Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project - Part 1 — Goleta City Council, April 7, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 33
Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, and at that time redox formations and hydric soils were absent (Caltrans and City of Goleta 2015). Leaf litter and dead algae were also observed within the wetted channel. Although wetland hydrology is present, the feature was determined not to be wetland waters of the U.S. nor State under the jurisdiction of the USACE or Central Coast RWQCB, respectively, due to the lack of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils (Appendix G). See Photograph 2 in Appendix H for documentation of SP-1.

SP-2 was conducted on a small floo dplain on the east side of the natural channel at the southern portion of the study area (Figure 6 e) . At SP -2, wetland hydrology was present and indicators included drift deposits (B3) and a positive FAC-neutral test (D5), indicating wetland hydrology is present. Hydrophytic vegetation was present, dominated by arroyo willow (FACW) in the tree stratum, giant reed (FACW) in the shrub stratum, and pickleweed (OBL) in the herb stratum. No sandy redox or depleted matrix was observed because there were not enough redox concentrations present to qualify for this indicator. No redox dark surface was observed because not enough redox concentrations were present to qualify for this indicator. Soil conditions indicate hydric soils may be forming because redox is present, but not in high enough concentrations to be considered wetland hydric soils; it is possible that the floodplain is possibly disturbed enough or not submerged long enough to form fully hydric soils per the USACE definition. Due to the lack of hydric soil indicators, hydric soils are not present. Although hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology are present, the feature was determined not to be wetland waters of the U.S. nor State under the jurisdiction of the USACE or Central Coast RWQCB, respectively, due to the lack of hydric soils (Appendix G). See Photograph 10 in Appendix H for documentation of SP-2.

4.1.2 Waters of the State
San Jose Creek is likely regulated as a potential water of the State pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and is delineated by the top of bank or the outer dripline of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, for the extent of Central Coast RWQCB jurisdiction. San Jose Creek contains 6.78 acres of non-wetland waters of the State within the study area. No wetland waters of the State are present. As described in Section 4.1.1, the upstream natural channel bottom has w
etland hydrology, but lacks hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation. The downstream natural channel bottom has wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation, but lacks hydric soil.

4.1.3 CDFW-jurisdictional Streambeds
San Jose Creek is likely regulated as a potential CDFW-jurisdictional streambed pursuant to CFGC Section 1600 et seq and is delineated by the TOB, or the outer dripline of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, for the extent of CDFW jurisdiction. Within the upstream natural channel, the riparian limit largely defined the limit of the CDFW-jurisdictional streambed, while the TOB defined the limit of the CDFW-jurisdictional streambed in the concrete channel and downstream natural channel. San Jose Creek contains 6.78 acres of CDFW-jurisdictional streambed subject to the jurisdiction of CDFW/City within the study area.

4.1.4 Coastal Wetlands
The portion of San Jose Creek at the southern end of the study area located within the Coastal Zone is likely regulated as a potential coastal wetland pursuant to the CCA and is delineated by the hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and open water within the natural channel. Specifically, hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology are present on the east bank as described in Section 275
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

34 4.1.1, and in addition, open water is present within the active channel a s described in Section 3.3.

S
an Jose Creek contains 0.28 acres of wetland subject to the jurisdiction of the CCC in southern extent of the study area, located outside of the Project site.

4.1.5 City-defined Wetlands
San Jose Creek is regulated as a City-defined wetland pursuant to General Plan Conservation Element sub policy CE 3.1 and is coterminous with the extent of CDFW-jurisdictional streambeds in the natural channel, where hydrophytic vegetation and/or wetland hydrology is present. San Jose Creek contains 1.65 acres of wetland subject to the jurisdiction of City in the northern portion of the study area and in the southern portion of the study area, located outside of the Project site.

4.1.6 City Streamside Protection Areas
San Jose Creek is regulated as a City SPA pursuant to General Plan Conservation Element policy CE 2 and is delineated by the creek channel, wetlands, and/or riparian zone and an adjacent 100-foot upland buffer on both sides of the creek. Boundaries of City SPA were delineated as 100-foot buffer from the edge of the TOB of the creek channel and/or riparian vegetation, which was defined as coterminous with CDFW-jurisdictional streambeds. San Jose Creek contains 30.60 acres of SPAs. 276
Conclusions and Recommendations

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 35
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
One jurisdictional water is present within the study area, San Jose Creek, which is a non-wetland water of the U.S. likely subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; a non-wetland water of the State likely subject to the Central Coast RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the California Water Code (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act); a CDFW-jurisdictional streambed pursuant to CFGC 1600; a coastal wetland under the jurisdiction of the CCC per the CCA; a coastal wetland under the jurisdiction of the City per General Plan Conservation Element sub policy CE 3.1, Definition of Wetlands; and a SPA under the jurisdiction of the City per General Plan Conservation Element policy CE 2, Protection of Creeks and Riparian Areas.

No wetland waters of the U.S. nor wetland waters of the State are present.

Ju risdictional waters are unavoidable since the Project design is within San Jose Creek to achieve improved and unimpeded passage for southern California steelhead. Prior to impacts occurring to USACE, Central Coast RWQCB, CDFW, and/or CCC jurisdictional waters, the City will obtain the following permits: USACE Nationwide Permit 27 (Aquatic Habitat Restoration), RWQCB Section 401 General Water Quality Certification for Statewide Habitat Restoration Projects, CDFW Restoration Management Permit per CFGC Sections 1672(e) and (f) (equivalent to a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement), and a CCC CDP.
277
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

36 6 References
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (Eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025. California Sensitive Natural Communities.

J
une 1, 2023. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-C ommunities.

Accessed April 2024.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2015. Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement P
roject Natural Environment Study. Accessed April 2024.

California Native Plant Society. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.7-0 8c-Interim 8- 22-02. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Caltrans an d City of Goleta. 2015. Natural Environment Study , Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project. April 2015.

City of Goleta. 2007. Initial Study/Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment f
or the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project. 07-MND-01.

County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development. 2021. E nvironmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. Available at: https://www.countyofsb.org/ceo/asset.c/479. Accessed June 2024.

Earth Point. 2024. Township and Range grid. Available at:
https://www.earthpoint.us/Townships.aspx
Entrix, Inc. (Entrix). 2010. Biological Resources Survey Report for the San Jose Creek Capacity I
mprovement Project. October 19, 2010.

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of C
alifornia. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Heritage Program. 156 pgs.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA NMFS). 2012. S outhern California Steelhead Recovery Plan. Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/southern-c alifornia-steelhead- recovery-plan. Accessed April 2024.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon). 2019. San Jose Creek Multi-u se Path Project Biological Resources Assessment. Prepared for the City of Goleta. April 2019. ______. 2 025. Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for the San J ose Creek Fish Passage Project. Prepared for the City of Goleta. June 2025.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-W olf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 2008. Final Mitigated Negative D
eclaration/Environmental Assessment Addendum for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project. 07-MND-01. Accessed April 2024.
278
References

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 37
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. Order WQ 2022-0048-DWQ. Order for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements for Restoration Projects Statewide. Final. August 16, 2022. ______. 20 21. Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge and Fill Material to W
aters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019 and revised April 6, 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/procedures_confor m
ed.pdf. Accessed July 2025.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Technical Report Y
-97-1. In: United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. ______. 2004. Review of Ordinary High Water Mark Indicators for Delineating Arid Streams in the S
outhwest United States. Technical Report ERDC TR-04-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, New Hampshire.
______. 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-0
5: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C.
______. 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional G
uidebook.
______. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid W
est Region (Version 2.0). United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. September.
______. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the A
rid West Region of the Western United States. Technical Report ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12.

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, New Hampshire.
______. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) i
n the Arid West Region of the Western United States. Technical Report ERDC/CRREL TN-10-

1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, New Hampshire.
______. 2022. Arid West 2022 Regional Wetland Plant List. Available at: https://wetland- p
lants.sec.usace.army.mil/download/.

United States Climate Data (U.S. Climate Data). 2025. Santa Barbara. Available at:
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/santa-b arbara/california/united-states/usca1017.

A
ccessed June 2025.

United States Department of Agricultural (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2 025a. Web Soil Survey. Accessed March 15 2024. Soil Survey Area: Santa Barbara County, California. Soil Survey Data: Version 26, September 12, 2023. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed March 2024. ______. 2025b. Lists of Hydric Soils. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of A
griculture. Available at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. Accessed March 2024. 279
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

38 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023. Revised Definition of Waters of the United States. Document Citation: 88 FR 61964.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at:
h
ttps://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory. Accessed June 2025.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2025. National Hydrography Dataset. Accessed via the n
ational map. Accessed June 2025.
______. 2024. Goleta, California 7.5-m inute topographic quadrangle. Accessed March 2024.

URS. 2014. Draft Biological Resources Summary Report for the Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement P
roject. Goleta, California. December 2014.
______. 2015. Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hollister Avenue Bridge R
eplacement Project. Project Case No. 14-074-MND.
280

Appendix A
Engineering Project Design and Cross-Sections
281
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C100
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
0'0' 300'
SCALE 1"=150'
150'
nhc
C102
C103
C104
C105
C111
C106
C107
C108
C109
C110
C112 - C113
282
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
321+35

2.30 (FISH)

3.80 (SJC)
321+50

2.36 (FISH)

3.89 (SJC)
322+00

2.57 (FISH)

4.17 (SJC)
322+50

2.88 (FISH)

4.46 (SJC)
323+00

3.23 (FISH)

4.76 (SJC)
323+50

3.65 (FISH)

5.14 (SJC)
324+00

4.10 (FISH)

5.51 (SJC)
324+50

4.55 (FISH)

5.87 (SJC)
325+00

5.00 (FISH)

6.25 (SJC)
325+50

5.45 (FISH)

6.62 (SJC)
21+35 21+50 22+00 22+50 23+01 23+51 24+01 24+50 25+00 25+50 321+35
322+00
323+00
324+00
325+00
21+35
22+00
23+00
24+00
25+00
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C102
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc
FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
STA. 21+50.00

VORTEX AND BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 3.72
STA. 23+25.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 4.94
STA. 24+00.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 5.62
STA. 24+75.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 6.29
STA. 25+50.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 6.78
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 4.47
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 5.02
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 5.69
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 6.37
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.04
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.53
STA. 22+50.00

VORTEX AND BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 4.27

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
PROFILE - FISH LINE STA. 321+35 TO 325+75
PLAN - FISH LINE STA. 321+35 TO 325+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C103
FISH LINE STA. 325+75
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
RAMP
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
FLOW
283
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
326+00

5.89 (FISH)

7.00 (SJC)
326+50

6.05 (FISH)

7.14 (SJC)
327+00

6.12 (FISH)

7.28 (SJC)
327+50

6.19 (FISH)

7.42 (SJC)
328+00

6.26 (FISH)

7.57 (SJC)
328+50

6.34 (FISH)

7.71 (SJC)
329+00

6.41 (FISH)

7.85 (SJC)
329+50

6.49 (FISH)

7.99 (SJC)
330+00

6.57 (FISH)

8.13 (SJC)
26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50 28+00 28+50 29+00 29+50 30+00
326+00 327+00 328+00 329+00 330+00
26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C103
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
STA. 30+00.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 7.45
STA. 29+25.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 7.34
STA. 28+50.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 7.23
STA. 27+75.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 7.11
STA. 27+00.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 7.00
STA. 26+25.00

VORTEX AND BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 6.89
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.64
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.75
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.86
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.98
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 8.09
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 8.20

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
FLOW
PROFILE - FISH LINE STA. 325+75 TO 330+25
PLAN - FISH LINE STA. 325+75 TO 330+25
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C104
FISH LINE STA. 330+25
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C102
FISH LINE STA. 325+75
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS

SEWER LINES

SEWER LINES
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
FLOW
284
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
330+50

6.65 (FISH)

8.27 (SJC)
331+00

6.72 (FISH)

8.42 (SJC)
331+50

6.79 (FISH)

8.56 (SJC)
332+00

6.86 (FISH)

8.70 (SJC)
332+50

6.95 (FISH)

8.84 (SJC)
333+00

7.04 (FISH)

8.98 (SJC)
333+50

7.13 (FISH)

9.12 (SJC)
334+00

7.22 (FISH)

9.26 (SJC)
334+50

7.29 (FISH)

9.41 (SJC)
30+50 31+00 31+50 32+00 32+50 33+00 33+50 34+00 34+50
331+00
332+00
333+00
334+00
31+00
32+00
33+00
34+00
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C104
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL
PROFILE - FISH LINE STA. 330+25 TO 334+75
PLAN - FISH LINE STA. 330+25 TO 334+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C105
FISH LINE STA. 334+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C103
FISH LINE STA. 330+25
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
STA. 30+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 7.56
STA. 31+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 7.67
STA. 32+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 7.78
STA. 33+00.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 7.90
STA. 33+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.01
STA. 34+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.12
FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
285
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
335+00

7.35 (FISH)

9.55 (SJC)
335+50

7.44 (FISH)

9.69 (SJC)
336+00

7.54 (FISH)

9.83 (SJC)
336+50

7.56 (FISH)

9.97 (SJC)
337+00

7.56 (FISH)

10.11 (SJC)
337+50

7.65 (FISH)

10.26 (SJC)
338+00

7.77 (FISH)

10.40 (SJC)
338+50

7.88 (FISH)

10.54 (SJC)
339+00

7.99 (FISH)

10.68 (SJC)
35+00 35+50 36+00 36+50 37+00 37+50 38+00 38+50 39+00
335+00
336+00
337+00
338+00
339+00
35+00 36+00 37+00
38+00
39+00
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C105
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL
PROFILE - FISH LINE STA. 334+75 TO 339+25
PLAN - FISH LINE STA. 334+75 TO 339+25
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C106
FISH LINE STA. 339+25
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C104
FISH LINE STA. 334+75
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
STA. 35+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.23
STA. 36+00.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.34
STA. 36+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.46
STA. 37+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.57
STA. 38+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.68
STA. 39+00.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 9.19
FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
286
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
339+50

8.29 (FISH)

11.02 (SJC)
340+00

8.65 (FISH)

11.36 (SJC)
340+50

8.97 (FISH)

11.69 (SJC)
341+00

9.27 (FISH)

12.03 (SJC)
341+50

9.55 (FISH)

12.37 (SJC)
342+00

9.84 (FISH)

12.71 (SJC)
342+50

10.20 (FISH)

13.04 (SJC)
343+00

10.58 (FISH)

13.38 (SJC)
343+50

10.89 (FISH)

13.72 (SJC)
39+50 40+00 40+50 41+00 41+50 42+00 42+50 43+00 43+50
340+00
341+00
342+00
343+00
40+00
41+00
42+00
43+00
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C106
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL
PROFILE - FISH LINE STA. 339+25 TO 343+75
PLAN - FISH LINE STA. 339+25 TO 343+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C107
FISH LINE STA. 343+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C105
FISH LINE STA. 339+25
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
STA. 39+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 9.70
STA. 40+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 10.21
STA. 41+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 10.71
STA. 42+00.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 11.22
STA. 42+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 11.73
STA. 43+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 12.23
FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
287
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
344+00

11.19 (FISH)

14.06 (SJC)
344+50

11.52 (FISH)

14.40 (SJC)
345+00

11.87 (FISH)

14.73 (SJC)
345+50

12.21 (FISH)

15.07 (SJC)
346+00

12.53 (FISH)

15.41 (SJC)
346+50

12.87 (FISH)

15.75 (SJC)
347+00

13.21 (FISH)

16.09 (SJC)
347+50

13.55 (FISH)

16.42 (SJC)
43+99 44+49 44+99 45+49 45+99 46+49 46+99 47+49
344+00 345+00 346+00
347+00
44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C107
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL
PROFILE - FISH LINE STA. 343+75 TO 347+75
PLAN - FISH LINE STA. 343+75 TO 347+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C108
FISH LINE STA. 347+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C106
FISH LINE STA. 343+75
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
STA. 44+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 12.74
STA. 45+00.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 13.25
STA. 45+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 13.75
STA. 46+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 14.26
STA. 47+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 14.77
FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
288
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
348+00

13.90 (FISH)

16.76 (SJC)
348+50

14.23 (FISH)

17.10 (SJC)
349+00

14.55 (FISH)

17.44 (SJC)
349+50

14.93 (FISH)

17.78 (SJC)
350+00

15.32 (FISH)

18.12 (SJC)
350+50

15.62 (FISH)

18.46 (SJC)
351+00

15.89 (FISH)

18.79 (SJC)
351+50

16.21 (FISH)

19.13 (SJC)
352+00

16.55 (FISH)

19.47 (SJC)
352+50

16.91 (FISH)

19.80 (SJC)
47+99 48+49 48+99 49+50 50+00 50+50 51+00 51+50 52+00 52+49 348+00
349+00
350+00
351+00
352+00
48+00
49+00
50+00
51+00
52+00
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C108
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL
PROFILE - FISH LINE STA. 347+75 TO 352+75
PLAN - FISH LINE STA. 347+75 TO 352+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C109
FISH LINE STA. 352+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C107
FISH LINE STA. 347+75
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 15.64
STA. 48+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 16.64
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 16.43
STA. 49+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 17.43
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 17.03
STA. 50+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 18.03
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 17.70
STA. 51+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 18.70
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 18.36
STA. 52+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 19.36
FLOW
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
STA. 48+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 15.90
STA. 48+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 16.17
STA. 49+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 16.63
STA. 49+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 16.83
STA. 50+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 17.25
STA. 50+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 17.48
STA. 51+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 17.92
STA. 51+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 18.14
STA. 52+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 18.61
STA. 52+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 18.87
289
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
353+00

