GRP 24 25.08 0.0% 26.6% 9.50 0.00 41.26 HR 01/05/94 19.19 537 NIL X-EQOPRLT Outside Equip. Oper Light -GRP3 22.82 0.0% 26.6% 9.50 0.00 38.39 HR 01/05/96 17.05 1618 NIL X-EOOPRMED Outside Equip. Op. Medium GRP 17 24.18 0.0% 26.6% 9.50 0.00 40.12 HR 01/05/94 17.43 84 NIL X-EOOPROIL Outside Oiler (GROUP 2) 22.53 0.0% 26.6% 9.50 0.00 .38.03 HR 01/05/94 13.49 537 NIL X-LABORER Outside Laborer (Semi-Skilled) 16.61 0.0% 26.1% 0.00 0.00 20.95 HR .01/05/94 11.84 537 LABOR In. • 'IAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Cur" in DOLLARS CREW ID: 94COeT "PB ID: RG7936 Non 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:38 Eff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate BACKUP PAGE 6 ** EQUIPMENT BACKUP • ........................................................ ** TOTAL ** SRC ID.NO. EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION DEPR FCCM FUEL FOG TR UR TR REP EQ REP TOTAL RATE HOURS NIL 825E5038 BKT,CLAN, 8.75CY, HvYoTY/so NOSE 6.66 1.67 6.70 15.03 HR 537 NIL C65MSOOI CONC VIBRATOR. 2.511D, AIR 0.19 0.02 0.06 0.69 0.97 HR 1380 UPS C75PH004 CRANE,HYD,S/P,RT64U0 22T/720BOOM 12.25 4.30 5.51 1.85 1.34 0.22 14.37 39.84 HR 22 NIL C85AM012 CR,ME,CWLR,LIFTING,25T/28O'BOOM 47.32 22.41 6.20 1.67 65.61 143.21 HR 537 UPS L5OCSOO2 LDR,BH,WH, 1.00CY FE BKT, 24"DIP 3.72 1.17 2.29 0.82 0.50 0.08 4.69 13.27 HR 1418 UPS P30MK003 PILE HANMER,VIB,116T FORCE DRIVE 21.11 - 4.92 12.73 4.56 37.81 81.13 HR 2215 UPS P55GR004 . PUMP,SUBH, 61-D,I950GPM/40'HD, EL 1.04 0.31 5.94 2.99 0.98 11.27 HR I UPS T1OCAO1O BLADE, ANGLE, HYOR (FOR D6 1.75 0.48 . 0.08 2.09 4.40 HR 84 NIL TI5CAOO7 DOZER,CWLR, D-SH,LGP (ADD BLADE) 9.80 2.96 4.92 1.99 •. . 18.68 38.35 HR 84 NIL 140XX005 HYDR CRANE 16.5T,IJ/ 1181800Il 7.32 1.65 0.35 . 8.70 18.02 HR 67. UPS T50GM012 TRK,HWY, 24,000 GVU, 4X2, 2 AXLE 2.79 0.73 4.52 1.32 A 0.51 0.09 2.93 12.88 HR 67 UPS 760KI002 TRK,UTR,OF-HY, 6000GAL,V/CAT621E 19.07 6.80 12.00 4.30 5.97 1.00 20.17 69.32 HR I UPS W35XX002 WELDER 200 AMP, U/i AXLE TRLR 0.49 0.14 6.31 1.16 0.03 0.01 0.64 6.78 HR 17 UPS XMIXXOIO MISC. POWER TOOLS 2.00 0.70 0.55 0.25 . 2.40 5.90 HR 864 UPS XMIXX020 SMALL TOOLS 0.46 0.20 0.15 0.06 .0.58 . 1.45 HR 6700 LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A : Currency In DOLLARS . CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: R0793B Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:60:38 Eff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California ERROR REPORT Feasibility Estimate ERROR PAGE 1 No. errors detected... * * e END OF ERROR REPORT * * • LABOR ID: LA1AN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currenru in DOLLARS : CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7938 Hon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:38 Eff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PACE 13 PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - Project ** QUANTITY UCH NANHRS LABOR EQUIPHNT MATERIAL TOTAL COST UNIT COST 01 Plan.1 (T-Groin wl Beachfill) 4,970 169,578 149.125 1,615,604 1,934,307 02 Plan 2 (SeawalLs Alternative) 21271 774,189 220,251 1,683,644 2,928.083 03 Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) 1.00 JOB 17,365 630:753 203,885 1,361,008 2,645,645 2445645 TOTAL Carlsbad Shore Protection 1.00 FA 43,606 1,574,519 573,261 4,660,256 7,308,036 7308036 FIELD OFFICEOVERHEAD 124,891 SUBTOTAL 7,432 29? ,927 HOME OFC • 317 SUBTOTAL • • 7,730,244 PROFIT • 634.195 SUBTOTAL • .• 8,364,439 • BOND • 70.688 TOTAL INCL INDERECTS 8,435,127 ENGINEERING I DESIGN • • • - 843,513 SUBTOTAL • • • 9,278,640 SUPERVISION INSPECTION (S & A) • • • - SUBTOTAL 9,869,099 CONTINGN • • • • TOTAL INCL OWNER COSTS • 12,336,374 LABOR ID: LAJANS EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency in DOLLARS: • CREW ID: 94COST UPBID: R07938 Hon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:403E ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 14 PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - Feature • .QUANTITY UON MANHRS LABOR EOUIPMNT MATERIAL TOTAL COST UNIT COST 01 Plan I (T-Groin WI Beachfi(l) 01.01 Mobilization/Demobilization 1.00 JOB 0 0 50,000 0 50.000 50000.0e 01.02 350 Feet Groin 350.00 LF 4.506 154.075 74.428 669,790 698,293 1995.12 01.03 200 Feet T-Ends 200.00 LF 464 15,503 24,697 213.776 253,977 1269.8p 01.04 Beachf ill 346000.00 CT 0 0 0 932,037 932,037 2.6c TOTAL Plan I (T-Groin w/ Beachfiil) 4,970 169.578 149,125 1,615,604 1,934,307 02 Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) 02.01 Mobilization/Demobilization 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 02.02 Permanent Project Signs 2.00 EA 0 0 0 1,078 1,078 538.7! 02.03 Sheet Pile Watt-North 1504.00 LF 7,899 302,465 121,196 633.053 1,056,693 422.0( 02.04 Concrete Cap-North Watt 2016.00 CT 7,927 277,284 11,558 208,701 497,543 .266.8( 02;05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 2.00 EA 31 1,067 159 484 1.709 854.6; 02.06 Beach Access Rasps/Pads 3.00 EA 298 10,393 505 11,681 22,579 7526.41 02.07 Sidewalk-North Watt - 8260.00 SF 318 10,864 68 7,631 18,364 2.2; 02.08 Toe Protection-North Wall 1.00 JOB 322 9,925 1,693 236,852 246,469 266469.2 02.09 North Revetment 1.00 JOB 184 5,818 1,512 258,934 516,264 516263.7; 02.10 Sheet Pile Walt-South Wall 240.00 LF 759 29.054 11.643 56,969 97,665 606.9' 02.11 Sheet Pile Watt-South Wall Exten 368.00 LF 1,161 44,457 17,815 87,169 149,440 406.0 02.12 Concrete Cap-South Wall 206.00 CT 805 28,184 1,180 21.222 50,586 265.5 02.13 Concrete Cap-South Wall Extenslo 290.00 CT 1.141 39.916 1,663 30,043 71,623 246.9; 02.14 Anodized Aluminum Handrail 368.00 LF . 67 . 2,740 131 13,878 16,749 45.5 02.15 Concrete Cap-Raised Decorative 2118.00 LF 0 0 0 9,129 9,129 4.3 02.16 Sidewalk-South Wail 3400.00 SF 131 4,471 28 3,058 7,557 2.2 02.17 Concrete Driveway Station 51465 1.00 JOB 56 .1 859 159 3,253 5,270 5270.1( 02.18 Toe Protection-South Wall 1.00 JOB 36 1,037 180 28,665 29,882 29882.01 02.19 Toe Protection-South Wall Extens 1.00 JOB 62 1,916 314 . 48,261 50,492 50491.5' 02.20 South Access Rasp Station 51465 . 1.00 JOB 0 0 0 3,233 . 3,233 3232.5( 02.21 Concrete Spiral Rasps 2.00 EA 0 . 0 0 5,926 5,926 2963.1' 02.22 Circular Concrete Benches 2.00 EA 4 160 28 1.795 1,983 991.5! 02.23 Circular Tree Planters WI Bench 2.00 EA 15 559 85 3,233 .3,876 1938.01 02.24 Kidney Shaped Tree Planters 2.00 EA 12 479 84 539 1,102 550.8: 02.25 Concrete Piers . 6.00 EA 0 0 0 876 876 146.0' 02.26 Palm Trees . 