4.4 Biological Resources
California grunion where they may occur. In Alternative 2, there would be one new receiver site (South
Carlsbad South) and the size of the footprints would increase at the South Oceanside, South Carlsbad
North, Torrey Pines, Mission Beach and Imperial Beach receiver sites. Other receiver sites would be
eliminated and there would be no direct impacts at the North Carlsbad, Batiquitos, Leucadia, or Moonlight
Beach receiver sites.
Direct Impacts of Sand Placement
The potential effects at new or larger sites under this alternative are discussed below.
South Oceanside/Torrey Pines/Mission Beach/Imperial Beach. All of these receiver sites are
characterized by sand and/or sand and cobble in the larger footprint areas and greater fill quantities (refer
to Section 2.4). Direct impacts to marine resources would be identical, that is, less than significant.
South Carlsbad South. This receiver site would have a footprint of approximately 15 acres for
approximately 142,000 cy. Sand and cobble occur throughout the site. A localized hard substrate area,
approximately 185 feet in length, consisting of low relief rocks and bench with opportunistic coralline turf
algae and few marine resources occurs within the proposed toe of the slope of the fill (Figure 4.4-19).
Similar to the Solana Beach site, direct impacts would be less than significant, because the hard bottom
area lacks sensitive species and clearly experiences normal sediment activity. Significant direct impacts to
California grunion would be avoided.
Indirect Impacts
Under Alternative 2, the receiver sites at North Carlsbad and within the northern portion of the City of
Encinitas (excluding Cardiff) would not undergo replenishment. Receiver sites at South Oceanside, Torrey
Pines, Mission Beach and Imperial Beach would receiver more sand. The receiver site at South Carlsbad
South would receive sand that it would not receive under Alternative 1. The pattern of sand placement
would not change the significance conclusions regarding temporaryreductioninforaging prey for shorebirds
or turbidity at receiver sites; indirect impacts would be less than significant. There would be relative
differences; however, because there would be no temporary prey reductions or turbidity at those locations
where sand would not be placed.
Page 4.4-46
Regional Beach Sand Project EIR/EA
99-69\SANDAG EIREA 4.1 to 4.13.wpd 7/17/00
Previous Page