17.27 (FISH)

20.14 (SJC)
353+50

17.61 (FISH)

20.48 (SJC)
354+00

17.93 (FISH)

20.82 (SJC)
354+50

18.27 (FISH)

21.15 (SJC)
355+00

18.62 (FISH)

21.49 (SJC)
355+50

18.94 (FISH)

21.78 (SJC)
356+00

19.24 (FISH)

22.08 (SJC)
356+50

19.55 (FISH)

22.37 (SJC)
52+99 53+49 53+99 54+49 54+99 55+49 55+99 56+49
353+00 354+00 355+00 356+00
53+00 54+00 55+00 56+00
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C109
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL
PROFILE - FISH LINE STA. 352+75 TO 356+75
PLAN - FISH LINE STA. 352+75 TO 356+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C110
FISH LINE STA. 356+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C108
FISH LINE STA. 352+75
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 19.12
STA. 53+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 20.12
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 19.73
STA. 54+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 20.73
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 20.40
STA. 55+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 21.40
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 21.05
STA. 56+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 22.05
STA. 53+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 19.32
STA. 53+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 19.53
STA. 54+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 19.95
STA. 54+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 20.18
STA. 55+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 20.62
STA. 55+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 20.83
STA. 56+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 21.25
STA. 56+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 21.45FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
290
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
357+00

19.85 (FISH)

22.65 (SJC)
357+50

20.15 (FISH)

22.95 (SJC)
358+00

20.46 (FISH)

23.24 (SJC)
358+50

20.76 (FISH)

23.52 (SJC)
359+00

21.07 (FISH)

23.80 (SJC)
359+50

21.36 (FISH)

24.08 (SJC)
360+00

21.69 (FISH)

24.38 (SJC)
360+50

21.99 (FISH)

24.66 (SJC)
56+99 57+48 57+98 58+46 58+95 59+43 59+92 60+40
357+00
358+00
359+00
360+00
361+00
57+00
58+00
59+00
60+00
61+00
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C110
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL
PROFILE - FISH LINE STA. 356+75 TO 360+75
PLAN - FISH LINE STA. 356+75 TO 360+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C111FISH LINE STA. 360+75
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C109
FISH LINE STA. 356+75
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 21.65
STA. 57+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 22.65
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 22.22
STA. 58+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 23.22
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR CREST EL. 22.76
STA. 59+00.00
MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR NOTCH EL. 23.76
STA. 57+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 21.84
STA. 57+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 22.03
STA. 58+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 22.40
STA. 58+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 22.58
STA. 59+31.41

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 23.17
STA. 59+62.83

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 23.57
STA. 59+94.24

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 23.98
FLOW
STA. 60+27.92

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.05
STA. 60+61.60

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.12
nhc
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW

LIMIT OF CHANNEL MODIFICATION
(DESIGNED BY DEWBERRY)
291
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
361+00

22.28 (FISH)

24.95 (SJC)
361+50

22.58 (FISH)

25.25 (SJC)
362+00

22.88 (FISH)

25.58 (SJC)
362+50

23.07 (FISH)

25.99 (SJC)
363+00

23.25 (FISH)

26.35 (SJC)
363+50

23.44 (FISH)

24.85 (SJC)
60+90 61+41 61+93 62+43 62+93 63+42
361+00
362+00
363+00
363+77
61+00
62+00
63+00
64+00
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C111
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'

EXISTING WEST WALLEXISTING EAST WALL
PROFILE - FISH LINE STA. 360+75 TO 363+77
PLAN - FISH LINE STA. 360+75 TO 363+77
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C110
FISH LINE STA. 360+75
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
STA. 63+21.50

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 25.16
STA. 62+75.17

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.91
STA. 62+28.83

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.66
STA. 61+82.50

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.41
STA. 61+53.43

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.34
STA. 61+24.35

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.26
STA. 60+95.28

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.19
FLOW
nhc
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS

LIMIT OF CHANNEL

MODIFICATION
(DESIGNED BY NHC)

OUTLINE PROVIDED BY DEWBERRY
SEE SHEET C112SJC LINE STA. 62+50 TO STA. 68+00

REFERENCE LINE
SEE SHEET C112
FLOW
292
363+00
363+77
63+00
64+00
65+00
66+00
67+00
68+00
EL. 27.32
EL. 24.11
EL. 23.59
EL. 24.00
EL. 24.11
EL. 24.11
EL. 23.97
EL. 23.58
EL. 24.11
EL. 24.95
EL. 25.20
EL. 24.70
EL. 24.90
EL. 24.20
Elevation (In Feet)
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
62+50 63+00 63+50 64+00 64+50 65+00 65+50 66+00 66+50 67+00 67+50 68+00 STA. 64+30.37
EL. 24.11
STA. 64+50
EL. 24.31
STA. 64+70
EL. 24.50
STA. 64+90
EL. 24.68
STA. 65+30
EL. 25.06
STA. 65+70
EL. 25.47
STA. 66+10
EL. 25.81
STA. 66+50
EL. 26.22
STA. 66+90
EL. 26.65
STA. 67+30
EL. 27.06
STA. 65+10
EL. 24.87
STA. 65+50
EL. 25.25
STA. 65+90
EL. 25.65
STA. 66+30
EL. 26.02
STA. 66+70
EL. 26.43
STA. 67+10
EL. 26.84
STA. 67+50
EL. 27.28

1.0%

0.9%

1.0%

0.9%

1.1%

0.9%

0.8%

1.0%

1.1%

1.0%

1.1%

1.1%
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C112
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
PLAN - SJC LINE STA. 62+50 TO 68+00
FOR REFERENCES TO FISH LINE SEE C100
SJC LINE STA. 62+50
nhc
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE

LIMIT OF CHANNEL MODIFICATION (DESIGNED BY NHC)OUTLINE PROVIDED BY DEWBERRY FLOW
PROFILE - SJC LINE STA. 62+50 TO 68+00
'SJC' LINE
FLOW
2H:1V
2H:1V
2H:1V
1H:1V
2H:1V
1H:1V
1H:1V TYP.

TRANSITION FROM
2H:1V TO 1H:1V

TRANSITION FROM
2H:1V TO 1H:1V
1H:1V TYP.

SCALE: 1H:5V
£
2H:1V
2H:1V
293
363+00
363+77
63+00
64+00
65+00
66+00
67+00
68+00
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 78
8 9
9 10
10 11
11 12
12 13
13 14
14 15
15 16
16 17
17 18
18 19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C113
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

OUTLINE PROVIDED

BY DEWBERRY
FLOW
294
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 500-10-20-30-40-50
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
01 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 00-10-20-30-40-50-60
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 500-10-20-30-40-50
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
0 1 02 03 04 00-10-20-30-40
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C114
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
SECTION 1 - STA. 63+54.18
SECTION 2 - STA. 63+64.64
SECTION 3 - STA. 63+69.90
SECTION 4 - STA. 63+85.76
SECTION 5 - STA. 63+99.37
SECTION 6 - STA. 64+15.06
295
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
01 0 2 00-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
01 0 2 00-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
01 0 2 00-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
01 0 2 00-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
EL. = 24.11
EL. = 24.21
EL. = 24.41
EL. = 24.59
EL. = 24.77
EL. = 25.00
EL. = 25.16
EL. = 25.36
EL. = 25.56
EL. = 25.73
EL. = 25.92
EL. = 26.12
EL. = 26.32
EL. = 26.54
EL. = 26.74
EL. = 26.95
EL. = 27.17
EL. = 27.28
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C115
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
SECTION 7 - STA. 64+30.37
SECTION 8 - STA. 64+40.00
SECTION 9 - STA. 64+60.00
SECTION 10 - STA. 64+80.00
SECTION 11 - STA. 65+00.00
SECTION 12 - STA. 65+20.00
SECTION 13 - STA. 65+40.00
SECTION 14 - STA. 65+60.00
SECTION 15 - STA. 65+80.00
SECTION 16 - STA. 66+00.00
SECTION 17 - STA. 66+20.00
SECTION 18 - STA. 66+40.00 SECTION 22 - STA. 67+20.00
SECTION 21 - STA. 67+00.00
SECTION 20 - STA. 66+80.00
SECTION 19 - STA. 66+60.00 SECTION 23 - STA. 67+40.00
SECTION 24 - STA. 65+50.00
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
296

Appendix B
Engineering Cross-Section Detail
297
SJC DETAILS2
11:18:30 20240625
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION D101Weir Details
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
LEGEND
STATION (ft) WEIR TYPE
21+75.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
22+50.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
23+25.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
24+00.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
24+75.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
25+50.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
26+25.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
27+00.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
27+75.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
28+50.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
29+25.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
30+00.00 VORTEX AND BUMP
30+75.00 VORTEX
31+50.00 VORTEX
32+25.00 VORTEX
33+00.00 VORTEX
33+75.00 VORTEX
34+50.00 VORTEX
35+25.00 VORTEX
36+00.00 VORTEX
36+75.00 VORTEX
37+50.00 VORTEX
38+25.00 VORTEX
39+00.00 VORTEX
39+75.00 VORTEX
40+50.00 VORTEX
41+25.00 VORTEX
42+00.00 VORTEX
42+75.00 VORTEX
43+50.00 VORTEX
44+25.00 VORTEX
45+00.00 VORTEX
45+75.00 VORTEX
46+50.00 VORTEX
47+25.00 VORTEX
48+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
48+33.33 VORTEX
48+66.67 VORTEX
49+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
49+33.33 VORTEX
49+66.67 VORTEX
LEGEND
STATION (ft) WEIR TYPE
50+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
50+33.33 VORTEX
50+66.67 VORTEX
51+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
51+33.33 VORTEX
51+66.67 VORTEX
52+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
52+33.33 VORTEX
52+66.67 VORTEX
53+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
53+33.33 VORTEX
53+66.67 VORTEX
54+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
54+33.33 VORTEX
54+66.67 VORTEX
55+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
55+33.33 VORTEX
55+66.67 VORTEX
56+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
56+33.33 VORTEX
56+66.67 VORTEX
57+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
57+33.33 VORTEX
57+66.67 VORTEX
58+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
58+33.33 VORTEX
58+66.67 VORTEX
59+00.00 MODIFIED STRAIGHT
59+31.41 VORTEX
59+62.83 VORTEX
59+94.24 VORTEX
60+27.92 VORTEX
60+61.60 VORTEX
60+95.28 VORTEX
61+24.35 VORTEX
61+53.43 VORTEX
61+82.50 VORTEX
62+28.83 VORTEX
62+75.17 VORTEX
63+21.50 VORTEX

1.0'
NOTCH BASE WIDTH = 5.0'

NOTCH TOP

WEST WALL EAST WALL
AA

MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR

WEST WALL EAST WALL WEST WALL EAST WALL
1H:1V SLOPE
2H:1V SLOPE

STATION REFERENCE
'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT 'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT B
B
FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
CC FF

STATION

REFERENCE
(APEX CENTER)1.0' 1H:1V SLOPE
2H:1V SLOPE
D
D

VORTEX AND BUMP WEIR VORTEX WEIR
BUMP

ELEVATION

STATION

REFERENCE
(APEX CENTER)
G
G

1.0'
WING EL. = BUMP EL.
90°' 90°'
1H:1V SLOPE
WING

ELEVATION
1H:1V SLOPE
1H:1V SLOPE
WING

ELEVATION

WING ELEVATION
2H:1V SLOPE

5.0'

1.0'

WEST WALL EAST WALL
'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT 'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT 'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT

NOTCH BASE ELEVATION
CREST

ELEVATION
WING EL. = BUMP EL. STATION

REFERENCE
(APEX CENTER)

WING ELEVATIONBUMP ELEVATION

STATION

REFERENCE
(APEX CENTER)

WING ELEVATIONWING ELEVATION

1.0'
1 1
2 1.0' 1.0'

WEST WALL EAST WALL WEST WALL EAST WALL

1.0'
1 CREST

ELEVATION
FLOW
VARIES

NOTCH BASE ELEVATION
1 1
2 1.0'
1 CREST

ELEVATION
FLOW
VARIES
1 1
2 1

CREST ELEVATION
VARIES
FLOW
'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT

PLAN PLAN PLAN

SECTION
-

A SECTION
-

C SECTION
-
F

SECTION
-

B SECTION
-

D SECTION
-
G

1.0'

SECTION
-
E

1.0'
1 2
1 2
VARIES
FLOW
BUMP

ELEVATION
E
E
298

Appendix C
Engineering Cut and Fill
299
360+00
361+00
362+00
363+00
363+77
60+00
61+00
62+00
63+00
64+00
65+00
66+00
67+00
68+00
SJC CIVIL17
12:40:43 20250918
Revisions
Date No.Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
01 1/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LAST SAVED BY:agolpiraLAST DATE SAVED:09/18/2025 12:40
FILE LOCATION:Q:\2007147 SAN JOSE CREEK FISH PASSAGE\96_CAD\01 DESIGNDRAWINGS\04_DESIGN\UPSTREAM REACH DESIGN\SJC CIVIL17.DWG C116
xx Sheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
Scale: 1"=30'
PLAN - SJC LINE STA. 59+60 TO 67+50
nhc
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE

LIMIT OF CHANNEL MODIFICATION (DESIGNED BY NHC)

OUTLINE PROVIDED BY DEWBERRY
FLOW
0'60'
SCALE 1"=30'
30'
TOTAL11181.92 1772.78 623.69 1149.00

CUT/FILL SUMMARY
(INCLUDES 3 FEET OVEREXCAVATION IN THE TRANSITION BOWL) STATION (ft) AREA (SQ. ft) CUT (CU. YARD) FILL (CU. YARD) NET (CU. YARD) 63+74 TO 64+30 4622.58 1451619.1831.90
64+30 TO 67+50 6559.34 321.784.59317.09
SJC LINE STA. 59+60
300

Appendix D
Regulatory Framework
301
Regulatory Framework

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report D-1
Regulatory Framework
The following is a brief summary of the regulatory context under which biological resources are managed at the federal, State, and local levels. A number of federal and State statutes provide a regulatory structure which guide the protection of jurisdictional features. Agencies with the responsibility for protection of jurisdictional features within the Project site include:
 Un
ited States Army Corps of Engineers (non- wetland waters and wetlands of the United States)  R egional Water Quality Control Board (waters of the State)  C alifornia Department Fish and Wildlife (riparian areas, streambeds, and lakes)  C alifornia Coastal Commission (coastal wetlands)
United States Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for administering several federal programs related to ensuring the quality and navigability of the nation’s waters.

Clean Water Act Section 404
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the USACE, to issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the "navigable waters at specified disposal sites." Section 502 of the CWA further defines "navigable waters" as “w aters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” “Waters of the United States” are broadly defined at 33 CFR Part 328.3 to include navigable waters, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, as well as wetlands, marshes, and wet meadows. In recent years the USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have undertaken several efforts to modernize their regulations defining “waters of the United States” (e.g., the 2015 Clean Water Rule and 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule), but these efforts have been frustrated by legal challenges which have invalidated the updated regulations. Thus, the agencies’ longstanding definition of “waters of the United States,” which dates from 1986, remains in effect albeit with supplemental guidance interpreting applicable court decisions as described below.

Waters of the U.S.

In summary, USACE and USEPA regulations define “waters of the United States” as follows:

1. A ll waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

2. A
ll interstate waters including interstate wetlands ;

3. A ll other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
302
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

D-2
i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
ii. F rom which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii. W hich are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;

4. A ll impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States ;

5. T ributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) -(4) of this section;

6. T he territorial sea ;

7. W etlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in items 1-6 above.

Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the d
etermination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with the USEPA.

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the r
equirements of CWA are not waters of the United States.

The lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-t idal waters is defined by the "ordinary high-water mark" (OHWM) unless adjacent wetlands are present. The OHWM is a line on the shore or edge of a channel established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed upon the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of vegetation, or the presence of debris (33 CFR 328.3(e)). As such, waters are recognized in the field by the presence of a defined watercourse with appropriate physical and topographic features. If wetlands occur within, or adjacent to, waters of the United States, the lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHWM to the outer edge of the wetlands (33 CFR 328.4 (c)). The upstream limit of jurisdiction in the absence of adjacent wetlands is the point beyond which the OHWM is no longer perceptible (33 CFR 328.4; see also 51 FR 41217).

Wetlands
The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3). The USACE’s delineation procedures identify wetlands in the field based on indicators of three wetland parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The following is a discussion of each of these parameters.