6.00 EA 32 1,012 217 2,586 3,815 953.61 02.27 Concrete Trash Containers 3.00 EA 5 180 32 1,131 1,342 447.4' 02.28 Drinking Fountains 3.00 EA 10 370 4 6,465 6,838 2279.41 TOTAL Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) . 21,271 774,189 220,251 1,683,644 2,928,083 03 Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) 03.01 Mobilization/Demobilization 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 0302 Permanent Project Signs 2.00 EA 0 0 0 1,078 1.078 538.7 03.03 Sheet Pile Well-North 2504.00 LF 7,899 302,445 121,196 633,053 1,056,693 422.0' 03.04 Concrete Cap-North Wall 2016.00 CT 7,927 277,284 11,558 208,701 497,543 246.8' LABOR ID: • 'IAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Curr.--v in DOLLARS: CREW ID: 94COST UPB ID: RG793B Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corpé of Engineers TIME 09:40:31 Iff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Share Protection - Son Diego Coixity, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE V PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY • Feature QUANTITY UGH HANHRS LABOR -EQUIPMNT MATERIAL TOTAL COST UNIT COB: 03.05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 2.00 LA 31 1,067 159 484 1,709 854.6; 03.06 Beach Access Rasps/Pads 3.00 EA 298 10,393 505 11,681 22,579 7526.41 03.07 Sidewalk-North Wall 8260.00 SF 318 10,864 68 7,631 18,366 .2.2 03.08 1500 Lb Toe Rock 7500.00 TON 300 10,024 15,968 177,788 203.779 27.1; 03.09 Core Stone 1120.00 TON - 34 1,123 1,788 21,722 24,633 21.9c • 03.10 Fitter Cloth 7200.00 SY 298 8,977 682 14,352 24,011 3.3 . 03.11 North Revetment 1.00 JOB. 184 5,818 1,512 258,934 516,264 516263.7; . 03.20 South Access Rasp Station 51.65 1.00 JOB 0. 0 0 3,233 . 3,233 3232.51 03.21 Concrete Spiral Rasps 2.00 LA 0 .0 0 5,926 5,926 2963.1: - 03.22 Circular Concrete Benches 2.00 LA .4 160 28 1,795 1,983 991.5 03.23 Circular Tree Planters w/ Bench 2.00 LA 15 559 85 3,233 . 3,876 1938.01 03.24 Kidney Shaped Tree Planters 2.00 LA 12 479 84 539 1,102 .550.8: 03.25 Concrete Piers 6.00 (A - 0 0 0 . 876 876 146.0' 03.26 Palm Trees . 4.00 LA 32 . 1012 217 2,586 3,815 953.61 03.27 Concrete Trash Containers 3.00 LA 5 180 32 1,131 1,342 447.4' 03.28 Drinking Fountains - 3.00 LA 10 -370 4 6,465 6.838 2279.41 TOTAL Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) 1.00 JOB 17:365 630,753 203,885 1,361,008 2,445,665 244566' TOTAL Carlsbad Shore Protection 1.00 LA 43,606 1.574,519 573,261 4,660,256 7.308,036 7308031 FIELD OFFICE OVERHEAD 124,891 SUBTOTAL 7,432.927 HONE OFC - . 297,317 SUBTOTAL -. - 7,730,244 -PROFIT 634,195 SUBTOTAL 8,364,439 BOND 70,688 TOTAL INCL INDIRECTS • . . 8,435,127 ENGINEERING & DESIGN • • . . • . 843,513 SUBTOTAL 9,278,640 SUPERVISION INSPECTION (S & A) 590,459 SUBTOTAL ' 9,869,099 CONTINGN • 2467,275 TOTAL INCL OWNER COSTS • 12,336,374 LABOR ID: LAJANS EQUIP ID: NAT93A . . Currency in DOLLARS . CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7938 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:3e ff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBD1: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County. California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE I ** PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY SubFeatr QUANTITY UGH MANHRS LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL TOTAL COST UNIT COSI 01 Plan I (T-Groin WI Beachfill) 01.01 Mobilization/Demobilization TOTAL. MobilizationlDemobilization, 01.02 350 Feet Groin 01.02.01 A-12 Stone 01.02.02 A-i Stone 01.02.03 8-1 Stone 01.02.04 Core Stone 0h02.05 Excavation 01.02.06 Grout TOTAL 350 Feet Groin 01.03 200 Feet T-Ends 01.03.01 A-12 Stone 01.03.02 B-I Stone 01.03.03 Core Stone TOTAL 200 Feet T-Ends 01.04 Beachfill TOTAL Plan I (T-Groin WI Beachf ill) 02 Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) 02.01 Mobilization/Demobilization 02.02 Permanent Project Signs 02.03 Sheet Pile Wall-North 02.04 Concrete Cap-North Vail 02.05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 02.06 Beach Access Reaps/Pads 02.07 Sidewalk-North Wall 02.08 Toe Protection-North Vail 02.08.01 1500 Lbs Toe Rock 02.08.02. Quarry Run Rock 02.08.03 Filter Cloth TOTAL Toe Protection-North Wall 1.00 JOB 0 0 50,000 1 0 50.000 50000.0( .1,00 JOB 0 . 0 50,000 0 50,000 50000.0( 2800.00 TON 210 7,017 11,178 66,374 84,568 30.2( 2800.00 TON 210 7,017 11,178 66,374 84,568 30.2( 5600.00 TOM 226 7,484 11,923 132,748 152.155 27.1; 5600.00 TON 168 5,613 8,942 108,612 123.167 21.9c 10000.00 CY 1.418 54.460 18,818 0 73,278 7.3 1.00 JOB 2,276 72,484 12,390 95,682 180,555 180555.21 350.00 LF 4,506 154,075 74,428 469,790 698,293 1995.1; 3200.00 TON 240 8,019 12,775 75,856 96,649 30.2( 3200.00 TON 128 4,277 6,813 75,856 86,946 27.1 3200.00 TOM • 96 3,208 5,110 62,064 70.381 21.9S 200.00 LF 464 15,503 • 24,697 213,776 253,977 1269.81 346000.00 CY 0 • 0 0 932,037 932,037 2.6c 4,970 169,578 149,125 1,615,604 1,934,307 0 0 50,000 0. 50,000 2.00 LA 0 0 0 1,078 1,078 538..7 2504.00 LF 7,899 302,445 121.196 633,053 1,056,693 422.0( 2016.00 CY 7,927 277,284 11,558 208,701 497,543 266.8( 2.00 EA 31 1,067 159 486 . 1,709 854.6 3.00 LA . 298 10,393 505 .11,681 22,579 7526.41 8260.00 SF 318 10,864 68 7,431 18,364 • 2.2 7500.00 TON 21 836 891 191,950 195,677 26.0' 70000 CY 3 112 120 26,550 26,782 38.2 7200.00 ST 298 8,977 682 14,352 24,011 3.3 1.00 JOB 322 9,925 1,693 234,852 246,469 246469.21 LABOR fl 'JAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A • . Curr--v in DOLLARS • • CREW ID: 94C0VT 'PB ID: RG7938 Mon 18 Sep 1995 . . . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:38 Iff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County. California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 17 ** PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - SubFeatr ** QUANTITY UOM MANHRS LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL TOTAL. COST UNIT COST 02.09 Worth Revetment 02.09.01 Site Preparation 1.00 JOB 0 0 0 0 250.000 250000.00 02.09.02 3 Ton Armor Rock 5900.00 TON IT 657 701 152.574 153.932 26.09 02.09.03 600 Lbs Underlayer Rock 2500.00 TON 7 279 297 64,650 65.226 26.09 02.09.04 Quarry Run Rock 900.00 CY 4 144 154 34,135 34,434 38.26 02.09.05 Filter Cloth 3800.00 ST 157 4,738 360 7,575 12,673 3.33 TOTAL North Revetment . 1.00 JOB 184 5,818 1,512 258,934 516,264 516263.77 02.10 Sheet Pile Wall-South Wall 240.00 LF 759 29,054 11.643 56,969 97,665 406.9 02.11 Sheet Pile Wall-South Wall Exten 368.00 LF 1,161 44,457 17.815 87,169 149,440 406.0c 02.12 Concrete Cap-South Wall 206.00 CY 805 28,184 1,180 21,222 50,586 245.5 02.13 Concrete Cap-South Wall Extensio 290.00 CY 1,141 39,916 1,663 30,043 71.623 246.9 02.14 Anodized Aluminum Handrail . . 