Executive Summary
Table ES-7. Continued
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
No Action
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Alternative 1a. While the borrow sites have been designed to avoid
Alternative 2a. Under Alternative 2 borrow sites MB-1 and SS-1
No significant impacts to cultural resources
locations of high probability for cultural resources as much as
would be dredged to a greater depth thereby increasing potential
would occur.
possible, there are sediments of moderate to high probability within
for entering sediments with probability for cultural resources.
R
the dredge footprint of all borrow sites. Any known historic sites
To verify that no significant impacts would occur, a monitoring
R
have been avoided by design. There are also unidentified side-scan
program would be undertaken prior to and during dredging as
sonar targets in SO-9 and MB-1 that need to be investigated for
described in Section ES-5.
historic resources. To verify that no significant impacts would
occur, a monitoring program would be undertaken prior to and
Alternative 2b. This alternative's impacts would be similar to
during dredging as described in Section ES-5.
Alternative 2a, and no significant impacts would occur.
Alternative 1b. This alternative's impacts would be similar to
Alternative 1a, and no significant impacts would occur.
LAND AND WATER USE
Alternative 1a. This alternative would result in a beneficial impact
Alternative 2a. Under this alternative, land use and recreation
There would be no land and water use or
by enhancing/creating new recreational beach area, totaling 378
impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1,
recreation impacts under this alternative. No
acres (including existing beach area plus new area post-
although the length of time and locations of receiver site access
recreational benefits would occur since no sand
construction). There would not be significant, long-term impacts
restriction would vary. New/enhanced recreational beach area
would be replenished at beaches in the San Diego
to surfing or other recreational pursuits. Due to the short-term
would total 345 acres (existing beach area plus new area post-
region.
nature of dredging and distance from underwater resources, no
construction). At the borrow sites, water use and recreation
R
significant long-term impacts are anticipated at the borrow sites.
impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1.
R
The replenishment action would not preclude the viability of any
The overall impact would be short-term and less than significant.
planned land use, either onshore or offshore.
Alternative 2b. Land use and recreation impacts would be similar
Alternative 1b. No significant long-term impacts to land and water
to those described for Alternative 1. There would be less relative
use are anticipated.
benefit under this alternative as the sand quantity would be less.
AESTHETICS
Alternative 1a. Because operations would be short-term overall,
Alternative 2a. Beach replenishment activities at the Cardiff,
With the No Action Alternative, the beaches
the daily construction area would travel down the beach which
Solana Beach and Del Mar receiver sites would be identical to
would not be enhanced. Where there are visible
would reduce the visual contrast to any one sensitive viewer, and
Alternative 1a and the impacts would be identical. There would
cobbles they would remain and where the beach
the end result would be enhancement of the region's beaches, visual
be short-term views of construction but long-term beach
overall is narrow it would not be widened.
impact would be considered less than significant. Any discoloration
enhancement so the impact would be less than significant. Four
Adjacent residents and beach users would not
of the sediment would be short-term (USACOE 1984) and no
other receiver sites would have a larger footprint under this
experience disturbance during construction or
permanent adverse visual conditions would result from the
alternative, and construction would occur over a longer period of
views of the pipeline; however, they would not
discoloration of fill materials at any of the receiver beaches.
time, but impacts would remain less than significant. Visual
experience the benefits of more scenic beaches.
Dredging activity at the borrow sites will not be highly evident or
impacts associated with borrow sites would be similar to
dominate the landscape, and the impact would not be regarded as
Alternative 1 (i.e., less than significant).
significant.
Alternative 2b. Under this alternative, construction at some
Alternative 1b. While there would be less sand overall to replenish
sites would occur over a longer time period. The reduction in
at the receiver sites, there would still be an improvement to the
sand volume associated with this alternative would result in
existing degraded condition. Dredging activity would occur over a
reduced long-term visual benefits. No significant impacts are
longer duration at borrow sites SO-9, SO-5, MB-1 and SS-1.
anticipated.
Page ES-24
Regional Beach Sand Project EIR/EA
99-69\SANDAG EIREA es.wpd 7/17/00
Previous Page