Hydrophytic Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation dominates areas where frequency and duration of inundation or soil s
aturation exerts a controlling influence on the plant species present. Plant species are assigned wetland indicator status according to the probability of their occurring in wetlands. More than fifty percent of the dominant plant species must have a wetland indicator status to meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The USACE published the National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2018), which separates vascular plants into the following four basic categories based on plant species frequency of occurrence in wetlands:
303
Regulatory Framework

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report D-3
 Obligate Wetland (OBL). Almost always occur in wetlands  F acultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands, but occasionally found in non-wetlands  F acultative (FAC). Occur in wetlands or non-wetlands  F acultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands  O bligate Upland (UPL). Almost never occur in wetlands The USACE considers OBL, FACW and FAC species to be indicators of wetlands. An area is considered to
have hydrophytic vegetation when greater than 50 percent of the dominant species in each vegetative stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) fall within these categories. Any species not appearing on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s list is assumed to be an upland species, almost never occurring in wetlands. In addition, an area needs to contain at least 5% vegetative cover to be considered as a vegetated wetland.

Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are saturated or inundated for a sufficient duration during the growing season to d
evelop anaerobic or reducing conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Field indicators of wetland soils include observations of ponding, inundation, saturation, dark (low chroma) soil colors, bright mottles (concentrations of oxidized minerals such as iron), gleying (indicates reducing conditions by a blue-grey color), or accumulation of organic material.

Additional supporting information includes documentation of soil as hydric or reference to wet conditions in the local soils survey, both of which must be verified in the field.

Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology i
s inundation or soil saturation with a frequency and duration long enough to cause the development of hydric soils and plant communities dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.

If direct observation of wetland hydrology is not possible (as in seasonal wetlands), or records of wetland hydrology are not available (such as stream gauges), assessment of wetland hydrology is frequently supported by field indicators, such as water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, or drainage patterns in wetlands.

Applicable Case Law and Agency Guidance
The USACE’s regulations defining “waters of the United States” have been subject to legal interpretation, and two influential Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the definition to exclude certain classes of waters that bear an insufficient connection to navigable waters. In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001), the United States Supreme Court stated that the USACE’s CWA jurisdiction does not extend to ponds that “are not adjacent to open water.” In reaching its decision, the Court concluded that the “Migratory Bird Rule,” which served as the basis for the USACE’s asserted jurisdiction, was not supported by the CWA. The Migratory Bird Rule extended CWA jurisdiction to intrastate waters "which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory Bird Treaties or which are or would be used as habitat by other migratory birds which cross state lines…” The Court was concerned that application of the Migratory Bird Rule resulted in "reading the term 'navigable waters' out of the statute. Highlighting the language of the CWA to determine the statute's jurisdictional reach, the Court stated, “the term ‘navigable’ has at least the import of showing us what Congress had in mind as its authority for enacting the CWA: its traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or had been navigable in fact or which could reasonably be so made.” This decision stands for the proposition that non-navigable 304
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

D-4
isolated, intrastate waters are not waters of the United States and thus are not jurisdictional under the CWA.

In 2006 the United States Supreme Court decided R apanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (collectively “Rapanos”), which were consolidated cases determining the extent of CWA jurisdiction over waters that carry only an infrequent surface flow. The court issued no majority opinion in Rapanos. Instead, the justices authored five separate opinions including the “plurality” opinion, authored by Justice Scalia (joined by three other justices), and a concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy. To guide implementation of the decision, the USACE and USEPA issued a joint guidance memorandum (“Rapanos Guidance Memorandum”) in 2008 stating that “regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA exists over a water body if either the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's standard is satisfied.”
According to the plurality opinion in Rapanos, “th e waters of the United States include only relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water” and do not include “ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.” In addition, while all wetlands that meet the USACE definition are considered adjacent wetlands, only those adjacent wetlands that have a continuous surface connection because they directly abut the tributary (e.g., they are not separated by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar feature) are considered jurisdictional under the plurality standard.

Under Ju stice Kennedy’s opinion, “t he USACE’s jurisdiction over wetlands depends upon the existence of a significant nexus between the wetlands in question and navigable waters in the traditional sense. Wetlands possess the requisite nexus, and thus come within the statutory phrase ‘navigable waters,’ if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’ When, in contrast, wetlands’ effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term ‘navigable waters.’” Justice Kennedy identified "pollutant trapping, flood control, and runoff storage" as some of the critical functions wetlands can perform relative to other waters. He concluded that, given wetlands’ ecological role, ”mere adjacency” to a non-navigable tributary was insufficient to establish CWA jurisdiction, and that “a more specific inquiry, based on the significant nexus standard, is therefore necessary.”
Interpreting these decisions, and according to the Rapanos Guidance Memorandum, the USACE and U
SEPA will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
 T raditional navigable waters ;
 W etlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters ;
 N on -navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months); and,
 W etlands that directly abut such tributaries .

The USACE and USEPA will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-s pecific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:
 N on -navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent;  W etlands adjacent to non -navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and, 305
Regulatory Framework

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report D-5
 Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.

Where a significant nexus analysis is required, the USACE and USEPA will apply the significant nexus s
tandard as follows:
 A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters; and,
 S
ignificant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors .

The USACE and USEPA generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
 S wales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and,
 D itches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the USACE for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States. Structures or work outside the limits defined for navigable waters of the United States require a Section 10 permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the water body. The law applies to any dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, filling, re-channelization, or any other modification of a navigable water of the United States, and applies to all structures and work. It further includes, without limitation, any wharf, dolphin, weir, boom breakwater, jetty, groin, bank protection (e.g., riprap, revetment, bulkhead), mooring structures such as pilings, aerial or subaqueous power transmission lines, intake or outfall pipes, permanently moored floating vessel, tunnel, artificial canal, boat ramp, aids to navigation, and any other permanent, or semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction. It is important to note that Section 10 applies only to navigable waters, and thus does not apply to work in non-navigable wetlands or tributaries. In some cases, Section 10 authorization is issued by the USACE concurrently with CWA Section 404 authorization, such as when certain Nationwide Permits are used.

Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code sec. 13050(e)). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering portions of the CWA.

Clean Water Act Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant requesting a federal license or permit for an activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters (such as a Section 404 Permit) to provide state certification that the proposed activity will not violate state and federal water quality 306
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

D-6
standards. In California, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Section 401 Certification) is issued by the RWQCBs and by the SWRCB for multi-region projects. The process begins when an applicant submits an application to the RWQCB and informs the USACE (or the applicable agency from which a license or permit was requested) that an application has been submitted. The USACE will then determine a “reasonable period of time” for the RWQCB to act on the application; this is typically 60 days for routine projects and longer for complex projects but may not exceed one year.

When the period has elapsed, if the RWQCB has not either issued or denied the application for Section 401 Certification, the USACE may determine that Certification has been waived and issue the requested permit. If a Section 401 Certification is issued it may include binding conditions, imposed either through the Certification itself or through the requested federal license or permit.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter- Cologne Act (California Water Code section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the State is as follows:
 Th
e quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected  A ll activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason
 Th e State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation
The Porter-C ologne Act established nine RWQCBs (based on watershed boundaries) and the SWRCB, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The SWRCB provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews RWQCB decisions. In addition, the SWRCB allocates rights to the use of surface water. The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have numerous nonpoint source related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management.

Section 13260 of the Porter-C
ologne Act requires any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of waters of the State to file a Report of Waste Discharge with the appropriate RWQCB. The RWQCB may then authorize the discharge, subject to conditions, by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). While this requirement was historically applied primarily to outfalls and similar point source discharges, the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, effective May 2020, make it clear that the agency will apply the Porter-Cologne Act’s requirements to discharges of dredge and fill material as well. The Procedures state that they are to be used in issuing CWA Section 401 Certifications and WDRs, and largely mirror the existing review requirements for CWA Section 404 Permits and Section 401 Certifications, incorporating most elements of the USEPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Following issuance of the Procedures, the SWRCB produced a consolidated application form for dredge/fill discharges that can be used to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, WDRs, or both.
307
Regulatory Framework

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report D-7
Non-Wetland Waters of the State
The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state except for wetlands currently. In many cases the RWQCBs interpret the limits of waters of the State to be bounded by the OHWM unless isolated conditions or ephemeral waters are present.

However, in the absence of statewide guidance each RWQCB may interpret jurisdictional boundaries within their region and the SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by the RWQCB, waters of the State may include riparian areas or other locations outside the OHWM, leading to a larger jurisdictional area over a given water body compared to the USACE.

Wetland Waters of the State
Procedures for defining wetland waters of the State pursuant to the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State went into effect May 28, 2020. The SWRCB defines an area as wetland if, under normal circumstances:
(i) t he area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both;
(ii) t he duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and
(iii) th e area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The SWRCB’s Implementation Guidance for the Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of D
redge and Fill Material to Waters of the State (2020), states that waters of the U.S. and waters of the State should be delineated using the standard USACE delineation procedures, taking into consideration that the methods shall be modified only to allow for the fact that a lack of vegetation does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction California Fish and Game Code section 1602 states that it is unlawful for any person to "substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake" without first notifying the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) of that activity. Thereafter, if CDFW determines and informs the entity that the activity will not substantially adversely affect any existing fish or wildlife resources, the entity may commence the activity. If, however, CDFG determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource, the entity may be required to obtain from CDFW a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), which will include reasonable measures necessary to protect the affected resource(s), before the entity may conduct the activity described in the notification. Upon receiving a complete Notification of Lake/Streambed Alteration, CDFW has 60 days to present the entity with a Draft SAA. Upon review of the Draft SAA by the applicant, any problematic terms are negotiated with CDFW and a final SAA is executed.

The CDFW has not defined the term “stream” for the purposes of implementing its regulatory p
rogram under Section 1602, and the agency has not promulgated regulations directing how jurisdictional streambeds may be identified, or how their limits should be delineated. However, four relevant sources of information offer insight as to the appropriate limits of CDFW jurisdiction as discussed below.
308
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

D-8
 The plain language of Section 1602 of CFGC establishes the following general concepts:
 R eferences “river,” “stream,” and “lake”
 R eferences “natural flow”
 R eferences “bed,” “bank,” and “channel”
 A pplicable court decisions , in particular Rutherford v. State of California (188 Cal App. 3d 1276 (1987), which interpreted Section 1602’s use of “stream” to be as defined in common law. The Court indicated that a “stream” is commonly understood to:
 H ave a source and a terminus
 H ave banks and a channel
 C onvey flow at least periodically, but need not flow continuously and may at times appear outwardly dry
 R epresent the depression between the banks worn by the regular and usual flow of the water
 I nclude the area between the opposing banks measured from the foot of the banks from the top of the water at its ordinary stage, including intervening sand bars  I nclude the land that is covered by the water in its ordinary low stage  I nclude lands below the OHWM
 C DFW regulations defining “stream” for other purposes, including sport fishing (14 CCR 1.72) and streambed alterations associated with cannabis production (14 CCR 722(c)(21)), which indicate that a stream:
 F
lows at least periodically or intermittently
 F lows through a bed or channel having banks
 S upports fish or aquatic life
 C an be dry for a period of time
 I ncludes watercourses where surface or subsurface flow supports or has supported riparian vegetation
 G uidance documents , including A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (CDFG 1994) and Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility‐Scale Solar Power Plants (Brady and Vyverberg 2013), which suggest the following:
 A
stream may flow perennially or episodically
 A stream is defined by the course in which water currently flows, or has flowed during the historic hydrologic course regime (approximately the last 200 years)  W idth of a stream course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators  A stream may have one or more channels (single thread vs. compound form)  F eatures such as braided channels, low -flow channels, active channels, banks associated with secondary channels, floodplains, islands, and stream-associated vegetation, are interconnected parts of the watercourse
 C anals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife
309
Regulatory Framework

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report D-9
 Biologic components of a stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, all aquatic animals including fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species which derive benefits from the stream system
 Th e lateral extent of a stream can be measured in different ways depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife resource at risk The tenets listed above, among others, are applied to establish the boundaries of streambeds in v
arious environments. Importance of each factor may be weighted based on site-specific considerations and the applicability of the indicators to the streambed at hand.

California Coastal Commission Jurisdiction
In October 1972, the United States Congress passed Title 16 USC Sections 1451-1464, which established a federal coastal zone management policy and created a federal coastal zone. By that legislation, the Congress declared a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection and development of the coastal zone in order to balance the nation’s natural, environmental and aesthetic resource needs with commercial-economic growth. The Congress found and declared that it was a national policy “to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values as well as to the need for economic development (16 USC Section 1452b). As a result of that federal enactment, coastal states were provided a policy and source of funding for the implementation of federal goals.

The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Proposition 20) was a temporary measure p
assed by the voters of the state as a ballot initiative. It set up temporary regional Coastal Commissions with permit authority and a directive to prepare a comprehensive coastal plan. The coastal commissions under Proposition 20 lacked the authority to implement the Coastal Plan but were required to submit the Plan to the legislature for “adoption and implementation.” The California Coastal Act (CCA) o
f 1976 is the permanent enacting law approved by the State legislature. The Coastal Act established a different set of policies, a different boundary line, and different permitting procedures than Proposition 20. Furthermore, it provides for the transfer of permitting authority, with certain limitations reserved for the State, to local governments through adoption and certification of LCPs by the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

In accordance with the CCA, the CCC defines coastal wetlands as generally extending seaward to the s
tate’s outer limit of jurisdiction (i.e., three nautical miles from the Mean Hight Tide Line (MHTL) and inland generally 1,000 yards from the MHTL (CCC 2011). In contrast to wetland waters of the U.S., potential coastal wetland features are defined by the presence of one of the three USACE wetland indicators (California Code of Regulations Title 14 (14 CCR)). The one parameter definition as follows:

Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface l
ong enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated 310
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

D-10
substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats. (14 CCR Section 13577).

For purposes of this section, the upland limit of a wetland shall be defined as:
(A) t he boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover;
(B) t he boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly nonhydric; or
(C) in th e case of wetlands without vegetation or soils, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time during years of normal precipitation, and land that is not.” (14 CCR Section 13577)
City Wetlands and Streambed Protection Areas
Pursuant to General Plan Conservation Element sub policy CE 3.1, Definition of Wetlands, the City defines wetland boundaries by a single parameter (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, or hydrology) and directly cites the Coastal Commission definitions contained in 14 CCR 13577(b).

Boundaries of City wetlands were delineated as coterminous with CCC coastal wetlands.

Pursuant to General Plan Conservation Element policy CE 2, Protection of Creeks and Riparian Areas,
watercourses and their associated riparian areas are defined as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESHA) and Streamside Protection Areas (SPA). Boundaries of City SPA were delineated as coterminous with CDFW-jurisdictional streambeds.
311

Appendix E
Plant Species Observed in Study Area
312
Plant Species Observed in Study Area

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report E-1
Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area on March 20 and 21, 2024 Vegetation Communities and Landcovers
Scientific Name1
and Sensitivity Status2 Common Name
Wetland
Indicator Status3
Annual Brome
Grasslands
Arroyo Willow
Thickets
Black Cottonwood
Woodland
California Sycamore-Coast Live
Oak Riparian Woodland
Coyote Brush
Scrub
Urban
Development
Eucalyptus
Groves
Mixed
Woodland
Pickleweed
Mats
Native
Alnus rhombifolia white alder FACW 
Artemisia douglasiana mugwort FAC 
Baccharis pilularis coyote brush UPL * *
Baccharis salicifolia mulefat FAC 
Cerastium spp. chickweed UPL 
Clematis ligusticifolia creek clematis FAC 
Galium spp. bedstraw –  
Heliotropium curassavicum alkali heliotrope FACU  Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed UPL 
Juglans californica (CRPR 4.2) california bl ack walnut FACU * Marah fabacea wild cucumber UPL    
Notholithocarpus densiflorus tan oak UPL 
Pholistoma auritum fiesta flower UPL 
Platanus racemosa western sycamore FAC  * 
Populus trichocarpa (P. balsamifera) black cottonwood FAC *  Prunus ilicifolia ssp. lyonii island cherry tree UPL  Ptelea trifoliata hoptree UPL 
Quercus agrifolia coast live oak UPL * 
Rubus ursinus California blackberry FAC 
Salicornia pacifica (S. virginica) pickleweed OBL   Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow FAC *  
Sambucus mexicana (S. nigra) blue elderberry FACU  
Scrophularia californica California figwort FACU  
Solanum douglasii douglas nightshade FAC 
Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak FACU 
Umbellularia californica California bay FAC  
Non-native
– ornamental shrubs and trees UPL 
Arundo donax giant reed FACW 
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome * 
Bromus rubens red brome UPL 
Callistemon spp. bottlebrush UPL 
Campsis radicans trumpet vine FACU 
Carpobrotus edulis iceplant UPL 
Citrus limon lemon UPL 
Citrus reticulata tangerine UPL 
Conium maculatum poison hemlock FACW 
Cortaderia selloana pampas grass UPL 
Cupressaceae cypress UPL 
313
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

E-2
Vegetation Communities and Landcovers
Scientific Name1
and Sensitivity Status2 Common Name
Wetland
Indicator Status3
Annual Brome
Grasslands
Arroyo Willow
Thickets
Black Cottonwood
Woodland
California Sycamore-Coast Live
Oak Riparian Woodland
Coyote Brush
Scrub
Urban
Development
Eucalyptus
Groves
Mixed
Woodland
Pickleweed
Mats
Delairea odorata cape ivy FAC   
Eucalyptus globulus blue gum eucalyptus UPL  
Eriobotrya japonica loquat UPL  
Erodium cicutarium redstem filaree UPL 
Fraxinus uhdei Shamel ash UPL  
Hedera helix English ivy FACU 
Hordeum marinum/murinum foxtail FAC/FACU 
Hypochaeris glabra smooth cat’s ear UPL 
Jacaranda mimosifolia jacaranda UPL *
Juniperus horizontalis creeping juniper FACU 
Lactuca serriola prickly wild lettuce UPL 
Lonicera spp. ornamental honeysuckle UPL 
Malva parviflora cheese weed UPL  
Medicago polymorpha burclover UPL 
Nerium oleander oleander UPL 
Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco FAC 
Oxalis pes‐caprae Bermuda buttercup UPL    
Pennisetum alopecuroides fountain grass UPL  
Phoenix/Washingtonia spp. palm UPL 
Phytolacca isosandra tropical pokeweed UPL 
Plantago lanceolata English plantain FAC 
Platanus X hispanica London plane tree UPL 
Poaceae unidentifiable annual non-n ative grasses UPL    * Poaceae turf grass UPL 
Ricinus communis castor bean FACU     
Rumex crispus curly dock FAC 
Silybum marianum milkthistle UPL 
Sonchus asper/oleraceus sow thistle UPL 
Stipa miliacea smilo grass UPL 
Tabebuia ssp. trumpet tree UPL 
Tropaeolum majus garden nasturtium UPL    
Vinca major periwinkle FACU  
*dominant species
UPL = Uplands
FACU = Facultative Upland
FAC = Facultative
FACW = Facultative Wetland

1 Jepson 2025
2 CDFW 2025c
3 USACE 2022
Note: The open water and urban stream channel land cover types do not contain vegetation and are not included in this table. The disturbed vegetation land cover type is also not included since most of the vegetation in this land cover type was removed during the separate project associated with Hollister Avenue Bridge, and remaining vegetation is sparse and previously disturbed.