368.00 LF 67 2,740 131 13,878 . .16,749 45.51 02.15 Concrete Cap-Raised Decorative . 1118.00 LF 0 0 0 9.129 9.129 4.31 02.16 Sidewalk-South Wall 3400.00 SF 131 4,471 28 3,058 7,557 2.2 02.17 Concrete Driveway Station 51+65 1.00 JOB 56 1,859 159 3,253 5.270 5270.1( 02.18 Toe Protection-South Wall .02.18.01 1500 Lbs Toe Rock 800.00 TON. 2 . 89 95 24,136 24,320 30.6( 02.18 02 Quarry Rim Rock 80.00 CT 0 13 14 3,036 3.061 38.21 02.18.03 Filter Cloth 750.00 ST 31 935 71 1,495 2.501 3.3? TOTAL Toe ProtectionSouth Wall 1.00 JOB 34 1.037 180 28,665 29,882 29882.01 02.19 Toe Protection-South Wall.Extens 02.19.01 1500 Lbs Toe Rock 1350.00 TON 4 150 160 40,730 41.040 30.6( 02.19 02 Quarry Rim Rock .125.00 CT 1 20 21 4.741 4,782 38.21 02.19.03 Filter Cloth 1400.00 ST 58 1,746 133 2,791 4,669 3.3? TOTAL Toe Protection-South Wall Extens 1.00 JOB 62 1,916 314 48,261 50,492 . 50691.5' 0220 South Access Rasp Station 51465 1.00 .ioa 0 0 0 3,233 3.233 3232.5' 02.21 Concrete Spiral Rasps . 2.00 LA 0 0 0 5,926 5.926 2963.1: 02.22 Circular Concrete Benches 2.00 LA 4 160 28 1,795 1,983 991.5 02.23 Circular Tree Planters WI Bench 2.00 LA 15 559 . 85 3,233 3.876 1938.0' 02.24 Kidney Shaped Tree Planters 2.00 EA. 12 . 479 84 539 1,102 550.8: 02.25 Concrete Piers 6.00 LA 0 0 0 876 876 146.0' 02.26 .Palm Trees 4.00 LA 32 1,012 217 2,586 3,815 953.6' 02.27 Concrete Trash Containers 3.00 LA 5 180 32 1,131 1,342 667.4' 02.28 Drinking Fountains . 3.00 LA 10 370 4 6,465 6,838 2279.4' TOTAL Plan 2 (Seawalls Alternative) • . . 21,271 774,189 220,251 1,683,644 2,928,083 03 Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7938 Mon 18 Sep 1995 ff. Date 08/01/95 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate ** PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY - SubFeatr • TIME 09:40:31 SUMMARY PAGE 11 QUANTITY UGH HANHRS LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL TOTAL COST UNIT COS, 03.01 Mobilization/Demobilization 0 0 50,000 0. 50,000 03.02 Permanent Project Signs . 2.00 EA 0 0 0 1,078 1,078 538.7! 03.03 Sheet Pile Wall-North 2504.00 LF 7.899 302,445 121,196 633,053 1,056,693 422.01 03.04 Concrete Cap-North Wall 2016.00 CT 7,927 277,284 11.558 208,701 497,543 246.81 03.05 Beach Access Stairs/Pads 2.00 EA 31 1,067 159 484 1,709 854;6 03.06 Beach Access Romps/Pads 3.00 EA 298 10,393 505 11,681 22.579 7526.41 03.07 Sidewalk-North Wall 8260.00 SF 318 10.864 68 7,431 18,364 2.2; 03.08 1500 Lb Toe Rock 7500.00 TON 300 10,024 15,968 177,788 203,779 27.1; 03.09 Core Stone 1120.00 TON 34 1,123 1,788 21,722 24,633 21.9 03.10 Filter Cloth 7200.00 ST 298 8,977 682 14.352 24,011 3.3: 03.11 North Revetment 03.11.01 Site Preparation 1.00 JOB 0 0 0 0 250.000 250000.01 03.11.02 3 Ton Armor Rock . 5900.00 TON 17 657 701 152.574 153,932 03.11.03 600 Lbs Underlayer Rock '2500.00 TON 7 279 297 64,650 65.226 26.0' 03.11.04 Quarry Run Rock 900.00 CT 6 144 154 36,135 34,434 38.2( 03.11.05 Filter Cloth 3800.00 ST 157 4,738 360 7,575 12,673 3.3: TOTAL North Revetment . 1.00 JOB 184 5.818 1,512 258,934 516,264516263.7; 03.20 South Access Reap Station 51.65 1.00 JOB 0 0 0 3.233 3.233 3232.51 03.21 Concrete Spiral Rasps 2.00 EA 0 0 0 5.926 . 5,926 2963.1: 03.22 Circular-Concrete Benches . 2.00 EA 4 .160 28 1,795 1.983 991.51 03.23 Circular Tree Planters w/ Bench 2.00 EA 15 559 85 3,233 3,876 1938.0' 03.24 Kidney Shaped Tree Planters 2.00 EA 12 479 84 539 1,102 550.8 03.25 Concrete Piers . . . 6.00 EA 0 0 0 876 876 146.0' 03.26 Palm Trees . 4.00 EA 32 1,012 . 217 2,586 3,815 953.61 03.27 Concrete Trash Containers 3.00 EA . 5 180 32 1,131 1,342 447•41 03.28 Drinking Fountains 3.00 EA 10 370 4 6,465 6.838 2279.41 TOTAL Plan 3 (Modified Seawalls Alt) 1.00 JOB 17,365 630,753 203,885 1,361,008 2,465•645 244564' TOTAL Carlsbad Shore Protection 1.00 EA 43,606 1,574,519 573,261 4,660,256 . 7,308,036 7308031 FIELD OFFICE OVERHEAD . . 124,891 SUBTOTAL . • 7,432,927 HONE OFC . • 297,317 SUBTOTAL - 7,730,244 PROFIT 634,195 SUBTOTAL . - 8,364.439 BOND 70,688 TOTAL INCL INDIRECTS 8,435,127 ENGINEERING.& DESIGN • 843,513 • SUBTOTAL • - 9,278640 SUPERVISION INSPECTION (S & A) • . 590,459 LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A . . Currency in DOLLARS: • CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: R07938 Hon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:31 çff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego Coti-ity, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE It ** PROJECT DIRECT SUMMARY SubFeatr QUANTITY UGH MANHRS LABOR EOUIPNNT MATERIAL TOTAL COST UNIT COS; SUBTOTAL 9,869,099 ONTINGN _.!::! TOTAL INCL OWNER COSTS 12,336,374 LABOR 'ID: ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency in DOLLARS: CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: RG7935 Hon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:31 ff. Dote 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 21 ** CONTRACTOR DIRECT SUMMARY •* QUANTITY UCH MANHRS LABOR EQUIPMNT MATERIAL TOTAL COS, PH Prime Contractor 65500.00 TON 43,520 1,571,040 573,122 4,633,447 7,277,611 ss structural Steel 1.00 JOB 67 2,740 131 13,878 16,76 P1 Plumbing Contractor 1.00 JOB 19 739 8 12,930 13,67; U LABOR in. IAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Cu"- - in DOLLARS CREW ID: 94CC-- 'IPB ID: RG7939 Mon 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TIME 09:40:3 Eff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 21 - ** CONTRACTOR INDIRECT SUMMARY DIRECT OVERHEAD HONE OFC PROFIT BOND TOTAL COST UNIT COST PM Prime contraätor 7,277,610 121,848 295,978 631,411 70.125 8,396,972 128.2C SS Structural Steel - -• 16.749 1.675 737 1,533 310 21,004 21004.00 P1 Plumbing Contractor - 13,677 1,368 602 1,252 253 17,151 17151.4( LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency In DOLLARS : CREW ID: 94COST UPB ID: RG7938 Non 18 Sep 1995 U.S. Army Corps of Enginjérs - TIME 09:40:38 Eff. Date 08/01/95 PROJECT CRLBDI: Carlsbad Shore Protection - San Diego County, California Feasibility Estimate SUMMARY PAGE 22 LABOR COST TO PRIME SUMMARY •* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATABASE •• ...... TO PRIME SRC LABOR ID DESCRIPTION TYPE HOURS RATE TOTAL RATE TOTAL NIL B-CARPNTER Carpenters Foreman 2727.90 38.88 106053.06 38.88 106053.06 0 Laborer 5824.68 38.38 223534.95 38.38 223534.95 Apprentice 2699.90 30.70 82891.83 31.72 85645.73 NIL B-CEMTFINR Cement Finishers Foreman 285.75 34.93 9980.71 36.93 9980.71 Laborer 876.89 36.43 30189.45 36.43 30189.45 Mu B-EOOPRCRN Eq Opera Crane/Shovl (GROUP 8) Laborer 4653.07 39.36 175259.58 39.36 175259.58 NIL B-EOOPRMED Eq Oper. Medium (GROUP .17) Foreman 9.85 40.62 400.28 40.62 400.28 Laborer 700.85 40.12 28115.75 40.12 28115.75 NIL B-EOOPROIL Eq Oper, Oilers (GROUP 2) Laborer 2217.29 38.03 84317.97 38.03 84317.97 NIL B-LABORER Laborer (Semi-Skilled) (GROUP 1) Foreman 1098.72 30.46 33470.83 30.46 33470.83 Laborer 7515.89 29.96 22520238 29.96 225202.38 NIL B-PILEDRVR Pit' Drivers Foreman 2214.86 41.16 91152.89 41.16 91152.89 Laborer 4429.71 40.66 180090.92 . 