2.0 Alternatives Considered
be cost-prohibitive in terms of mitigation. Given the need to reduce potential impacts, receiver sites which
contributed to impacts at these two locations were eliminated. Therefore the North Carlsbad receiver site
was eliminated. Based on the shape of the coastline and subsequent longshore sand transport patterns,
most of the sand placed at receiver sites in Encinitas contributed to the deposition at Moonlight Beach, and
therefore the Batiquitos, Leucadia and Moonlight Beach receiver sites were eliminated.
At the SEC meeting in January 2000, the Committee directed preparation of the EIR/EA with two
alternatives. One was the 2 million cy alternative selected as preferred at the December 1999 meeting.
The other was the modified 2 million cy alternative generated subsequent to that meeting.
2.3
ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED REVIEW
The following text provides more description of various alternatives originally considered for the proposed
action but eliminated from further detailed review in this environmental document. As described in Section
2.2, numerous alternatives were initially considered for borrow sites and receiver sites. Additionally, there
were various options for pipeline routes and sand placement (i.e., nearshore versus onshore or feeder
beaches). Methods to retain sand were also considered. As described in Section 2.2, various alternatives
have been modeled, evaluated in the technical reports, and presented to the SEC. Those that have been
eliminated from further detailed review are identified below.
Preliminary Offshore Borrow Sites
2.3.1
Under preliminary plans for beach replenishment, ten offshore borrow sites were tested for beach
replenishment suitability (Sea Surveyor 1999). Four of these borrow sites were eliminated as described
below.
SO-8 is located off Oceanside, south of the northernmost borrow site, SO-9. The site was tested to be
used as source material to replenish the South Oceanside and North Carlsbad receiver sites. Based on
testing of the borrow material, the material was determined to be too fine and silty and thus unsuitable.
Some suitable sand was found in a second layer of sediment, but would be too difficult and costly to dredge
in comparison to the suitable sediment available at S0-9 (Sea Surveyor 1999). Because SO-9 was found
to contain suitable dredge material for beach replenishment for the two receiver sites, SO-8 was eliminated
from further review.
Page 2-6
Regional Beach Sand Project EIR/EA
99-69\SANDAG EIREA 3.4.wpd 7/17/00
Previous Page