314

Appendix F
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams Ordinary High Water Mark Datasheet 315

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:

Project Number: Town: State:

Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:

Investigator(s):

Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:

Projection: Datum:

Coordinates:

Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Brief site description:

Checklist of resources (if available):

Aerial photography
Dates:

Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies

Stream gage data
Gage number:

P eriod of record:

History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event

Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:

1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.

2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.

3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the v egetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.

4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.

5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:

Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:

San Jose Creek Fish Passage
J. Love, K. Bonsall
3/20/24 1620
CA
PP# 108
sp1x
x
Park nearby, HAB & concrete channel just ds; homeless encampments trapezoidal, natural streambed
xx
x
x
x
x
316

Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:

Cross section drawing

OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators:

Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________

Comments:

Floodplain unit : Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace

GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit:

Average sediment texture: _______sand___________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:

NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)

Indicators:

Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:

SJC fish SP1 3/20/24 1620
facing n/us
xxx
x
x
1 1 0 0
x
xxx
no veg in channel/OHWM; veg on banks and sand in OHWM, changes to sandy loam on bank low flow= OHWM
micro topo surf relief
317

Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:

Floodplain unit : Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace

GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit:

Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:

NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)

Indicators:

Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:

Floodplain unit : Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace

GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit:

Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:

NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)

Indicators:

Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:

SSJ Fish SP1 3/20/24 1620
sandy loam
95 20 20 55
xx
x bank
xx
x
xx
small bench on west side, moderate surf relief
318

Appendix G
Wetland Determination Data Forms
319
Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner: State:

Investigator(s):
0Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):

Subregion (LRR):

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
x
Are Vegetation NoAre “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes xNo , Soil No , or Hydrology No Are Vegetation No , Soil Yes , or Hydrology No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

XYes Yes X
X Yes

1. (A)2.

3. (B)4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)

1. 2.

3. OBL species x 1 =4.

FACW species x 2 =5.

FAC species x 3 =
Herb Stratum
x 5 =UPL species1.
(B)Column Totals: (A)2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8. Morphological Adaptations
1 (Provide supporting
Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
channel bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none):

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Arid West Region
See ERDC/EL TR-08-28; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
60' x 15'
60' x 15'
0% Cover of Biotic Crust99
Lat: 34.436087LRR C
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)naturally problematic? )
Multiply by:

FAC
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1 1
Absolute
% Cover
(Plot size:

Populus tricopcarpa
None
(Plot size:
within a Wetland?
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
None
significantly disturbed?
Dominant
Species?
No
Dominance Test worksheet:
60' x 15' )
Total % Cover of:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

No
No
No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
None
(Plot size:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Dominance Test is >50%
Section 9, Township 4N, Range 28W
none
R4SBCElder-Soboba complex
(If no, explain in Remarks.)NoYes
3/20/24Sampling Date:San Jose Creek Fish Passage
Sampling Point: SP1City of Goleta CA
City/County: Goleta/Santa Barbara County
WGS84Datum:-119.819118
Section, Township, Range:J. Love, K. Bonsall
Slope (%):

Long:
=Total Cover
=Total Cover
Indicator
Status)
No
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
=Total Cover
(Plot size: 60' x 15' )
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-1, FEB 2024 Arid West – Version 2.0
(POPBAL)
0 0
0 XYes
FACU species x 4 =
Yes
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
X

NA
Remarks:

Unvegetated channel bottom were sample point is located. For wetland delineation purposes, an area is considered to be vegetated if it has 5 percent or more total plant cover at the peak of the growing season. Leaf litter present. Sloped banks outside SP are dominated by SALLAS.

Remarks:

Sample point is located in wetted channel; 60 ft x 15 ft sample area parallel and within channel. Wetlands cannot be present on banks due to slope.

Photo Point #108.
320
Sampling Point:
% % Type1 Loc2
Type:

Depth (inches): NoYesHydric Soil Present? X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X
XX
X
Yes XSurface Water Present?
Yes XWater Table Present?
Yes XSaturation Present? YesWetland Hydrology Present? X No Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
SOIL SP1
Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Field Observations:
12 Texture
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Sandy Redox (S5)Histosol (A1)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox Features
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Other (Explain in Remarks)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Remarks:

Water table and soil saturation preseumed present due to depth of water within the channel; could not measure. Leaf litter, dead algae present.

FAC-neutral = 0:0
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) No
No
No
Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth
Remarks(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix

HYDROLOGY
Water Marks (B1)Salt Crust (B11) (Riverine)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsHydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) 3:

Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. none
ENG FORM 6116-1, FEB 2024 Arid West – Version 2.0
unknown
unknown
Remarks:

A soil pit could not be properly dug and sampled due to 1ft of water present along entirety of channel bottom. 100% sandy bottom.

Naturally prob sandy bottom, but enough fines are present so that redox could be observed if present. USACE JD protocol survey completed for the City in October 2013 in the same location for the Hollister Ave. Bridge Proj did not revealed no hydric soils at this location. Not mapped as USDA-NRCS hydric.

X
321
Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner: State:

Investigator(s):

Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): 0
Subregion (LRR):

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
x
Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No No
Are Vegetation No , Soil Yes , or Hydrology No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes X
Yes X Yes X
Yes X

1. 2. (A)

3. 4. (B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)

1. 2.

3. 4. OBL species x 1 =

5. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
Herb Stratum FACU species x 4 =

1. UPL species x 5 =

2. Column Totals: (A) (B)

3. 4.

5. 6. X

7. X

8. Morphological Adaptations
1 (Provide supporting
Woody Vine Stratum

1. 2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Yes X
floodplain terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none):

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Arid West Region
See ERDC/EL TR-08-28; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
SALLAS on outer edge of floodplain and sample point. Bare ground and SALPAC on creekside of floodplain and sample area.

Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
60' x 20'
60' x 20'
20 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0
LRR C Lat: 34.425829
naturally problematic?
)
140
0 0
FACW
100.0%
0 Multiply by:
10 70
0 FACW
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
67 67
Absolute
% Cover
(Plot size:

Salix lasiolepis
Arundo donax
(Plot size:
within a Wetland?
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:

Yes
Remarks:
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
None
significantly disturbed?
Dominant
Species?
No
Dominance Test worksheet:
60' x 20' )
Total % Cover of:

Prevalence Index worksheet:
10 No
No
No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Heliotropium curassivicum
Chenopodium album FACU 1.88
FACU 80
OBL 0
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 3 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Salicornia pacifica
(Plot size:
10 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
0 150
Dominance Test is >50%
Section 16, Township 4N, Range 28W
none
R4SBCxCamarillo fine sandy loam (hydric)
Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Sampling Date: 3/21/24
City of Goleta Sampling Point:CA SP2
City/County: Goleta/Santa Barbara County
WGS84-119.826006 Datum:

Section, Township, Range:J. Love, K. Bonsall
Slope (%):

Long:
=Total Cover
Sample point located on a small floodplain on east side of channel; 60' x 20' sample area along floodplain and parallell with channel. Soil pit is at N/upstream end of sample point.
=Total Cover
Indicator
Status
Remarks:
)
No
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
=Total Cover
Toxicodendron diversilobum UPL
Yes
3 (Plot size: 60' x 20' )
=Total Cover
10 other un-IDable coyuledons
ENG FORM 6116-1, FEB 2024 Arid West – Version 2.0
Are “Normal Circumstances" present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Yes X
< 1
< 1
<< 1
<< 1
No
No
No
Yes
3 3
No
322
Sampling Point:
%% Type1 Loc2
M C 199
M CS99
1 M99 1 C
Type:

Depth (inches): NoYesHydric Soil Present? x
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X
X
xYesSurface Water Present?
xYesWater Table Present?
xYesSaturation Present? YesWetland Hydrology Present? X No Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
SOIL SP2
Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Field Observations:
10YR 2/2
Texture
8-9
Prominent redox concentrations
0-5
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Histosol (A1)
color looks visibly darker but not by test
redox is on surface of soil grains and not concentrated enough to determine a color Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
10YR 4/3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox Features
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Other (Explain in Remarks)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Remarks:

FAC-neutral = 3:0. Soil is too sandy for surface soil cracks.

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
10YR 4/3 5YR 4/69-16
5YR 4/4
Depth
Color (moist)(inches)
10YR 3/2
Remarks
5-8
Color (moist)
Matrix
8-9

HYDROLOGY
Water Marks (B1)Salt Crust (B11) (Riverine)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsHydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) 3:

Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Prominent redox concentrations
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. none
ENG FORM 6116-1, FEB 2024 Arid West – Version 2.0
10YR 3/2 100 0 Silty Loam
Silty Loam
Silty Loam
Loam
N/A

not detectable
N/A 0

N/A N/A

N/A N/A
<1
Silty Loam
Remarks:

USDA-mapped as hydric. No sandy redox and depleted matrix because not enough redox concentrations. No redox dark surface because not enough redox. Soil conditions indicate hydric soils are forming because redox is present but not in high enough concentrations. Floodplain possibly disturbed enough to not get fully hydric soils. Redox color could not be determined because it was too spread out and not concentrated. 323

Appendix H
Site Photographs
324
Site Photographs

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report H-1

Photog raph 1. View of the natural channel portion of San Jose Creek within the northern portion of the study area, facing north. Arroyo willow thickets present along banks of San Jose Creek. March 20, 2024.

Photog raph 2. View of natural channel meeting concrete channel at Hollister Ave Bridge within the northern portion of the study area at SP-1, facing south. Arroyo willow thickets present along banks of San Jose Creek. March 20, 2024.
325
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

H-2

Photog raph 3. View of urban stream channel and urban development landcover (the concrete channel portion of San Jose Creek with fish weirs) within the central portion of the study area, facing south.

March 20, 2024.

Photog raph 4. View of mixed woodland and eucalyptus grove at northern portion of study area, facing north. March 20, 2024.
326
Site Photographs

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report H-3

Photog raph 5. View of black cottonwood woodland (on right) and urban developed land cover (on left) in northern portion of study area, facing northeast. March 20, 2024.

Photog raph 6. View of California sycamore coast live oak riparian woodland and the natural channel portion of San Jose Creek within the northern portion of the study area, facing north. March 20, 2024. 327
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

H-4

Photog raph 7. View of annual brome grassland and developed landcover, outside of the concrete channel, at the southern portion of the study area, facing northeast. March 21, 2024.

Photog raph 8. View of the urban stream channel and urbane development land cover (concrete channel portion with wooden fish weirs) and coyote brush scrub along top of concrete channel (to right), within the central portion of the study area, facing northeast. March 21, 2024. 328
Site Photographs

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report H-5

Photog raph 9. View of end of open water and concrete channel at southern portion of study area with arroyo willow thickets and pickleweed mats along eastern bank of San Jose Creek, facing south.

March 21, 2024.

Photog raph 10. View of the open water, arroyo willow thickets, and pickleweed mat at SP-2 at southern portion of study area along eastern bank of San Jose Creek, facing northeast. March 21, 2024. 329
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

H-6

This page intentionally left blank.
330

Appendix F
Engineering Project Design and Cross-sections
331
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C100
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
0'0' 300'
SCALE 1"=150'
150'
nhc
C102
C103
C104
C105
C111
C106
C107
C108
C109
C110
C112 - C113
332
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
321+35

2.30 (FISH)

3.80 (SJC)
321+50

2.36 (FISH)

3.89 (SJC)
322+00

2.57 (FISH)

4.17 (SJC)
322+50

2.88 (FISH)

4.46 (SJC)
323+00

3.23 (FISH)

4.76 (SJC)
323+50

3.65 (FISH)

5.14 (SJC)
324+00

4.10 (FISH)

5.51 (SJC)
324+50

4.55 (FISH)

5.87 (SJC)
325+00

5.00 (FISH)

6.25 (SJC)
325+50

5.45 (FISH)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C102
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc
FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
STA. 21+50.00

VORTEX AND BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 3.72
STA. 23+25.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 4.94
STA. 24+00.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 5.62
STA. 24+75.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 6.29
STA. 25+50.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 6.78
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 4.47
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 5.02
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 5.69
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 6.37
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.04
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.53
STA. 22+50.00

VORTEX AND BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 4.27

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
FLOW
333
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
326+00

5.89 (FISH)

7.00 (SJC)
326+50

6.05 (FISH)

7.14 (SJC)
327+00

6.12 (FISH)

7.28 (SJC)
327+50

6.19 (FISH)

7.42 (SJC)
328+00

6.26 (FISH)

7.57 (SJC)
328+50

6.34 (FISH)

7.71 (SJC)
329+00

6.41 (FISH)

7.85 (SJC)
329+50

6.49 (FISH)

7.99 (SJC)
330+00

6.57 (FISH)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C103
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
STA. 30+00.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 7.45
STA. 29+25.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 7.34
STA. 28+50.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 7.23
STA. 27+75.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 7.11
STA. 27+00.00

VORTEX AND

BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 7.00
STA. 26+25.00

VORTEX AND BUMP WEIR
APEX EL. 6.89
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.64
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.75
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.86
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 7.98
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 8.09
VORTEX

BUMP/WING
EL. 8.20

EXISTING WEST WALL

SEWER LINES

SEWER LINES
SCALE: 1H:5V
£
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
FLOW
334
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
330+50

6.65 (FISH)

8.27 (SJC)
331+00

6.72 (FISH)

8.42 (SJC)
331+50

6.79 (FISH)

8.56 (SJC)
332+00

6.86 (FISH)

8.70 (SJC)
332+50

6.95 (FISH)

8.84 (SJC)
333+00

7.04 (FISH)

8.98 (SJC)
333+50

7.13 (FISH)

9.12 (SJC)
334+00

7.22 (FISH)

9.26 (SJC)
334+50

7.29 (FISH)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C104
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
STA. 30+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 7.56
STA. 31+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 7.67
STA. 32+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 7.78
STA. 33+00.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 7.90
STA. 33+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.01
STA. 34+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.12
FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
335
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
335+00

7.35 (FISH)

9.55 (SJC)
335+50

7.44 (FISH)

9.69 (SJC)
336+00

7.54 (FISH)

9.83 (SJC)
336+50

7.56 (FISH)

9.97 (SJC)
337+00

7.56 (FISH)

10.11 (SJC)
337+50

7.65 (FISH)

10.26 (SJC)
338+00

7.77 (FISH)

10.40 (SJC)
338+50

7.88 (FISH)

10.54 (SJC)
339+00

7.99 (FISH)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C105
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
STA. 35+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.23
STA. 36+00.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.34
STA. 36+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.46
STA. 37+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.57
STA. 38+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 8.68
STA. 39+00.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 9.19
FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
336
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
339+50

8.29 (FISH)

11.02 (SJC)
340+00

8.65 (FISH)

11.36 (SJC)
340+50

8.97 (FISH)

11.69 (SJC)
341+00

9.27 (FISH)

12.03 (SJC)
341+50

9.55 (FISH)

12.37 (SJC)
342+00

9.84 (FISH)

12.71 (SJC)
342+50

10.20 (FISH)

13.04 (SJC)
343+00

10.58 (FISH)

13.38 (SJC)
343+50

10.89 (FISH)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C106
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
STA. 39+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 9.70
STA. 40+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 10.21
STA. 41+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 10.71
STA. 42+00.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 11.22
STA. 42+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 11.73
STA. 43+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 12.23
FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
337
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
344+00

11.19 (FISH)

14.06 (SJC)
344+50

11.52 (FISH)

14.40 (SJC)
345+00

11.87 (FISH)

14.73 (SJC)
345+50

12.21 (FISH)

15.07 (SJC)
346+00

12.53 (FISH)

15.41 (SJC)
346+50

12.87 (FISH)