40.66 180090.92 Apprentice 4429.71. 32.52 14407274 33.54 148591.04 NIL, B-PLUMBER Plumbers ' Foreman 3.87 44.02 170.38 44.02 170.38 Laborer 7.74 43.52 336.90 43.52 . 336.90 NIL B-RODNAN Rodnen (reinforcing) Foreman ' 217.12 40.79 8855.93 ' 40.79 8855.93 Laborer 660.93 40.29 26627.60 40.29 2662760 NIL B-STRSTEEL Struct StI Workers Foreman 27.56 42.86 1181.29 42.86 1181.29 Laborer . 55.12 42.36 2335.02 42.36 2335.02 Apprentice 38.39 33.89 1301.14 36.21 1390.37 NIL X-EOOPRHVY Outside Equip. Op. Heavy -GRP 24 Laborer 536.53 41.26 22135.38 41.26 22135.38 NIL X-EOOPRLT Outside Equip. Oper Light -GRP 3 Laborer 1418.44 38.39 54460.57 38.39 54460.57 NIL X-EOOPRNED Outside Equip. Op. Nediun GRP 17 Laborer 84.29 40.12 3381.53 40.i2 3381.53 NIL X-EOOPROIL Outside Oiler (GROUP 2) Laborer 536.53 38.03 20403.02 38.03 20403.02 NIL X-LABORER Outside Laborer (Semi-Skilled) Laborer 536.53 . 20.95 11242.25 20.95 11242.25 Total . 43608.15 1574525.80 LABOR ID: LAJAN5 EQUIP ID: NAT93A Currency in DOLLARS CREW ID: 94COST UPS ID: 1G7938 US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles Distria FINAL REPORT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SECTION 103 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Appendix E Real Estate Appendix U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 April 1996 REAL ESTATE PLAN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION 1. The City of Carlsbad is situated in the northwestern part of San Diego County, approximately twenty seven miles south of the San Diego-Riverside County Line. In that location, it fronts on to the Pacific Ocean and is adjacent to the City of Oceanside, the division between the two cities being the Buena Vista Lagoon. The subject area is located between the inlet and outlet jetties of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon which is only about two miles south of the previously mentioned Buena Vista Lagoon. The area which is a' long (3,500 feet +/-), and 250 feet .+/- at its narrowest point connects two sections of mainland. The east and west sides front on to Agua Hedionda and the Pacific Ocean respectively. Its.position on the ocean has resulted serious 'beach erosion which now threatens Carlsbad Boulevard (County Route 51) which runs along the strip. The subject itself includes the Boulevard and the area immediately adjacent to it. The subject area required for the project, shown on attached figure, is 3,100 feet long, and it is irregular in its width, which varies between 25 and 35 feet. There are also two irregularly shaped staging areas, encompassing about 60 feet by 110 feet and 70 by 110 feet totalling about 0.3 acres. These are positioned on either side of a discharge channel at the southern end of the project. PURPOSE The purpose of the project is to protect Carlsbad Boulevard as well as the adjacent beaches from further erosion and storm damage. The beaches presently offer many recreational and commercial activities. THE ESTATES The real estate required for the. project is held by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company and the State of California. These owners have granted The City of Carlsbad the easement rights that would allow the construction and maintenance of the project as well as provide for the two, previously mentioned staging areas. Easement rights to use the land for the. project has already been granted by the fee owners as shown on attached documents, however, these rights are not expressed in any of the standard estates being used in the Corp's acquisition process. The need for a Borrow Easement has been eliminated since the contractor will be responsible for the purchase of the needed materials. RELOCATIONS (PL 91-646) None MINERALS, OIL AND GAS There are no mining or drilling operations within the subject area. HAZARDOUS TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE There is no known HTRW in the. subject area. CREDITING AND LAND COSTS Reference is made to "Policy Guidance Letter No. 11, Credit for Lands, Easements and Rights-of-Way (LER) at Shore Protection• Projects," dated, 13 October 1988. Paragraph 3 of this policy indicates "land needed for the placement of project features that prevent the loss of the land itself has no value for crediting purposes. Such land is lost in the absence of the project. Thus the erosion control project produces appreciated, rather than depreciated land values and there is no basis for crediting." According to the engineering analysis, the absence of the project would result in the loss of the land where the project is being placed as well as the staging areas resulting in a depreciation in value, however, the implementation of the project would preserve this land resulting in an appreciation of value. Based on this, there is no grounds for extending 'credit to the local sponsor for lands required for the project. 1 'a .5 . Figure 7.9a Plan 9 - A Seawall in Reach 3 - Schematic (Datum of bathymetry is MSL which is +2.75 feet MLLW) 136 LI CESPLRECE •(405) september 27, 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR CESPLPDCN, ATTN: ANDREW KADIB SUBJECT: Certification to Show that the Land Requirements for the Carlsbad Blvd. Protection Project Have All Beèn.Acquired. 1.. The project sponsor, the City of Carlsbad, has forwarded copies of easement rights and other agreements which would provide the real estate interests necessary for undertaking the Carlsbad Blvd. protection project. An additional set of these papers is enclosed. 2. Copiesof the Attorney's Certificate As To Authorization For Entry and an Authorization For Entry are being sent to the City for signing. When signed, they will provide the needed rights-of- way for the Government and its agents. 3. Should you have any questions regarding this, then please contact Mr. Martin Jacobsat Ext.5590. 