15.75 (SJC)
347+00

13.21 (FISH)

16.09 (SJC)
347+50

13.55 (FISH)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C107
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
STA. 44+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 12.74
STA. 45+00.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 13.25
STA. 45+75.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 13.75
STA. 46+50.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 14.26
STA. 47+25.00

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 14.77
FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
338
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
348+00

13.90 (FISH)

16.76 (SJC)
348+50

14.23 (FISH)

17.10 (SJC)
349+00

14.55 (FISH)

17.44 (SJC)
349+50

14.93 (FISH)

17.78 (SJC)
350+00

15.32 (FISH)

18.12 (SJC)
350+50

15.62 (FISH)

18.46 (SJC)
351+00

15.89 (FISH)

18.79 (SJC)
351+50

16.21 (FISH)

19.13 (SJC)
352+00

16.55 (FISH)

19.47 (SJC)
352+50

16.91 (FISH)

19.80 (SJC)
47+99 48+49 48+99 49+50 50+00 50+50 51+00 51+50 52+00 52+49 348+00
349+00
350+00
351+00
352+00
48+00
49+00
50+00
51+00
52+00
LEGEND
'FISH' LINE
'SJC' LINE

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C108
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 15.90
STA. 48+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 16.17
STA. 49+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 16.63
STA. 49+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 16.83
STA. 50+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 17.25
STA. 50+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 17.48
STA. 51+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 17.92
STA. 51+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 18.14
STA. 52+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 18.61
STA. 52+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 18.87
339
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
353+00

17.27 (FISH)

20.14 (SJC)
353+50

17.61 (FISH)

20.48 (SJC)
354+00

17.93 (FISH)

20.82 (SJC)
354+50

18.27 (FISH)

21.15 (SJC)
355+00

18.62 (FISH)

21.49 (SJC)
355+50

18.94 (FISH)

21.78 (SJC)
356+00

19.24 (FISH)

22.08 (SJC)
356+50

19.55 (FISH)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C109
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'
nhc

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 19.32
STA. 53+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 19.53
STA. 54+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 19.95
STA. 54+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 20.18
STA. 55+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 20.62
STA. 55+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 20.83
STA. 56+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 21.25
STA. 56+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 21.45FLOW
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW
340
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
357+00

19.85 (FISH)

22.65 (SJC)
357+50

20.15 (FISH)

22.95 (SJC)
358+00

20.46 (FISH)

23.24 (SJC)
358+50

20.76 (FISH)

23.52 (SJC)
359+00

21.07 (FISH)

23.80 (SJC)
359+50

21.36 (FISH)

24.08 (SJC)
360+00

21.69 (FISH)

24.38 (SJC)
360+50

21.99 (FISH)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C110
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 21.84
STA. 57+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 22.03
STA. 58+33.33

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 22.40
STA. 58+66.67

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 22.58
STA. 59+31.41

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 23.17
STA. 59+62.83

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 23.57
STA. 59+94.24

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 23.98
FLOW
STA. 60+27.92

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.05
STA. 60+61.60

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.12
nhc
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS
FLOW

LIMIT OF CHANNEL MODIFICATION
(DESIGNED BY DEWBERRY)
341
Elevation (In Feet, NAVD88)
Top Station ('FISH' LINE; In Feet)
Bottom Station ('SJC' LINE; In Feet)
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
361+00

22.28 (FISH)

24.95 (SJC)
361+50

22.58 (FISH)

25.25 (SJC)
362+00

22.88 (FISH)

25.58 (SJC)
362+50

23.07 (FISH)

25.99 (SJC)
363+00

23.25 (FISH)

26.35 (SJC)
363+50

23.44 (FISH)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C111
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
40'
SCALE 1"=20'
0' 20'

EXISTING WEST WALL

EXISTING EAST WALL

PROPOSED WEIR
STA. 63+21.50

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 25.16
STA. 62+75.17

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.91
STA. 62+28.83

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.66
STA. 61+82.50

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.41
STA. 61+53.43

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.34
STA. 61+24.35

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.26
STA. 60+95.28

VORTEX WEIR
APEX EL. 24.19
FLOW
nhc
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE
SEE SHEET D101 FOR DETAILS

LIMIT OF CHANNEL

MODIFICATION
(DESIGNED BY NHC)

OUTLINE PROVIDED BY DEWBERRY
SEE SHEET C112SJC LINE STA. 62+50 TO STA. 68+00

REFERENCE LINE
SEE SHEET C112
FLOW
342
363+00
363+77
63+00
64+00
65+00
66+00
67+00
68+00
EL. 27.32
EL. 24.11
EL. 23.59
EL. 24.00
EL. 24.11
EL. 24.11
EL. 23.97
EL. 23.58
EL. 24.11
EL. 24.95
EL. 25.20
EL. 24.70
EL. 24.90
EL. 24.20
Elevation (In Feet)
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
62+50 63+00 63+50 64+00 64+50 65+00 65+50 66+00 66+50 67+00 67+50 68+00 STA. 64+30.37
EL. 24.11
STA. 64+50
EL. 24.31
STA. 64+70
EL. 24.50
STA. 64+90
EL. 24.68
STA. 65+30
EL. 25.06
STA. 65+70
EL. 25.47
STA. 66+10
EL. 25.81
STA. 66+50
EL. 26.22
STA. 66+90
EL. 26.65
STA. 67+30
EL. 27.06
STA. 65+10
EL. 24.87
STA. 65+50
EL. 25.25
STA. 65+90
EL. 25.65
STA. 66+30
EL. 26.02
STA. 66+70
EL. 26.43
STA. 67+10
EL. 26.84
STA. 67+50
EL. 27.28

1.0%

0.9%

1.0%

0.9%

1.1%

0.9%

0.8%

1.0%

1.1%

1.0%

1.1%

1.1%
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C112
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

LIMIT OF CHANNEL MODIFICATION (DESIGNED BY NHC)OUTLINE PROVIDED BY DEWBERRY FLOW
PROFILE - SJC LINE STA. 62+50 TO 68+00
'SJC' LINE
FLOW
2H:1V
2H:1V
2H:1V
1H:1V
2H:1V
1H:1V
1H:1V TYP.

TRANSITION FROM
2H:1V TO 1H:1V

TRANSITION FROM
2H:1V TO 1H:1V
1H:1V TYP.

SCALE: 1H:5V
£
2H:1V
2H:1V
343
363+00
363+77
63+00
64+00
65+00
66+00
67+00
68+00
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 78
8 9
9 10
10 11
11 12
12 13
13 14
14 15
15 16
16 17
17 18
18 19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C113
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

OUTLINE PROVIDED

BY DEWBERRY
FLOW
344
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 500-10-20-30-40-50
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
01 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 00-10-20-30-40-50-60
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 500-10-20-30-40-50
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 50
20 30
40 50
0 1 02 03 04 00-10-20-30-40
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C114
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
SECTION 1 - STA. 63+54.18
SECTION 2 - STA. 63+64.64
SECTION 3 - STA. 63+69.90
SECTION 4 - STA. 63+85.76
SECTION 5 - STA. 63+99.37
SECTION 6 - STA. 64+15.06
345
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
01 0 2 00-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
01 0 2 00-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
01 0 2 00-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
01 0 2 00-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
Elevation (In Feet)
Station (In Feet)
20 30
40 20
30 40
0 10 200-10-20
EL. = 24.11
EL. = 24.21
EL. = 24.41
EL. = 24.59
EL. = 24.77
EL. = 25.00
EL. = 25.16
EL. = 25.36
EL. = 25.56
EL. = 25.73
EL. = 25.92
EL. = 26.12
EL. = 26.32
EL. = 26.54
EL. = 26.74
EL. = 26.95
EL. = 27.17
EL. = 27.28
SJC CIVIL15
11:33:06 20250318
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
C115
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

Appendix G
Engineering Cross-section Detail
347
SJC DETAILS2
11:18:30 20240625
Revisions
DateNo. Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
0 11/2

PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION D101Weir Details
xxSheet of XX
2007147
65% Submittal

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

1.0'
NOTCH BASE WIDTH = 5.0'

NOTCH TOP

WEST WALL EAST WALL
AA

MODIFIED STRAIGHT WEIR

WEST WALL EAST WALL WEST WALL EAST WALL
1H:1V SLOPE
2H:1V SLOPE

STATION REFERENCE
'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT 'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT B
B
FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
CC FF

STATION

REFERENCE
(APEX CENTER)1.0' 1H:1V SLOPE
2H:1V SLOPE
D
D

VORTEX AND BUMP WEIR VORTEX WEIR
BUMP

ELEVATION

STATION

REFERENCE
(APEX CENTER)
G
G

1.0'
WING EL. = BUMP EL.
90°' 90°'
1H:1V SLOPE
WING

ELEVATION
1H:1V SLOPE
1H:1V SLOPE
WING

ELEVATION

WING ELEVATION
2H:1V SLOPE

5.0'

1.0'

WEST WALL EAST WALL
'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT 'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT 'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT

NOTCH BASE ELEVATION
CREST

ELEVATION
WING EL. = BUMP EL. STATION

REFERENCE
(APEX CENTER)

WING ELEVATIONBUMP ELEVATION

STATION

REFERENCE
(APEX CENTER)

WING ELEVATIONWING ELEVATION

1.0'
1 1
2 1.0' 1.0'

WEST WALL EAST WALL WEST WALL EAST WALL

1.0'
1 CREST

ELEVATION
FLOW
VARIES

NOTCH BASE ELEVATION
1 1
2 1.0'
1 CREST

ELEVATION
FLOW
VARIES
1 1
2 1

CREST ELEVATION
VARIES
FLOW
'SJC' ALIGNMENT 'FISH' ALIGNMENT

PLAN PLAN PLAN

SECTION
-

A SECTION
-

C SECTION
-
F

SECTION
-

B SECTION
-

D SECTION
-
G

1.0'

SECTION
-
E

1.0'
1 2
1 2
VARIES
FLOW
BUMP

ELEVATION
E
E
348

Appendix H
Engineering Cut and Fill
349
360+00
361+00
362+00
363+00
363+77
60+00
61+00
62+00
63+00
64+00
65+00
66+00
67+00
68+00
SJC CIVIL17
12:40:43 20250918
Revisions
Date No.Description
Job Number
Date
Drafter
Checked
Sheet Number
Designer

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP
1 Plotted Scale
File Name
Drawing Information

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Status
01 1/2

PRELIMINARY

CITY OF GOLETA

CLIENT INFORMATION
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117

PHONE NUMBERS
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Improvements
Scale: 1"=30'
PLAN - SJC LINE STA. 59+60 TO 67+50
nhc
'SJC' LINE
'FISH' LINE

LIMIT OF CHANNEL MODIFICATION (DESIGNED BY NHC)

OUTLINE PROVIDED BY DEWBERRY
FLOW
0'60'
SCALE 1"=30'
30'
TOTAL11181.92 1772.78 623.69 1149.00

Appendix I
State Water Board Statewide Restoration General Order – General Protection Measures 351
General Protection Measures

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum I-1
General Protection Measures
General Protection Measures (GPMs) as described in the State Water Board Statewide Restoration General Order (SRGO) – GPMs (SWRCB 2022) that will be followed by construction personnel are listed below.
 G PM- 1: Receipt and Copies of All Permits and Authorizations. Work will not begin until all necessary permits and authorizations have been received (e.g., United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], United State Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], State and Regional Boards, California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]).

The project proponent will ensure that a readily available copy of the applicable agency permits and authorizations (e.g., USFWS Biological Opinion, NMFS Biological Opinion, Section 404 permit, etc.) is maintained by the construction foreman/manager on the project site for the duration of project activities.
 G
PM- 2: Construction Work Windows. Construction work windows may be required in order to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and associated beneficial uses during the wet season. Project proponents must also follow the applicable Regional Board’s construction work windows, unless otherwise approved.
 G PM- 3: Construction Hours. Construction activities will generally be limited to daylight hours, to the extent feasible. If nighttime construction is necessary, including in tidally influenced waters where tides may limit daylight access and work schedules, all project lighting (e.g., staging areas, equipment storage sites, roadway, and construction footprint) will be selectively placed and directed onto the roadway or construction site and away from aquatic habitats. Light glare shields will be used to reduce the extent of illumination into aquatic habitats. If the works are is near surface waters, the lightning will be shielded so that it does not shine directly into the water.  G
PM- 4: Environmental Awareness Training. For projects occurring in aquatics resources (e.g., wetlands, riparian areas, etc.), prior to engaging existing or new personnel in construction activities, new construction personnel will participate in environmental awareness training conducted by an agency-approved biologist or resource specialist. 9 Construction personnel will be informed regarding the identification, potential presence, legal protections, avoidance and minimization measures, and applicable general protection measures for all aquatic resources with the potential to occur within or immediately adjacent to the project site. Construction personnel will be informed of the procedures to follow should aquatic resources be disturbed during construction activities. For projects where the agency-approved biologist or resource specialist is not regularly on the project site, training may be provided via online/web-based meeting with an interactive portion (e.g., web-based or in-person discussion) to be included during remote training sessions. For projects that may continue over an extended duration and require excessive training events, a training video developed under the supervision of the FWS- approved biologist or resource specialist may be used to train new personnel, as long as an FWS-approved biologist or resource specialist is available via phone to answer questions about the training or that may arise during construction.
352
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

I-2
 GPM-5: Environmental Monitoring. As required in the Notice of Availability (NOA), a resource specialist will ensure that all applicable protective measures are implemented during project construction. The resource specialist will have authority to stop any work if they determine that any permit requirement is not fully implemented. The resource specialist will prepare and maintain a monitoring log of construction site conditions and observations, which will be kept on file.
 G PM- 6: Work Area and Speed Limits. Construction work and materials staging will be restricted to designated work areas, routes, staging areas, temporary interior roads, or the limits of existing roadways. Prior to initiating construction or grading activities, brightly colored fencing or flagging or other practical means will be erected to demarcate the limits of the project activities, including the boundaries of designated staging areas; ingress and egress corridors; stockpile areas for spoils disposal, soil, and materials; and equipment exclusion zones. Flagging or fencing will be maintained in good repair for the duration of project activities. Vehicles will obey posted speed limits on public roadways and will limit speeds to 20 miles per hour (mph) within the project area on unpaved surfaces and unpaved roads (to reduce dust and soil erosion) or in areas where specialstatus species have the potential to occur. Speeds greater than 20 mph may be permitted in the project area where special-status species are not expected to occur (e.g., within areas from which special- status species have been excluded) and where there is no risk of generating excessive dust (e.g., surfaces are paved, saturated, or have treated with other measures to prevent dust).  G
PM- 7: Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Monitoring, flagging, or fencing will be used, where appropriate, to minimize disturbance to environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., waters and wetlands). If fencing is used:
 F
encing used must be approved by CDFW and/or USFWS for compatibility with species under their jurisdiction, as applicable, that may occur on site.  Th e agency -approved biologist or resource specialist will determine the location of fencing prior to the start of construction (e.g., between active work area(s) and sensitive resources).  F encing will remain in place throughout the duration of the construction activities and will be inspected and maintained regularly by the agency-approved biologist or resource specialist until completion of the project.
 R epairs to the fencing will be made within 24 hours of discovering any failure.  F encing will be removed when all construction equipment is removed from the site, the area is cleared of debris and trash, and the area is returned to natural conditions.  G PM- 8: Prevent Spread of Invasive Species. The spread or introduction of invasive exotic plant species by arriving vehicles, equipment, imported gravel, and other materials, will be avoided to the maximum extent possible. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project areas will be removed and properly disposed of in a manner that will not promote their spread.

Equipment will be cleaned of any sediment or vegetation at designated wash stations before entering or leaving the project area to avoid spreading pathogens or exotic/invasive species.

Isolated infestations of noxious weeds identified in the project area will be treated with approved eradication methods at an appropriate time to prevent further formation of seed and destroy viable plant parts and seed. Wash sites must be in confined areas that limit run-off to any surrounding habitat and on a flat grade. Upland areas will use rice straw or invasive species- free local slash/mulch for erosion control, while the remainder of the project area will use certified, weed-free erosion control materials. Mulch must be certified weed-free. The project proponent will follow the guidelines in the CDFW’s California Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan (CDFW 2008) and Aquatic Invasive Species Disinfection/Decontamination 353
General Protection Measures

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum I-3
Protocols (CDFW 2016), where relevant. Construction supervisors and managers will be educated on weed identification and the importance of controlling and preventing the spread of noxious weeds. The project proponent will follow any applicable local guidance to prevent the spread of invasive animal species. Construction supervisors and managers will be responsible for implementation of appropriate protocols (e.g., disinfection of equipment and footwear) to prevent the spread of invasive animals.
 G
PM- 9: Practices to Prevent Pathogen Contamination. The project proponent will review and implement restoration design considerations and best management practices as published by the Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats, when there is a risk of introduction and spread of plant pathogens in site plantings (Working Group for Phytophthoras in native Habitats 2016).
 G
PM- 10: Equipment Maintenance and Materials Storage. Vehicle traffic will be confined to existing roads and the proposed access route(s). All machinery must be in good working condition, showing no signs of fuel or oil leaks. Oil, grease, or other fluids will be washed off at designated wash stations prior to equipment entering the construction site. Inspection and evaluation for the potential for fluid leakage will be performed daily during construction. Where possible, and where it would not result in greater impact to aquatic resources, no equipment refueling, or fuel storage will take place within 100 feet of a body of water. All fuel and chemical storage, servicing, and refueling will be done in an upland staging area or other suitable location (e.g., barges) with secondary containment to prevent spills from traveling to surface water or drains. Project proponents will establish staging areas for equipment storage and maintenance, construction materials, fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other possible contaminants in coordination with resource agencies. Staging areas will have a stabilized entrance and exit and will be located in upland areas to the extent possible and at least 100 feet from bodies of water unless site-specific circumstances do not provide such a setback or would result in further damage to sensitive resources, in which case the maximum setback possible will be used. Fluids will be stored in appropriate containers with covers and properly recycled or disposed of offsite.

Machinery stored on site will have pans or absorbent mats placed underneath potential leak areas as a precautionary measure to further reduce the potential for impact from an unintended or previously undetectable leak.
 G
PM- 11: Material Disposal. All refuse, debris, unused materials, and supplies that cannot reasonably be secured will be removed daily from the project work area and deposited at an appropriate disposal or storage site. All construction debris will be removed from the project work area immediately upon project completion. The Water Quality and Hazardous Materials measures (below), will be implemented as applicable to ensure proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials.
 G
PM- 12: Fugitive Dust Control. To reduce dust, construction vehicles will be speed restricted as described in GPM-6, Work Area and Speed Limits when traveling on non-paved surfaces.

Stockpiled materials susceptible to wind-blown dispersal will be covered with plastic sheeting or other suitable material to prevent movement of the material. During construction, water (e.g., trucks and portable pumps with hoses) or other approved methods will be used to control fugitive dust, as necessary. Dust suppression activities must not result in a discharge to waters of the state unless such discharges are approved by the State or Regional Board.  G
PM- 13: Trash Containment and Removal. During project activities all trash will be properly contained within sealed containers and removed from the work site and disposed of as necessary to maintain a trash-free work area (e.g., trash containers will not be used beyond capacity and fully close/seal).
354
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

I-4
 GPM-14: Project Cleanup after Completion. Work pads, temporary falsework, and other construction items will be removed from the 100-year floodplain by the end of the construction window. Removal of materials must not result in discharge to waterbodies.  G PM- 15: Revegetate Disturbed Areas. All temporarily disturbed areas will be de-compacted and seeded/planted with an assemblage of native riparian, wetland, and/or upland plant species suitable for the area. The project proponent will develop a revegetation plan, including (as applicable) a schedule; plans for grading of disturbed areas to pre-project contours; planting palette with plant species native to the project area; invasive species management; performance standards; success criteria; and maintenance requirements (e.g., watering, weeding, and replanting). Plants for revegetation will come primarily from active seeding and planting; natural recruitment may also be proposed if site conditions allow for natural recruitment to reestablish vegetation and avoid potential negative risks associated with erosion and impacts to water quality. Plants imported to the restoration areas will come from local stock, and to the extent possible, local nurseries. Only native plants (genera) will be used for restoration efforts. Certified weed-free native mixes and mulch will be used for restoration planting or seeding. Revegetation activities within and adjacent to waters of the state will commence as soon as is practicable after construction activities at a site are complete.

Water Quality and Hazardous Materials Measures
Water Quality and Hazardous Materials (WQHM) Measures as described in the State Water Board SRGO – GPMs (SWRCB 2022) that will be followed by construction personnel are listed below.  WQ
HM- 1: Staging Areas and Stockpiling of Materials and Equipment. Staging, storage, and stockpile areas must be outside of waters of the state. To the extent feasible, staging will occur on access roads or other previously disturbed upland areas, such as developed areas, paved areas, parking lots, areas with bare ground or gravel, and areas clear of vegetation, to avoid aquatic habitats and limit disturbance to surrounding habitats. Similarly, all maintenance equipment and materials (e.g., road rock and project spoil) will be restricted to the existing service roads, paved roads, or other determined designated staging areas. See GPM-10 for more details regarding protection measures for materials storage.

Staging areas will be established for equipment storage and maintenance, construction materials, f
uels, lubricants, solvents, and other possible contaminants in coordination with resource agencies.

Staging areas will have a stabilized entrance and exit and will be located at least 100 feet from bodies of water unless site-specific circumstances do not provide such a setback, in such cases the maximum setback possible will be used. If an off-road site is chosen and if special-status species are potentially present, the Biological Monitor will survey the selected site to verify that no aquatic resources would be disturbed by staging activities.

Stockpiling of materials, portable equipment, vehicles and supplies (e.g., chemicals), will be re
stricted to the designated construction staging areas. If rain is predicted in the forecast during the dry season, and stockpiled soils will remain exposed and unworked for more than 7 days, then erosion and sediment control measures must be used. If there is a high-wind scenario (to be defined by the approving Water Board as appropriate for an individual project site), then soils will be covered at all times. Temporary stockpiling of material onsite will be minimized. Stockpiled material will be placed in upland areas far enough away from aquatic habitats that these materials cannot discharge to a water of the state.
355
General Protection Measures

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum I-5
 WQHM-3: Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. For projects that do not require coverage under a NPDES permit per GPM WQHM-2 of the State Water Board SRGO – GPMs (SWRCB 2022), the project proponent will develop and implement erosion and sediment control measures (or plan), which will include appropriate BMPs to reduce the potential release of water quality pollutants to receiving waters. BMPs may include the following measures:
 E mploy tackifiers, soil binders, or mulch as appropriate for erosion control.  I nstall sediment control measures, such as straw bales, silt fences, fiber rolls, or equally effective measures, at repair areas adjacent to stream channels, drainage canals, and wetlands, as needed. Sediment control measures will be monitored during and after each storm event for effectiveness. Modifications, repairs, and improvements to sediment control measures will be made as needed to protect water quality.  N
o sediment control products will be used that include synthetic or plastic monofilament or cross-joints in the netting that are bound/stitched (such as straw wattles, fiber rolls, or erosion control blankets), and which could trap snakes, amphibians, and other wildlife.  WQ HM- 4: Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Response Plan. As part of the SWPPP or Erosion Control Plan (WQHM-2 and WQHM-3), project proponent will prepare and implement a hazardous materials management and spill response plan. Project proponent will ensure that any hazardous materials are stored at the staging area(s) with an impermeable membrane between the ground and hazardous material and that the staging area is designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants to groundwater and runoff water. Project proponent will stop work, follow the spill response plan, and arrange for repair and clean up by qualified individuals of any fuel or hazardous waste leaks or spills. (See WQHM-6. Accidental Discharge of Hazardous Materials for accidental discharges of a reportable quantity of a hazardous material, sewage, or an unknown material.) Project proponent will notify regulatory agencies within 24 hours of any leaks or spills. Project proponent will properly contain and dispose of any unused or leftover hazardous products off-site. Project proponent will use and store hazardous materials, such as vehicle fuels and lubricants, in designated staging areas located away from stream channels and wetlands, according to local, state, and federal regulations, as applicable. Also see GPM-10:

Equipment Maintenance and Materials Storage for more detail on spill prevention.  WQ
HM- 6. Accidental Discharge of Hazardous Materials. Following an accidental discharge of a reportable quantity of a hazardous material, sewage, or an unknown material, the following applies (Wat. Code, § 13271):

As soon as (A) discharger has knowledge of the discharge or noncompliance, (B) notification is p
ossible, and (C) notification can be provided without substantially impeding cleanup or other emergency measures then:
 firs t call – 911 (to notify local response agency)
 t hen call – Office of Emergency Services (OES) State Warning Center at: (800) 852-7550 or (916) 845-8911
 L astly, follow the required OES procedures as set forth in:
http://www.caloes.ca.gov/FireRescueSite/Documents/CalOESSpill_Booklet_ Feb2014_FINAL_BW_Acc.pdf (Cal OES 2014)
Following notification to OES, the discharger will notify the State or Regional Board (and other ag
encies requiring notification in their respective permits), as soon as practicable (ideally within 24 hours). Notification may be via telephone, e-mail, delivered written notice, or other verifiable means. 356
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

I-6
References
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. California Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. ______. 2016. Aquatic Invasive Species Disinfection/Decontamination Protocols (Northern Region).

California Governor’s Oﬃce of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2014. California Hazardous Materials S
pill / Release Notiﬁcation Guidance. February 2014. Available at:
https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Fire-Rescue/Documents/CalOES- Spill_Booklet_Feb2014_FINAL_BW_Acc.pdf
State Water Resources Control Board. 2022 Final Order WQ 2022-0 048-DWQ: Order for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certiﬁcation and Waste Discharge Requirements for Restoration Projects Statewide. Adopted via Resolution No. 2022-0029. August 16, 2022.

Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats. 2016. B est Management Practices for Preventing Phytophthora Contamination in Restoration Projects. California Phytophthora Group, n.d., Available at: https://www.suddenoakdeath.org/wphna/. 357

Appendix C
Cultural Resources Technical Report
358

San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project
Cultural Resources Technical Report
prepared for
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, California 93117
Contact: Gerald Comati, PE, Project Manager
prepared by
Rincon C onsultants, Inc.
319 East Carrillo Street, Suite 105
Santa Barbara, California 93101
June 2 02 5
359

Confidentiality
The following document contains sensitive and confidential information concerning archaeological sites. This report should be held confidential and is not for public distribution. Archaeological site locations are exempt from the California Public Records Act, as specified in Government Code 6254.10, and from the Freedom of Information Act (Exemption 3), under the legal authority of both the National Historic Preservation Act (PL 102-574, Section 304[a]) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (PL 96-95, Section 9[a]). Sections of this report contain maps and other sensitive information. Distribution should be restricted appropriately.

Please cite this report as follows:

Pfeiffer, Mary,
Christopher Duran, Josh Bevan, Rachel Perzel, Leanna Flaherty and Laura Maldonado 2025. S an Jose Creek Fish Passage Project Cultural Resources Technical Report , Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. Rincon Consultants Project No. 22-12484. Report on file at the Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 360
Table of Contents

Cultural Resources Technical Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3 Project Description ..............................................................................................................3 Project History ....................................................................................................................5 Area of Potential Effects .....................................................................................................6 Personnel ............................................................................................................................7 2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................... 10 The National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................ 10 Section 106 ....................................................................................................................... 10 Title 36 Chapter VIII Part 800 Subpart B Section 800.13 .................................... 10 National Register of Historic Places .................................................................... 11 California Health and Safety Code ...................................................................... 12 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 ............................................. 13 3 Natural and Cultural Setting ........................................................................................................ 14 Natural Setting ................................................................................................................. 14 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................ 14 Indigenous History .............................................................................................. 14 Ethnographic Setting ........................................................................................... 18 Post-Contact Setting ........................................................................................... 19 4 Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Background and Archival Research .................................................................................. 22 Desktop Background and Archival Research ...................................................... 22 California Historical Resources Information System Records Search ................. 22 Native American Heritage Commission .............................................................. 23 Native American Outreach.................................................................................. 23 Local Interested Party Outreach ......................................................................... 23 Cultural Resources Field Survey ....................................................................................... 23 5 Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Known Cultural Resources Studies .................................................................................. 26 Study SR-00155 ................................................................................................... 26 Study SR-00246 ................................................................................................... 26 Study SR-01067 ................................................................................................... 26 Study SR-01746 ................................................................................................... 26 Study SR-02004 ................................................................................................... 27 Study SR-02187 ................................................................................................... 27 Study SR-02541 ................................................................................................... 27 361
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

ii
Study SR-02690 ................................................................................................... 27 Study SR-04638 ................................................................................................... 28 Study SR-04704 ................................................................................................... 28 Study SR-04793 ................................................................................................... 28 Study SR-04826 ................................................................................................... 28 Study SR-04905 ................................................................................................... 29 Study SR-05025 ................................................................................................... 29 Study SR-05313 ................................................................................................... 29 Study SR-05416 ................................................................................................... 30 Known Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 30 Resource P-42-041000 ........................................................................................ 30 Resource P-42-041793 ........................................................................................ 31 Native American Heritage Commission ........................................................................... 31 Native American Outreach ............................................................................................... 31 Local Interested Party Outreach ...................................................................................... 32 Aerial Imagery and Historical Topographic Maps Review ............................................... 33 Geoarchaeological Review ............................................................................................... 36 Archaeological Sensitivity Summary ................................................................................ 37 Survey Results .................................................................................................................. 37 Built Environment Resources .............................................................................. 37 Archaeological Resources ................................................................................... 42 6 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 45 Archaeological Monitoring (Required by Original Project IS-MND) ................................ 45 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 .......................................................... 46 7 References ................................................................................................................................... 47 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map ...........................................................................................................8 Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects Map ................................................................................................9 Figure 3 Survey Coverage Map ......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4 Historical Aerial Photograph Depicting Vicinity of APE, 1928 ............................................. 34 Figure 5 Historical Aerial Photograph Depicting Vicinity of APE, 1967 ............................................. 35 Figure 6 Photograph of San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel, View Facing South ........................ 38 Figure 7 Photograph of Coastal Annual Non-native Grasses and Coast Live Oak and Arroyo Willow Trees Lining the Northern Portion of the APE, Facing West ................................... 43 Figure 8 Photograph of Concrete Observed in the Middle to Southern Portions of the APE, Facing North ........................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 9 Photograph of Water Observed in the Middle Portion of the APE, Facing North .............. 44 Figure 10 Photograph of Construction Materials and Trash Observed in the Northern Portion of APE, Plan View ................................................................................................................ 44 362
Table of Contents

Cultural Resources Technical Report iii
Tables
Table 1 Previously Recorded Resources located Adjacent to the APE ............................................ 30 Appendices
Appendix A California Historical Resources Information System Records Search Results Appendix B Sacred Lands File Search Results and Native American Outreach Appendix C Local Interested Party Outreach
Appendix D State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series Forms

363
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

This page left intentionally blank.

364
Executive Summary

Cultural Resources Technical Report 1
Executive Summary
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Goleta (City) to conduct a cultural resources study in support of the San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project (project/undertaking) located in the city of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. The project includes modifications to the existing San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel and a small portion of the upstream approaching natural channel necessary to meet the fish passage objectives of the project to permit access to the upper watershed for southern California Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss; southern California steelhead; federally endangered, candidate state endangered). The project requires a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is, therefore, considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). USACE is the lead federal agency under Section 106.

The project is also subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA and will be preparing an Addendum to the previously approved Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project (Original Project) (Original Project IS-MND) (City 2007). This study supplements previous cultural resources work conducted in support of the Original Project and other projects in the area and will support an Addendum to the Original Project IS-MND. Although this study was prepared to support compliance with Section 106 and CEQA, this report is framed around Section 106 to streamline USACE review. This study included the following: delineation of the undertaking’s Area of Potential Effects (APE), searches of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF), background and archival research, Native American and local interested party outreach, a pedestrian field survey, and preparation of this report.

The background research and cultural resources survey identified a portion of one historic-age property in the APE, the San Jose Creek flood control channel, which was recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series forms (DPR forms) and evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The DPR forms also document the state and local eligibility of the channel. However, only the NRHP evaluation is summarized herein. As a result of this study, the portion of the San Jose Creek flood control channel in the APE is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP and is not considered a historic property for the purposes of Section 106.

The results of the CHRIS search and field survey identified no archaeological resources or deposits within the APE. Additionally, the study indicates that the APE has been previously disturbed from episodic flooding events within San Jose Creek and the Goleta Slough, agricultural activities, as well as the installation and maintenance of the present concrete channel. Despite past disturbance, the results of the SLF search, Native American outreach, and previous studies indicate that the APE is located in a culturally sensitive area. Based on the results of this study, Rincon recommends a finding of no historic properties affected under Section 106 of the or the current undertaking.

Due to the known cultural resources sensitivity of the APE’s vicinity, the City will implement a condition of approval requiring archaeological monitoring; this condition is outlined in Section 6 of this study. Additionally, in the event of a post-review discovery during ground disturbance associated with the undertaking, the procedures under 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 365
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

2 800.13 should be followed by the federal lead agency. Furthermore, in the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during implementation of the undertaking, they would be treated consistent with state and local regulations, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e).
366
Introduction

Cultural Resources Technical Report 3
1 Introduction
The City of Goleta (City) retained Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) to conduct a cultural resources study for the San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project (project/undertaking) located in the city of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. This technical report documents results of the study and the tasks conducted by Rincon, specifically, the delineation of the undertaking’s Area of Potential Effects (APE), searches of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) and Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF), additional background research, Native American and local interested party outreach, a pedestrian field survey, and the evaluation of one property for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The project requires a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and a Nationwide Permit 27 for Aquatic Habitat Restoration. Therefore, it is considered a federal undertaking. This study has been completed pursuant to the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; Section 106). USACE is the lead federal agency for the purposes of Section 106.

Project Description
The approximately 6.05-acre project site is located within San Jose Creek in the city of Goleta, Santa Barbara, California (Figure 1). The undertaking encompasses portions of Section 9 and 16 of Township 4 North, Range 28 West, San Bernardino Meridian (Earth Point 2024) on the Goleta, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2).

The following project undertaking description has been adapted from information provided by the City throughout 2024 and 2025.