3 Enc is• •ROBERT C06?LANGE 0 Consent Agreement (SDG&E Co.) • Acting chief, Real Estate Div Grant of Easement (SDG&E Co.) .3. Grant of Easement (State of CA) d Recording requested by San Diego Gas & Electric When Rcorced Mail To: City of Carlsbad City Clerks Office 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE March 3, 1992 Mr. John Cahill - City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92003 CON SENT AGREEMENT DearMr. Cahill: San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) hereby consents to the city of Carlsbad and its contractors use of three areas shown on exhibit attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. - Said area is on SDG&E's Encina property on both sides of carlsbad Blvd. This Consent is limited to the storing of construction materials and construction vehicles and equipment used in conjunction with the Carlsbad Blvd. Protection Project. -SDG&E's .consent_begins_with..ihe. City _ofCarlsbad's _awardoftheconstruction contract and terminates at City's acceptance of improvements and subsequent - - .SDG&E inspection and acceptance ot. three areas referenced herein. This Consent is giver subject to-the following standard terms and conditions: You agree that no hazardous materials are to be stored or handled on the three sites. You and your contractors agree to assume all risks of loss, damage, and injury to persons and property arising from your use of the property. You also-agree to indemnify, defend, and hold SDG&E harmless from any liability arising from your use of the property. Mr. .J'.hn Cahill January 21, 1992 Page 3. You and your contractors agree to comply with all appropriate statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations or public bodies having jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Consent. Should additional information on this matter be reauested, please contact John B. Burton at ,619) 696-2485. Thank you. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO. By John B. BLLn Property Management Representative ACCEPTED: CITY OF CARLSBAD, A Municipal Corporation ALETMA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk V -2- CAHIBCON.A21 CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER W 4111111RU WASUL11111 "i" S : wIII S S S somas S • S S 011111INIUM man S !'tsitm • S : — ,.T S S — IflIAll ' S S S .Ifl1lI S S — famvwl UIID VON"iir am aSi RPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of _E4 LI County of Oni24429 4 /Vbefore me. "M 16L..' C...- (name, title of olficer), personally aopeared )4 personally known to me — en -prei-d te inc en tha..baeie-et selisipete., ,.vijeiii..e to e the person( whose name.) isae subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged o me that F.eIe4iy executed the same in hislMs4*Oir author-Zed capacity4iaG. and that by hislhwtthosrsignatur*) on the in'trument the person(S), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(j) acted, executed the instrument. --. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN M. BABCOCK - . l U3LIC CALIFORNIA 1 PQ;cU'A OFFICE IN g !. c;EGo CC,UPITY _ __ 1993 nature I.- STATE OF CALIFORNiA ) .....-- )s.s., COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) On March 20, 1992 , before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Aletha L. Rautenkranz , known to me to be the City Clerk. of the City of Carlsbad, a Municipal Corporation o the State of California known to me to be the person who, executed the within instrument on behalf of said Municipal Corporation, and acknowledged to me that such City of Carlsbad, California, executed the -same.. WITNESS my hand the official seal. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-80 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH •THE 3 SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELEC'IC COMPANY REGARDING USE OF SDG&E PROPERTY FOR TI FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 4 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SHt PROTECTION PROJECT 5 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has determined it 6 necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to approve an agreement with the 7 San Diego Gas and Electric Company regarding use of SDG&E property to facilita'te 8 the future construction of the Carlsbad Boulevard Shore Protection Project. 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, 1OH Cal'fornia, as follows: 11 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 12 2. That an agreement with the-San Diego (as. and Electric Company 1311 regarding the use of SDG&E property .-'or the City of Carlsbad's future 14 construction of the Carlsbad Boulevard Shore Protection Project is hereby 15 approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute said 16 Agreement. Following execution of said agreement, the City Clerk is authorized I 17 and directed to record said agreement. 18 3. The City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad is hereby authorized and 19 cupy of this reso it on-and--exeeut-edT.-rccorded agreement 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2]. .22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to the San Diego Gas. and Electric Company, attention Mr. John Burton, PO. BOx 1831, San Diego, California, 92112, and the Municipal Projects Department, for their records. . . . .... PASSED, APPROVED ANP ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 17th thy of March 1992 by the following vote, to wit: . .. AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kuichin, LarsOn, Stanton and Nygaard NOES: None . . . ABSENT: None . . . Iola r ATTEST: tlk ALETHA L. RAIJTENKRANZ EXHIBIT "A" - OQTh cSNtJL. 5EACH . I, .:. • ' • * I -- I.... ,.• .,?. •• .- Recording Requested '.. l 1950 City Cleric City of Carlsbad When Recorded City Clerk City oi Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92038 DOC fl 1991-051974 08-OCT-1991 08.59 All WTICIt. rrZS W DIEM cuirt uAJ'S OFFICE Ntff SPICE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE Tiaieq Tax SAN DiEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY GRANT OF F&EMENT SAN DIEGO GAS £ ELECTRIC COMPANY, a pwatk h.rsttler called Grvlor, for vahsta cc1eqatI0n grains to the CITY OF CARLSBAD. a rea I..Jter Gvax' an axsen*ci and right of Way .x SHORE PROTECTION purposes and incklareft Vangeo. 1vut41 org. wdai and across Grantor's laid. togeO*- with the light of ing and agaxs. to and along said easwre. 