The Project seeks to achieve improved and unimpeded passage for southern California Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss; southern California steelhead; federally endangered, candidate state endangered) through the concrete flood control portion of the San Jose Creek flood control channel, and upstream to the natural migration corridor that leads to quality spawning and rearing habitat in the upper watershed. Modifications to the flood control channel and a small portion of the upstream natural channel of San Jose Creek are necessary to meet these objectives. The existing fish passage weirs located within the constructed flood control channel were installed by the City in 2013 and require modification to reduce sediment and debris accumulations, to reduce the maintenance workload on City and Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SBCFCWCD) staff, and to improve fish passage. The design team, composed of staff from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), City of Goleta, SBCFCWCD, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), utilized a physical scale model and numerical modeling methods to develop the preferred configurations of the proposed weir modifications and the upstream approaching natural channel.

The selected design includes the following proposed modifications:
▪ Modification of existing permanent concrete weirs upstream of Station 48+00 by infilling existing notches and creating a new lowered section centered over the fish channel centerline (the ‘Fish Line’, which is the channel thalweg) about 5 feet in width and 1 foot lower than the rest of the weir crests.
▪ Addition of 70 new vortex-type weirs within the ‘fish line’ throughout the entire length of the constructed flood control channel, 13 of which are combined with a low curb extending across 367
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

4 the width of the upper driving surface along the western half of the channel invert. All weirs are confined to the invert of the flood control channel from Hollister Avenue bridge to the downstream end of the channel. From the existing straight concrete weir at Station 48+00 upstream to the existing concrete weir at Station 59+00, two of these vortex weirs will be constructed between each pair of existing straight concrete weirs. The vortex weirs are angled in plan view, with the left and right wings angled downstream relative to the apex or center 'v' of the weir that points upstream.
▪ Of the 70 new vortex weirs to be added to the flood control channel, a total of 12 vortex weirs will be constructed within the new extension of the rectangular channel up to and under the new Hollister Avenue bridge (a separate, yet related project further described below). ▪ Extending the Hollister Avenue bridge ‘hydraulic transition feature’ (further described below) to the north/upstream to form an expanded bridge approach by re-grading the natural channel near the bridge and placing riprap on the banks and channel bottom. ▪ Re-grading the natural channel upstream of the Hollister Avenue bridge ‘hydraulic transition feature’ over a distance of about 320 feet by excavating the unconsolidated channel bottom bed materials between the east and west channel bank toes to form a new natural channel bed gradient and channel profile commensurate with the approximate original channel profile prior to original construction of the 1960s-era trapezoidal channel and bridge crossing. The majority of the channel bottom bed excavation is anticipated to be within the toe-to-toe width of the channel bed and below the ordinary high water line, with additional excavation along the lower portion of the left/eastern bank. The unconsolidated bed material to be excavated within this reach appears to be loose deposits that accumulated since original construction of the trapezoidal bridge opening in the early 1960s as a result of the artificial gradient reduction induced by the raised fixed bed formed by the trapezoidal channel paving under the original bridge.

The original construction of the concrete flood control channel raised the channel grade by up to 3 feet, causing a lowered stream gradient and subsequent channel invert aggradation and channel narrowing. Since original construction in the early 1960s, these morphologic changes have resulted in reduced flood capacity and unnaturally low stream gradient within San Jose Creek. The new Hollister Avenue Bridge Project, which will include enlargement and lowering of the new section of the flood control channel immediately downstream and upstream of the bridge, will restore the original natural channel stream gradient, and increase its flood discharge capacity. As part of the Fish Passage Project, east bank widening and invert lowering in the first 200 feet of the historically adversely impacted natural channel will restore the original capacity, and stabilize the gradient to a morphologically correct and appropriate channel dimension. These modifications to the flood control channel dimensions, the flood control channel fish passage weirs, and to the natural channel immediately upstream of the flood control channel will restore the migration corridor characteristics of this reach of San Jose Creek and enable unimpeded passage upstream to upper watershed habitat for southern California steelhead.

In addition to the structural restoration of the concrete and natural channel, the natural channel will also be restored with native riparian vegetation after construction is complete. Approximately 0.10 acres of native riparian tree and shrubs of local genetic stock will be installed along the creek banks where grading has occurred to improve habitat, provide bank stabilization, and to improve ecological function in a stretch of creek that is otherwise dominated by non-natives in the understory.
368
Introduction

Cultural Resources Technical Report 5
On a regional level, steelhead have been listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act from Santa Barbara south to the Tijuana border and are a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act. The Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan (NMFS 2012) identifies removal of passage barriers within the Goleta Slough watershed as a critical recovery action. San Jose Creek is the largest sub-watershed within the Goleta Slough watershed; it has perennial flows and high-quality steelhead habitat in the upper watershed and the lower portion of the creek is urbanized and has a channelized section, where the Project is located. As noted above, the Project will facilitate removal of barriers to allow anadromous steelhead to reach suitable perennial spawning and rearing habitats in the upper reaches of the creek that are presently not accessible. After the Project is completed, there would be no barriers to fish passage from the ocean to approximately 1.85 miles upstream of the Project site, where two partial barriers are present and are currently not proposed for removal. A total barrier is also present approximately 2.15 miles upstream of the Project site.

The Project will be constructed during the dry season, in the summer months when little to no water is present throughout most of the creek. It is anticipated that the entirety of the upstream natural channel and a great majority of the concrete channel will be dry during construction; however, there is potential for creek flows to be present at the downstream portion of the concrete channel (an approximate 200-foot stretch). If water is present in this portion of the channel, a dewatering effort would be implemented prior to construction. A bladder dam or similar device would be placed at the downstream end of the concrete channel and work area, and then the work area would be dewatered by transferring the water immediately downstream into the natural channel. Construction will not occur in ponded or flowing water within the channel.

Project History
The Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project (Original Project) (Original Project IS-MND) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2007031035) was adopted in May 2007 (City 2007). As approved, the Original Project consisted of modifications to existing infrastructure in San Jose Creek in Goleta. Components of the Original Project included the removal and replacement of portions of the existing concrete channeling with an improved channel design; removal and widening of the existing Hollister Avenue Bridge; removal of an existing secondary steel bridge located approximately 100 feet downstream of the Hollister Avenue Bridge; and relocation of an existing sewer line currently suspended from the steel bridge so that it was no longer susceptible to damage from flood flows and debris flowing down San Jose Creek, and would instead go east underneath State Route (SR) 217. The City approved the project in 2011 and construction began in 2013.

Due to timing and funding considerations, the City opted to treat the replacement of the Hollister Avenue Bridge as a separate project which is currently under construction above the current APE.

The fish passage component of the project proceeded as planned; however, a modification made to some of the timber weirs in the field rendered them largely inoperable. Additionally, the weirs collected too much debris and sediment, causing them to be less effective for fish passage, and requiring higher maintenance efforts by City staff than expected. The goal of the currently proposed Project is to repair and improve the previously installed fish passage project. This study supplements 369
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

6 previous cultural resources work conducted in support of the Original Project and other projects in the area and will support an Addendum to the Original Project IS-MND. While some cultural resources aspects of the Original Project remain relevant to the current undertaking, such as previous cultural resources considerations and agency coordination that addressed both projects collectively, the current study was undertaken to ensure the current undertaking’s compliance with Section 106.

Area of Potential Effects
The APE is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. Determination of the APE is influenced by the undertaking’s setting, the scale and nature of the undertaking, and the different effects that may result from the undertaking (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.16[d]). The APE map is focused on the identification and evaluation of significant historical, architectural, and archaeological resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP that may be directly or indirectly affected by the undertaking, in compliance with 36 CFR 800.16(d).

The APE was delineated by Rincon in consultation with the City and USACE to encompass all areas that have the potential to be directly or indirectly affected by the undertaking, including all construction easements and staging areas. The undertaking would include work only within the boundaries of the existing creek, much of which is channelized (with just the portion north of Hollister Avenue being a natural channel). The existing environment surrounding San Jose Creek consists of paved roadways and commercial and residential development, none of which would be directly or indirectly altered by the undertaking. The natural portion of the creek passes through one property north of Hollister Avenue containing historic-period development (5544 Hollister Avenue, referred to in Section 5 of this report as P-42-041000). However, the property was evaluated in 2009 and recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and as a City of Goleta Landmark. Additionally, none of the built features on these properties would be directly or indirectly altered by the undertaking. The undertaking consists only of alterations within the existing channel and would be consistent with the currently existing setting. Therefore, it does not pose potential adverse effects to any buildings in the APE’s vicinity and the APE for the undertaking is limited to the project footprint including all construction easements and staging areas, for a total of 6.05 acres (Figure 2).

The APE must also be considered as a three-dimensional space and includes any ground disturbance associated with the undertaking. The maximum depth of excavation varies throughout the APE.

However, the maximum depth of excavation is 3 feet and would occur in the natural portion of the creek. Ground disturbance in this reach will range from 0 to 3 feet in depth within the creek bottom.

The excavation will be of unconsolidated alluvial sediment deposits originating from upstream that have been deposited through the natural sediment transport along the creek. The project primary includes the installation of components in the channel. However, the tops of the channel banks in particular areas would be used for staging and access. To accommodate these activities. The maximum height of the project is 7 feet. Therefore, the vertical limits of the APE extended from 3 feet below ground surface to 7 feet above ground surface. 370
Introduction

Cultural Resources Technical Report 7
Personnel
Senior Cultural Resources Specialist Rachel Perzel, MA, provided management oversight for this cultural resource study; she conducted the local interested party outreach and co-authored this report. Senior Archaeologist Mary Pfeiffer, BA, Registered Archaeologist, submitted the CHRIS search request and co-authored this report. Archaeologist Laura Maldonado, MA, Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), conducted the Native American outreach and Archaeologist Debbie Balam, BA, conducted the pedestrian field survey. Architectural Historian Josh Bevan, MSHP, AICP, conducted the historical evaluation summarized herein. Ms. Perzel and Mr. Bevan exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history and history (National Park Service [NPS] 1983). Rincon Geographic Information Systems Analyst Paul Rigby prepared the figures found in this report. Rincon Cultural Resources Principal Christopher Duran, MA, RPA, reviewed this report for quality assurance and quality control. Ms. Maldonado and Mr.

Duran exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology (NPS 1983).
371
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

8 Figure 1 Regional Location Map

372
Introduction

Cultural Resources Technical Report 9
Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects Map

373
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

10 2 Regulatory Setting
This section includes a discussion of the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards governing cultural resources, which must be adhered to before and during implementation of the undertaking.

The National Historic Preservation Act
Projects that involve federal funding or permitting (i.e., have a federal nexus) must comply with the provisions of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (16 United States Code 470f). The NHPA of 1966 established a federal program for the preservation of historic properties, including built environment, archaeological, and traditional cultural resources. Towards this end, the NHPA establishes both institutions and defined processes to direct federal agencies and support state and local governments in their historic preservation programs and activities. These institutions and processes include the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officers, the NRHP, and the Section 106 review process.

Section 106
Section 106 (16 United States Code 470f) requires federal agencies to account for the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Historic properties are defined as buildings, structures, districts, sites, or objects which are included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Section 106 is implemented through 36 CFR Part 800, which outlines the process for historic preservation review, including participants, identification efforts, and the assessment and resolution of adverse effects. Per 36 CFR 800.16(y), a federal undertaking is defined as any project requiring or receiving a federal permit, license, approval, or funding. Federal agencies must take steps to determine if the undertaking would result in an adverse effect to historic properties and take measures to avoid or resolve those effects as feasible.

Title 36 Chapter VIII Part 800 Subpart B Section 800.13 § 800.13 Post-review discoveries
(a) Planning for subsequent discoveries
(1) Using a programmatic agreement. An agency official may develop a programmatic agreement pursuant to § 800.14(b) to govern the actions to be taken when historic properties are discovered during the implementation of an undertaking. (2) Using agreement documents. When the agency official's identification efforts in accordance with § 800.4 indicate that historic properties are likely to be discovered during implementation of an undertaking and no programmatic agreement has been developed pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the agency official shall include in any finding of no adverse effect or memorandum of agreement a process to resolve any adverse effects upon such properties. Actions in conformance with the process satisfy the agency official's responsibilities under Section 106 and this part.
374
Regulatory Setting

Cultural Resources Technical Report 11
(b) Discoveries without prior planning. If historic properties are discovered or unanticipated effects on historic properties found after the agency official has completed the Section 106 process without establishing a process under paragraph (a) of this section, the agency official shall make reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to such properties and:
(1) If the agency official has not approved the undertaking or if construction on an approved undertaking has not commenced, consult to resolve adverse effects pursuant to § 800.6; or (2) If the agency official, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that might attach religious and cultural significance to the affected property agree that such property is of value solely for its scientific, prehistoric, historic or archeological data, the agency official may comply with the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act instead of the procedures in this part and provide the Council, the SHPO/THPO, and the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with a report on the actions within a reasonable time after they are completed; or
(3) If the agency official has approved the undertaking and construction has commenced, determine actions that the agency official can take to resolve adverse effects, and notify the SHPO/THPO, any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that might attach religious and cultural significance to the affected property, and the Council within 48 hours of the discovery. The notification shall describe the agency official's assessment of National Register eligibility of the property and proposed actions to resolve the adverse effects. The SHPO/THPO, the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and the Council shall respond within 48 hours of the notification. The agency official shall take into account their recommendations regarding National Register eligibility and proposed actions, and then carry out appropriate actions. The agency official shall provide the SHPO/THPO, the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and the Council a report of the actions when they are completed.
(c) Eligibility of properties. The agency official, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, may assume a newly-discovered property to be eligible for the National Register for purposes of Section 106.

The agency official shall specify the National Register criteria used to assume the property's eligibility so that information can be used in the resolution of adverse effects. (d) Discoveries on tribal lands. If historic properties are discovered on tribal lands, or there are unanticipated effects on historic properties found on tribal lands, after the agency official has completed the Section 106 process without establishing a process under paragraph (a) of this section and construction has commenced, the agency official shall comply with applicable tribal regulations and procedures and obtain the concurrence of the Indian tribe on the proposed action.

National Register of Historic Places
Authorized by Section 101 of the NHPA, the NRHP is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP recognizes the quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Per 36 CFR Part 60.4, a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
375
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

12 Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The NPS recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several of these seven qualities—if not all— defined in the following manner:

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
Certain properties are generally considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP, including cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions, relocated structures, or commemorative properties. Additionally, a property must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The NPS states 50 years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop the necessary historical perspective to evaluated significance (NPS 1997: 41).

Properties which are less than 50 years must be determined to have “exceptional importance” to be considered eligible for NRHP listing.

California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined if the remains are subject to the Coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. 376
Regulatory Setting

Cultural Resources Technical Report 13
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant [MLD]) that it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. 377
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

14 3 Natural and Cultural Setting
This section provides background information pertaining to the natural and cultural context of the APE. It places the APE within the broader natural environment which has sustained populations throughout history. This section also provides an overview of regional indigenous history, local ethnography, and post-contact history. This background information describes the distribution and type of cultural resources documented within the vicinity of the APE to inform the cultural resources sensitivity assessment.

Natural Setting
The APE is located within San Jose Creek at an elevation that ranges from approximately 14 to 63 feet (4 to 19 meters) above mean sea level. The APE and surrounding area does not retain much of its natural setting, as the area has historically been utilized for agricultural activities, as well as subsequent commercial and industrial development. Additionally, the APE consists primarily of a concrete lined channel constructed between 1963 and 1964 within the hydrologically active San Jose Creek, subject to episodic flooding. The upstream portion of the APE consists of a natural earthen channel, located upstream of Hollister Avenue Bridge. Adjacent land uses include a continuation of the natural channel portion of San Jose Creek to the north and south, SR 217 to the east, and Jonny D. Wallis Park commercial, and industrial development to the west. San Jose Creek continues downstream until its confluence with Atascadero Creek and the Goleta Slough which feed into the Pacific Ocean at Goleta Beach, approximately 0.9 mile downstream of the APE. Nine vegetation communities and one three landcover types are located within the APE and consists of annual brome grassland, arroyo willow thickets, black cottonwood woodland, California sycamore- coast live oak riparian woodland, coyote brush scrub, disturbed vegetation, eucalyptus grove, mixed woodland, pickleweed mats, and open water, urban stream channel, and urban development land cover.

Cultural Setting
Indigenous History
The APE is located in what is generally described as the Northern Bight archaeological region, one of eight organizational divisions of California designated by Jones and Klar (2007). The California Bight is bounded by the southern California coastline and encompasses the previously designated Southern Coast archaeological region described by Moratto (1984). The Northern Bight archaeological region primarily includes the counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and portions of Los Angeles, extending from the coastline at Vandenberg Air Force Base inland to the Cuyama River Valley and south to the Santa Monica Mountains and the Los Angeles Basin. Following Glassow et al. (2007), the pre-contact cultural chronology for the Northern Bight is generally divided into six periods: Paleo-Indian (ca. 10,000 – 7000 before common era [BCE]), Millingstone (7000 – 5000 BCE), Early (5000 BCE – 2000 BCE), Middle (2000 BCE – 1 common era [CE]), Middle-Late Transition (1 – 1000 CE), and Late (1000 CE – Historic Contact). These periods are discussed in further detail below. 378
Natural and Cultural Setting

Cultural Resources Technical Report 15
Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 10,000 – 7000 BCE)
The Paleo-Indian Period defines the earliest human occupation of the Northern Bight and describes the cultural trends and subsistence strategies of pre-contact populations from approximately 10,000 to 7000 BCE (Glassow et al. 2007). The Paleo-Indian Period in North America is largely recognized by projectile points associated with extinct large mammal remains, such as mammoth, bison, and dire wolves in the Southwest and Plains regions (Erlandson et al. 2007; Huckell 1996). These projectile points have been classified as the Clovis style, which exhibit a lanceolate shape with a flute initiated from the base that extends as far as the midline (Justice 2002).