5stIed in Vm CRY of Carlsbad. Cnunty of San Diego. S. of Cali. descnbed as The por L* 'H' Of Rancho Agum Hediorda. a1d'mg to map Owed No. M. fec in the Office of the Ca.viy RI.,, d sad Cottsy d San Diego, November 16. t6, described in Paicals A C. and 0 as to., Pprt..i & CorTvneng at Corner Na I of said .Rancho Aqua Heda, as sl*n on Red of Surey Map Na l8 lied Apr* 30, 1948 ii Vm 016ce al said Cataly RiJ.r ther along the Nor$y his of said to 'H', Sough 78VO'15* East. SZO6 feet to a poll as the conl4ifine of Carlsbad Baisraid, 100 feet ii Wdth, (lormerfy U.S. Hwuay 101); thence along sad cgragrgine as shown on sad Rd of Survey Map Na 1006. Sci.Ci 36'50TIr E. Mai feet no Iwving sad aslailme Sough 53'W55' West. 50.00 feet to the SOilTvistedy his of said Carlsbad 8aiev*rd and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Uis. Socøi S7'5S West. 57.00 feet amtce Sough 3OWW East. 77.02 feet to 6is NoVUietletty lire of Pwcel I of ghe beda galled to the Sax. of Californiaper Deed recorded .Mmstsy 5, 10 at Rem glees Fle/Pagi No. 204009473 c4 Off Records of said Casey of San Diego: Vanop along said Naeet'erPy line: North S7TI9W C. 57.00 feet to a poll I4ig on the above mersioned Scutiie'estarty ivie Calisbed Bocievaist along said Sotm.ety Iris. North 36"SO'OS' W. 7702 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.. Parcal C Coiwneriong at Corner Na I of said Rare Aa Hedóft as shown as Record of &rvey Map No. 1606, Ned April 30, 1948 ii the Office of said Casey Rrdet along the Northerly hia of said Lot 'H', Sci,nzi 78'00'S East. SLOIS tee to a point on Vie onlafrie of Cattsbad &itiev.iisd, 100 feet in width. (Formerly U.S. Highway 101): thonce eking said cetlafris as stm on ad Raasd of Survey Map No I16 5ci4h 25•506' Eat" 6157.05 te to the begin 6 of a tangent 5.000.00 feet concave Souhwerty lsce Saslwastarfy along ad curve dvw,h a ceraal ae of 171010', a distances of I,047 feec Uierwsgerl to said ounos Socat. 24'3S East, 1.30076 feet ence ;awig sad centerline Saai GrM'Zr West. 50.00 feet to the Socmweny line of ad Cartabed Bo,ievard arid the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; lieri..e S-"xah 65*20W West, 1700 Ieee thence Sash 24"3935' East. 275.00 Ieee thence Norm 202' East, 17.00 leer to a pore he'e., designated as Pore 52 2 -- OFFICIAL RECORDS ANNEflE J. EVANS, SAN DIEGO - CSJ U. 9.' 9 Pb 1b I Ii!; lii i"fl 'Ii fl 32 ii ; Hi 1L •jfl H b " 9°• .r. • h Li d IIt i419 IjIi tI. 11 Il I U 1111111. "Ii LL U1 iQ!!1 ilij ft 116 lit !j 'io .i1I j'1 Ii 5 H h a r• T •h%Iu. lii 1iL..11_iIh li i t ii IL I II 1t H ill 11111 III H 1.952 • . 0 -n • The terms. cover-in and cc1I8 of this easern1 znd right 0 way shad be biting up and Inure, to the bene(a Grantor. Is a..'—'as a assigns. at Gramm. or I any other or Mired form a may C) assume. . . r • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said San Diego Gas 1 Deft Company has caused this Inwtaieri to be executed in Is corporate name by Is clrór Vwreitio dtly a&aIiozed vft '9 ' day of m __________• 19. C) 0 SAN DIEGO (&S & ELECTRIC COMPANY, C • awc.' • SO By z 0 Manager • M Land Savcm 0epa - D#7.wn . •• 913 Oecked La1 Sketch . • • m Date November 12. 1990 MOPAC Cort.No. Z AP. No. 210.010-34 . . . .0 co z C . .. .. 0 • . 0 • . 0 • . C : -0 . C in- -C • . . m 4 I: • . •. •.. 4 . . . :.' . —J - (.FFICAL RECORDS, ANNETIE J. EVANS, SAN DIEGO RECORDER/COUNTY CIERK E L" II!dic F'1 cn cn - ••: 'iIi:iIrIIti.I . .3 8 ai i 1954 ERT1FICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the inteest in real property conveyed by the grant deed o r e a s e m e n t . dated February 19. 1991 from San Diego Gas & Electric Copanv - to the City of Carlsbad. California, a p o l i t i c a l corporation and/or governmental ag e n c y , i s h e r e b y accepted by the undersigned officer o r a g e n t o n behalf of the City of Carlsbad, California, pursuant to authority conferred by R e s o l u t i o n N o . 91.71 of the City of Carlsbad, adopted o n M a r c h S . 199 , and she grantee consents to the reco r d a t i o n thcre.f by its duly authorized officer. / '.LETHA L RAtrrENKMNZ, City C4k DATED: October 1, 1991 ij 2 I m :2 Co —J 00% 'A iLVO. An zI.i! aa PCI? LOT N Ii'cNo I A GLJ1 /J~D kJAP ivo P41.C51 'A - , • 5LOi°E MA//VT5IVA/4JCE .45t7e,VP / Eq/Ic' Aoll ö D. e.:lee.. a iJ5 Z0S /7.00' 4 51 pzco I. S PARCEL. C S HORE. P/ 0 7 C 7/0/ti E.,q EiT5fJ7 fl.ec?u,,"ED 1B S.Iit*.N .ElIMLt%1b. • .-- —. :4 • o1 • II . • • J . •• 1/li . v.1. • .. . . • • .• •• IN Q, .> 1 • • U '3' • • . . • %000 ____ so 50 • 7. ... • • •.• • '(I_ •• •/••.• I. • • . 8'.00' QIP • ''' •si1XX" • • 'II•_j PA/CEL O • 5L OP5 P7,q//J7 AJ,4/slCff t7EA/7 1 Recording Requested By: 2 City Clerk City of Carlsbad 3 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 4 When Recorded Mail To: 5 City Clerk 6 City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 7 Carlsbad, CA 92008 .1036 Id 30—JUH-1.993 09:48 Afl OFFICIAL RECOROS SAH DIEGO COIJHTY RECORDER'S OFFICE ANHETTE EUAHSI COuNTY RECORDER FES: 0.00 8 Space above for Recorder's Use. 9 TR 90 lJl-E 10 11 12 CARLSBAD STATE BEACH AGREEMENT AND GRANT OF EASEMENT. 13 14 - THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 8th day of 15 APRIL , 19j, by and between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting 16 •by and through the Director of General Services, hereinafter calle d " S T A T E " , 17 and City of Carlsbad, hereinafter called "GRANTEE"; 18 19 20 21 That STATE, pursuant to the provisions of Section 14666 of the 22 Government Code-of the State of California, does hereby grant.-unto GRANTEE an 23 easement for the construction and maintenance of an approximately 24 2,600-foot-long seawall, together with sidewalks, stairways, ra m p s , b e n c h e s , 25 waste receptacles, and appurtenant facilities on that certain r e a l p r o p e r t y 26 adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard An the City of Carlsbad within C a r l s b a d S t a t e 27 Beach as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a pa r t h e r e o f . . APER 13 ,.v. 6.2l 34769 .1037 .1 1 This grant Is made and accepted upon the following terms and 2. conditions: 3 4 1. This grant is subject to all valid-and existing contracts, leases, 5 licenses, encumbrances., and claims of title which may affect said property and 6 the use of the word "grant" herein shall not be construed as a covenant 7 against the existence of any thereof. 8 2. GRANTEE waives all claims against State, Its officers, agents, and 10 employees, for loss or damage caused by, arising out of, or In any way 11 connected with the exercise of this Easenierit,' and Grantee agrees to save 12 harmless, Indemnify, and defend State, Its officers! agents, and employees, 13 • from any and a'l:l loss, damage, or liability which may be suffered or incurred 14 by State, its officers, agents, and emp}oyees caused by, arising out of, or In 15 any way connected with exercise by Grantee. of the rights hereby granted, 16 except those a#ising out of the sole negligence of State. 17 1'3 3. STATE expressly reserves the right to the use. of said property in 19. any manner, provided such use does not unreasonably interfere with the use of —2 the easement nerein granted. -- - 2]H 22 ATE expressly reserves the right to require GRANTEE, at the 23 expense of STATE to remove and relocate all Improvements placed by GRANTEE 24 1 within the easement upon determination by STATE that said improvements . 25 interfere wi'ththe future development of STATE's property. GRANTEE agrees 26 that within onel hundred, eighty (180) days after written notice from STATE of 27 : suchdetermination by STATE and demand for removal and relocation of said JRT PAPER FE OF CAL,FOaNI* 113 •PEv.e.72 2 • 1038 1 improvements. GRANTEE shall remove and relocate said Improvements to. a 2 feasible location on the property of the STATE, and STATE shall furnish 'I 3 GRANTEE with a good and sufficient similar easement for said improvements in 4 such new location, and GRANTEE thereupon shall reconvey to STATE the easement 5 herein granted. 6 7 5. Thi3 agreement and the rights and privileges herein given GRANTEE 8 shall terminate In the event that GRANTEE shall fail for a continuous period 9 •of eighteen (18) months •to utilize the rights and privileges herein granted. 10 11 6. In the event of the termination of this agreement GRANTEE shall, at 12. GRANTEE's own expense, when requested in writing to do so by STATE, remove all 13 property and equipment paced by or for GRANTEE, upon the sai.d premises, and 14 restore said premises as nearly as possible to the same state and condition 15 they were In prior to the entry of GRANTEE upon said premises; but If GRANTEE 16 shall fail so to do within sixty (60) days after the aforesaid request is 17. given, STATE may do so, all at the cost and expense of GRANTEE to be paid Oy 18 : GRANTEE on demand. 19. . . 20 Upon rmInation ofthe1ghts herein granteaGRANTEE shall execute 21 and deliver to STATE within thirty (30) days, a good and sufficient .quitclaim 22 deed to the rights arising hereunder. . 23: . 24 7. This agreemeit shall not, nor shall any interest therein or 25 thereunder, be assigned, mortgaged, hypothecated, or transferred by GRANTEE 26 whether voluntarily or.invoiuntarily or by operation of law, nor shall GRANTEE 27 let or sublet, or grant any licenses or permits with respect to the use and JRT PPEfl • ?C OF CAi.ioN.A • • . I to 3,R CV. 6.721 • , 3 • • • . occupancy of the said premises or any portion thereof, without the writtert 2 consent of STATE being first had and obtained. 3 4 8. No less than 60 calendar days prior to the commencement of any 5 construction, excepting emergency -epairs, pursuant to this easement, GRANTEE 6 shall submit to STATE the working drawings of the proposed improvements and 7 shall In hand have the written approval from STATE for said drawings. 8 9. 9. GRANTEE, in the exercise or the rights herein granted, shall at -all 10 times comply ith all applicable laws and lawful regulations, Including such 11 rules and regulations for the State Park System now in effect or hereafter 12 adopted. . . 13 14 10. GRANTEE shall assume full and complete responsibility for any and 151 all repair and maintenance, Including graffiti removal, to be performed or 16 needing to beperformed and shall pay for all costs involving both labor and 17 materials incurred while performing either repair and/or maintenance on the 18 seawall, sidewalks, stairways, ramps, benches, waste receptacles, and 19 appurtenant facilities. If GRANTEE fails to do so, STATE may, upon giving GRANTEE thtttt30) days* its Intent- -to do -so,... cause.. sal4 21 repairs and/or maintenance to be done and bill GRANTEE for the incurred 22 costs. GRANTEE agrees to promptly reimburse STATE for such costs. 23 I . . 24 25! 26 I 27 URT PAPER ATC Of CALIO...A 113 ..cv. e.72, 4 a a 4 I 1] 12 13 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 20 2]. 22 23 24 25 26 27 APER .At.I?OINIA 113 swv. 6721 769 . IU4U IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Instrument upon the date first hereinabove appearing. . . . . GRANTEE . STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF CARLSBAD . . DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES B11 By dA Scaoayor Pro Tern By e /j ce Aletha Rautenkraz,' Clark \ ga . APPROVED . Department of Parks and Recreati'on Ely . G-1707Q 5 State of .1041 CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER County of Sacramento J fill in the data below, doing so may time to 5Oiflre" an the dooLownt. on May 26. 1993 before me, Darlene .7. Leonhardt. Notary Public DATE NAME. Y=C OFFICER E.G.. JNIE DOE. NOTARY pueuc• ' INDIVIDUAL , W. 0 CORPORATE OFFICER(S) ,ally appeared IdOfla.Ld . Murohy rr .' NAME(S) OF SIGNEP.(S) TITlE(S) personally known to me - OR -0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence 0 PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are 0 GENERAL subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged ATTORNEY-IN-FACT to me that he/she/they executed 0 TRUSTEE(S) the same in his/tier/their authorized o GuADIANICONSERvATOR - . capactty(ies), and that by his/her/their OTHER. signature(s) on the instrument the person(s). or ihe entity upon behalf of which the perscri(s) acted, executed the instrument. SIGNER IS REPRESENTING WITNESS my nd 0th ial seal NAME Oc"ERSON(S)OR ENTITYfIES) Lq SIGNATURE OF NOTARY OPTIONAL SECTION THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR 'TYPE OF DOCUMENT Caribad Agremnt Rnd (rnnt nf Easement THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: _________________________ NUMBER OF PAGES ,..7 DATE OF DOCUMENT 8, 1993 hough ift data requested here is not required bylaw. culthgCOM fITWOR THAN NAMFDBOVE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SS COUNTY OF —SA . . . On June 15 . .19 93,beforeme, 19..!,bef'oreme, O.B. Ray III, a Notary Public personally appeared F. Warren Caldwell. Sthr Rl Estate! Off'. Office of R1 Estate and Design Servio personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/ are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Coffm Wires Stol. It. 19931 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA untyot San Dieao 1043 April 13. 1993 before me, Karen R. Kundtz, Notary Public, DATE . fUME. Tlfl.L CF CFF10ER E.G.. JN4E DOE. NOTARY PUEUC su sly appeared Margaret Stanton & Aletha L. Raucenkranz NAMEIS) OF SSONEACS) Dersonally known to me - OR - proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) i&are subscrib:d to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that.helehe/they executed iwmy.. the same in 9,isThef/their. au:horized OFFIOAL SEAL capacity(ies), and that. by 4,btct/their KAREN R. KUNDTZ ROTARY PUBUC.CAUcOMIA signature(s) on the instrument the person(s). PRINCIAL to orthe entity upon behalf of which the person(s) dsmmvsmw~ acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. O INDIVIDUAL(S) 13 CORPOE___________ OFFICER(S) TITLEIS) O PARTNER(S) 0 ATTORNEY-IN-FACT O TRUSTEE(S) (3 SUBSCRIBING WITNESS o GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR flÔTHER:l1ayor Pro Tern and City Clerk SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME or PERSONS OR ENtiTYIlESI City of Carlsbad ATTENTION NOTARY: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL it could ptsysntyaudI.f%t 9ttad'trnsnlel mis ciiiticats to unauthorized uoamsm. HIS CERTIFICATE : Title or Type of Document Carlsbad State Beach Agreement & Grant of E.asem4tt .IUST BE ATTACHED D THE DOCUMENT Number of P-3ges 7 Date of Document April 8 • 1993 )ESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above ---------- EXHIBIT "A" 1042 That portion of Lot "H" of Rancho Aqua Hedlonda, In the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 823, filed In the Office of the County Recorder of said County of San Diego, November 16, 1896, described as follows: Commencinc at Corner No. 1 of said Rancho Agua Hedionda, as shown on record of Survey Map No. 1806, filed April 30, 1948 in the Office of said County Recorder; Thence along .the Northerly line of said Lot "H", South 78000'15" East, 92.06 feet to .a point on the centerline of Carlsbad Boulevard, 100 feet In width (formerly U.S. HIghway 101); Thence along said centerline as shown on said record of Survey Map No. 1806, South 36050'05" East, 28.30 feet; Thence leaving said centerline South 53009'55" West, 50.00 feet to the Southwesterly line of said Carlsbad Boulevard and the True Point of Beginning, said Point of Beginning being the most Northerly corner of Parcel 1 of the lands granted to the State of California per Deed No. 90-009413; Thence along the Northwesterly line of said Parcel 1, South 53009'55" Nest, 57.00 feet; Thence South 36501 05" East, 391.75 feet; Thence North530091 55" East,. 40.00 feet to the beginning of a nontangent 4,933.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly, a radial line to the center of said curve bear-s South 530091 55" West; Thence Southerly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 04'51 3311 , a distance of 381.05 feet; Thence South 5703528" Nest, 18.00 feet to the beginning of a nontangent 4,915.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly, a radial line to the center of said curve bears South 570351 28" West; Thence Southerly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 010531 2711 , a distance of 162.20 feet; Thence North 59028'55" East, 18.00 feet to the beginning of a nontangent 4,933.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly, a radial line to the center of said curve bears South 59028',SS" Nest; 24 11 Thence Southerly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of .25 02007'12", a distance of 182.53 feet; 26 II Thence South 61036'07" West, 8.00 feet to the beginning of a nontangent 4,925.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly, it radial line to the cen:er 27 of sai d curve bears South 61036'07" West; R (V •.7u 6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .1 000551 0011 , a distance of 78.79 feet; •1 4 Thence Southerly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 2 Thence North 62031 '07" East. 8.00 feet to the beginning of a nontangent 4,933.00 foot radius curve concave Fouthwesterly, a radial line to the center 3 of said curve bears South 62°31'07" Nest; 4 Thence Southerly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 02241 31", a distance of 207.37 feet; 5 Thence South 6455'38" West, 18,00 feet to the beginning of a nontangent 6 4,915.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly, a radial line to the center of said curve bears South 64055'38" West; 7 Thence Southerly'aIong the arc of said curve through a central angle of 8 0002414711, a distance of 35.43 feet; 9 Thence tangent t6 said curve South 24039'35" East, 133.76 feet; 10 Thrnce North 65020'25" East, 18.00 feet; 11 , Thence South 24391 35" East,. 215.00 feet; 12 Thence South 65020'25" West, 8.00 feet; 13 Thence South 240391 35" East. 80.00 feet; 14 Thence North 65020'25" East, 8.00 feet; 15 Thence South 24039'35" East, 220.00 feet; Thence South 650201 25" West, 18.00 feet; 17 Thence South 24°39'35" East, 170.00 feet; 18 Thence North 65020:2511 East, 18.00 feet; 19 Thence Smith 24391 35 East, 340.24 feet, to the Southerly line of Parcel 2 as desc1bed in said Deed No. 90-009413; 20 21 Thence along said Southerly line, North 65020'25° Ea.t, 17.00 feet to a point lying on the Southwesterly line of Carlsbad Boulevard; 22 - Thence along said Southwesterly line North 2439135" Nest, 1,159.00 feet to 23 the beginning.of a tangent 4,950.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly; 24 Thence Norther1y, along the ar of said curve through a central angle of ;201030, a distance of l,05L85 f,--et; 25 • I Thence tangent to said curve North 36050'05" West, 391.75 feet to the True 26 Point of Beginnthg. 27 .• ('r-1707Q T PAPER DY CA.U,OaN,A .c'.• 6.721 11 7 .1045 CERTIFICATION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMEHT . This is' to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by. the easement dated April 8, 1993 from The State of California, Department f General Services Lo the City of Carlsbad, California, a municipal corporation, ir. hereby ,ccepted by the City Council of the City of Cir.tsbad,. California pursuant to resolution No 93-73 •. , adopted Oil -April-6, 1993 , and the grantee consents • to tlic recordation thereof by its duly, authorized officer. • • DATED: June 28, ]993 • . . By: 4 • ALETIIA Ir. RAUTENKMNZ, City Clerk