The earliest accepted dates for human occupation in California were recovered from archaeological sites on two of the Northern Channel Islands, located off the southern coast of Santa Barbara County. Over 90 Paleocoastal sites dating between 13,000 to 8,200 years before present (BP) have been documented in the Northern Channel Islands (McLaren et al. 2019). Archaeological deposits from the Daisy Cave site on San Miguel Island establish the presence of people in this area approximately 10,000 BP (Erlandson 1991; Erlandson et al. 2007). The Arlington Springs site (CA-SRI- 173) on Santa Rosa Island has an approximately 11,000 BP calibrated radiocarbon date derived from human remains and rodent bones recovered from within the same deposits (Erlandson et al. 2007; Glassow et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2002). Shell middens identified on the mainland of California have yielded dates from 8000 to 7000 BCE (Erlandson et al. 2007).

Recent data from Paleo-Indian shell middens, lithic scatters, and quarry workshops on the Channel Islands indicate that the area supported substantial human populations during later Paleocoastal times (McLaren et al. 2019). Data from the last 20 years also suggests that the economy was a diverse mixture of hunting, fishing, and gathering, with a major emphasis on aquatic resources in many coastal areas (e.g., Jones and Ferneau 2002; Erlandson et al. 2007). Shellfish in particular were heavily relied on, with varying intensities of reliance on fish, marine mammals, seabirds, and waterfowl (McLaren et al. 2019). Archaeological deposits at the Daisy Cave site yielded an assemblage of “the oldest known fishhooks in the Americas” (Erlandson et al. 2007: 57). Shell middens identified on the mainland of California have yielded dates from 8000 to 7000 BCE (Erlandson et al. 2007).

Assemblages on the Channel Islands include chipped stone bifaces, cores and flake tools, ground stone artifacts, bone gorges, Olivella shell beads, woven sea grass cordage, and red ochre. While no fluted points have been found on the Channel Islands, a few have been found along California’s mainland coast (McLaren et al. 2019). One fluted projectile point fragment was recovered from site CA-SBA-1951 on the Santa Barbara Channel coastal plain (Erlandson 1994:44; Erlandson et al. 1987).

Millingstone Period (7000 – 5000 BCE)
Originally identified in 1929, the Millingstone Period, as described by Wallace (1955, 1978), is characterized by an ecological adaptation to collecting plant resources, such as seeds and nuts, suggested by the appearance and abundance of well-made milling (ground stone) implements, particularly in archaeological sites along the coast of California. It is generally accepted that human occupation of California during the Paleo-Indian Period originated from small, dispersed occupations. Archaeological sites dating to the Millingstone Period, however, indicate a population increase (Glassow et al. 2007).

Wallace (1955, 1978) and Warren (1968) identify ground stone implements including millingstones (e.g., metates, milling slabs) and hand stones (e.g., manos, mullers). Millingstones occur in high frequencies for the first time in the archaeological record of the Central Coast region and become 379
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

16 even more prevalent near the end of the Millingstone Period. The Millingstone Period is named for the predominance of milling implements generally associated with the horizontal motion of grinding small seeds and nuts (Glassow et al. 2007). Excavations at the Tank Site (CA-LAN-1) in Topanga Canyon from 1947 to 1948 (Treganza and Bierman 1958) confirmed the presence of a significant number of milling implements that correspond with the Millingstone Period.

Flaked stone assemblages, which include crude core and cobble-core tools, flake tools, large side- notched projectile points, and pitted stones (Glassow et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2007), and shell middens in coastal sites suggest that people during this period practiced a mixed food procurement strategy. Faunal remains identified at Millingstone sites point to broad-spectrum hunting and gathering of shellfish, fish, birds, and mammals, though large faunal assemblages are uncommon.

This mixed food procurement strategy demonstrates adaptation to regional and local environments.

Along the Central Coast, Millingstone Period sites are most common on terraces and knolls, typically set back from the current coastline (Erlandson 1994:46). However, sites dating to this period have been identified in various settings, including rocky coasts, estuaries, and nearshore interior valleys (Glassow et al. 2007). The larger sites usually contain extensive midden deposits, possible subterranean house pits, and cemeteries. Most of these sites probably reflect intermittent use over many years of local cultural habitation and resource exploitation.

Early Period (5000 BCE – 2000 BCE)
The Early Period of the Northern Bight is marked by a lower frequency of radiocarbon dated archaeological sites as well as changes in artifact forms. Differences in artifact forms, particularly in ground stone implements, likely represent changes in subsistence (Glassow et al. 2007). The material culture recovered from Early Period sites within the Central Coast region provides evidence for continued exploitation of inland plant and coastal marine resources as well as the incorporation of “newly important food resources” found in specific habitats (Glassow et al. 2007:197). In addition to the use of metates and manos, pre-contact populations began to use mortars and pestles, such as those recovered from the Sweetwater Mesa (CA-LAN-267) and Aerophysics (CA-SBA-53) sites (Glassow et al. 2007).

Artifact assemblages recovered from Early Period sites also include bipointed bone gorge hooks used for fishing, Olivella beads, bone tools, and pendants made from talc schist. Square abalone shell (Haliotis spp.) beads have been found in Monterey Bay (Jones and Waugh 1997:122). The frequency of projectile points in Early Period assemblages also increased, while the style began to change from lanceolate forms to side-notched forms (Glassow et al. 2007). The projectile point trend was apparent at numerous sites along the California coast as well as a few inland sites (e.g., CA-SBA-210 and CA-SBA-530). In many cases, manifestations of this trend are associated with the establishment of new and larger settlements, such as at the Aerophysics site (Glassow et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2007).

Middle Period (2000 BCE – 1 CE)
The remains of fish, land mammals, and sea mammals are increasingly abundant and diverse in archaeological deposits along the coast during the Middle Period, suggesting a pronounced trend toward greater adaptation to regional or local resources as well as the development of socioeconomic and political complexity in pre-contact populations (Glassow et al. 2007). Shell fishhooks were introduced, and projectile points changed from side-notched dart points to contracting stem styles.
380
Natural and Cultural Setting

Cultural Resources Technical Report 17
Flaked stone tools used for hunting and processing—such as large side-notched, stemmed, lanceolate or leaf-shaped projectile points, large knives, edge modified flakes, and drill-like implements—occurred in archaeological deposits in higher frequencies and are more morphologically diversified during the Middle Period. Bone tools, including awls, are more numerous than in the preceding period, and the use of asphaltum adhesive became common.

Circular fishhooks that date from between 1000 and 500 BCE, compound bone fishhooks that date between CE 300 and 900, notched stone sinkers, and the tule reed or balsa raft, indicative of major developments in maritime technology, became common during this period (Arnold 1995; Glassow et al. 2007; Jones and Klar 2005:466; King 1990:87–88).

Populations continued to follow a seasonal settlement pattern until the end of the Middle Period; large, permanently occupied settlements with formal architecture, particularly in coastal areas, appear to have been the norm by the end of the Middle Period (Glassow et al. 2007). Pre-contact populations began to bury the deceased in formal cemeteries with artifacts that may represent changes in ideology and the development of ritual practices (Glassow et al. 2007).

Middle-Late Transition Period (1 CE – 1000 CE)
The Middle-Late Transition Period is marked by major changes in settlement patterns, diet, and interregional exchange. Pre-contact populations continued to occupy more permanent settlements, with the continued use of formal cemeteries and the burial of goods with the deceased. The manufacture of the plank canoe, or tomol, allowed pre-contact populations to catch larger fish that occupied deeper sea waters (Glassow et al. 2007). Following the introduction of the plank canoe, groups began to use harpoons. The plank canoe appears to have influenced “commerce between the mainland coast and the Channel Islands” (Glassow et al. 2007:204). Middle-Late Transition Period sites indicate that populations replaced atlatl (dart) technologies with the bow and arrow, which required smaller projectile points. Projectile points diagnostic of both the Middle and Late periods are found within the Central Coast region (Jones and Ferneau 2002:217). These projectile points include large, contracting-stemmed types typical of the Middle Period, as well as small, leaf- shaped Late Period projectile points, which likely reflect the introduction of the bow and arrow.

Late Period (1000 CE – Historic Contact)
Late Period sites are distinguished by small, finely worked projectile points and temporally diagnostic shell beads. Although shell beads were typical of coastal sites, trade brought many of these maritime artifacts to inland locations, especially during the latter part of the Late Period.

Small, finely worked projectile points are typically associated with bow and arrow technology, which is believed to have been introduced to the area by the Takic migration from the deserts into southern California. Common artifacts identified at Late Period sites include bifacial bead drills, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, lipped and cupped Olivella shell beads, and steatite disk beads.

The presence of beads and bead drills suggest that low-level bead production was widespread throughout the Central Coast region (Glassow et al. 2007). Unlike the large Middle Period shell middens, Late Period sites are more frequently single-component deposits with evidence for only one period of occupation or use. There are also more inland sites, with fewer and less visible sites along the Pacific shore during the Late Period.
381
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

18 Ethnographic Setting
Barbareño Chumash
The APE lies within Chumash ethnographic territory, which extends from the current city of Malibu, north beyond San Luis Obispo, and inland as far as 68 kilometers (42 miles). The Chumash also inhabited the northern Channel Islands. The Chumash spoke six closely related languages, divided into two broad groups – Northern Chumash, consisting of only Obispeño, and Southern Chumash, including Purisimeño, Ineseño, Barbareño, Ventureño, and Island Chumash (Mithun 2001). The Chumash are divided into three main groups, including Interior, Coastal, and Northern Channel Islands Chumash. The coastal Barbareño Chumash referred to themselves as the Wal-wa-ren-na, and “occupied the narrow coastal plain from Point Conception to Punta Gorda in Ventura County” (Grant 1978:509).

Chumash villages along the mainland coast of the Santa Barbara Channel from Carpinteria to Goleta were of the highest population density, ranging from 500 to 800 individuals; though some claim population counts were into the thousands (Rawls 1984; Dartt-Newton and Erlandson 2006).

Interior villages were substantially smaller, with populations varying anywhere from 15 to 250 people (Glassow et al. 2007). Grant (1978) describes a typical Chumash village along the Santa Barbara Channel as consisting of “several houses, a sweathouse, store houses, a ceremonial enclosure, gaming area, and a cemetery usually placed well away from the living area.” Thatching was made from tule, Carrizo grass, wild alfalfa, and fern (Grant 1978). Cooking fires were centered within the dwelling to allow smoke to ventilate through a hole in the roof (Grant 1978).

The Chumash are well-known for their wooden plank canoe, or tomol. The tomol facilitated the procurement of marine resources such as nearshore fish caught with nets, lines and hooks, and deep-sea marine mammals that were hunted with harpoons (Arnold 1995). Tomols additionally moved people and goods across the Santa Barbara Channel in what was considered a highly sophisticated trade network. Bulk items including acorns, a staple of the Chumash diet, were imported to the Islands, while shell beads, the Chumash form of currency, were exported to the mainland (Arnold 1995). The Chumash also manufactured various other utilitarian and non- utilitarian items. Eating utensils, ornaments, fishhooks, harpoons, and other items were made using bone and shell.

Characteristic mortuary practices among the Chumash included flexed burials placed face down and facing west (Grant 1978). The Chumash buried their dead in crowded cemeteries with abundant grave goods including shell, functional tools such as mortars and pestles, bone, and formal stone artifacts (Erlandson 1999:107). Status differentiation is noted among burials, with high status individuals displaying more elaborate grave goods. Among the Barbareño Chumash, status differentiation is postulated to signal an increase in cultural complexity stimulated by population increase and its ratio to available territory and resources (Erlandson 1999).

Spanish explorers first arrived in the Santa Barbara Channel region in 1542. The impact of foreign contact on Chumash lifeways accelerated in 1772 when Mission San Luis Obispo became the first mission established in Chumash territory, with five more to follow in subsequent years (Dartt- Newton and Erlandson 2006). Mission life led to severe culture loss among the Chumash, and disease decimated native populations; however, many descendants of the Chumash still live in the region and a cultural revitalization has been ongoing since the twentieth century (Glassow et al. 2007).
382
Natural and Cultural Setting

Cultural Resources Technical Report 19
Post-Contact Setting
Post-Contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), Mexican Period (1822–1848), and American Period (1848–present). Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican-American War, signals the beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States.

Spanish Period (1769-1822)
Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of what was then known as Alta (upper) California between the mid-1500s and mid-1700s. In 1542, while in search of the legendary Northwest Passage, Juan Rodríquez Cabríllo recorded a visit to the Santa Barbara area. Sebastian Vizcaíno also conducted exploration of the coast in 1602 and named the Santa Barbara Channel when his ship entered it on the feast day of Saint Barbara (Kyle 2002). The Spanish crown laid claim to Alta California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno (Bancroft 1885; Gumprecht 1999).

By the 18th century, Spain developed a three-pronged approach to secure its hold on the territory and counter against other foreign explorers. The Spanish established military forts known as presidios, as well as missions and pueblos (towns) throughout Alta California. The 1769 overland expedition by Captain Gaspár de Portolá marks the beginning of California’s Historic period, occurring just after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas. Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California in 1769. Franciscan Father Junípero Serra also founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá that same year, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823. The Santa Barbara presidio was established in 1782, and the Santa Barbara Mission was founded four years later (Graffy 2010).

The mission and presidio relied on Chumash labor; eventually, the majority of the native population lived at the mission complex (Cole 1999). Construction of missions and associated presidios was a major emphasis during the Spanish Period in California to integrate the Native American population into Christianity and communal enterprise. Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or towns; just three pueblos were established during the Spanish Period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities (San José and Los Angeles).

Spain began making land grants in 1784, typically to retiring soldiers, although the grantees were only permitted to inhabit and work the land. The land titles technically remained property of the Spanish king (Livingston 1914).

Mexican Period (1822-1848)
Several factors kept growth within Alta California to a minimum, including the threat of foreign invasion, political dissatisfaction, and unrest among the indigenous population. After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants (Dallas 1955). 383
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

20 Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos. Commonly, former soldiers and well-connected Mexican families were the recipients of these land grants, which now included the title to the land. Forty-one ranchos were granted between 1835 and 1846 in what would become Santa Barbara County (Graffy 2010).

During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities.

American Period (1848- Present)
The United States went to war with Mexico in 1846. During the first year of the war, John C.

Fremont traveled from Monterey to Los Angeles with reinforcements for Commodore Stockton, and evaded Californian soldiers in Santa Barbara’s Gaviota Pass by taking the route over the San Marcos grade instead (Kyle 2002). The war ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ushering California into its American Period.

California officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as US territories (Waugh 2003). Horticulture and livestock, based primarily on cattle as the currency and staple of the rancho system, continued to dominate the southern California economy through 1850s. The discovery of gold in the northern part of the state led to the Gold Rush beginning in 1848, and with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides but also as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from southern to northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom.

A severe drought in the 1860s decimated cattle herds and drastically affected rancheros’ source of income. In addition, property boundaries that were loosely established during the Mexican era led to disputes with new incoming settlers, problems with squatters, and lawsuits. Rancheros often were encumbered by debt and the cost of legal fees to defend their property. As a result, much of the rancho lands were sold or otherwise acquired by Americans. Most of these ranchos were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns (Dumke 1944).

Local History
By 1860, Daniel Hill had acquired an additional 1,000 acres of land from the adjacent Rancho Dos Pueblos for his cattle ranch. Heavy rains in late 1861 through early 1862, in conjunction with the loss of vegetation from cattle grazing, caused substantial erosion and deposition of sediment and debris in the slough. A severe drought followed, and cattle ranching became less lucrative. Hill sold his remaining cattle, filed a homestead claim, and sold the remainder of his lands for farming and estate development. In 1869 Col. W.W. Hollister purchased approximately 5,000 acres from Den, and calling the ranch Glen Annie, planted it with walnut trees and nursery stock (San Buenaventura Research Associates [SBRS] 2010; Historic Resources Group [HRG] 2018). 384
Natural and Cultural Setting

Cultural Resources Technical Report 21
Two villages developed around the year 1869 along the county road (present-day Hollister Avenue) which linked the agricultural area to Santa Barbara and points north. The approximately 250-acre town site for La Goleta was laid out near present day Hollister and Patterson avenues in 1875. A second small town, called La Patera, was settled around the same time slightly to the west near present day Hollister and Fairview avenues. In 1883, Goleta boasted a population of 200 people. In 1887 the Southern Pacific Railroad arrived, and a through route to San Francisco was completed in 1901. By the early 1900s the Goleta Valley was planted with expansive orchards growing lemons, walnuts, olives, and oranges. Other crops included beans, sugar beets, vegetables, and nursery stock. An airport was developed in 1928 at the intersection of Hollister Avenue and Fairview Avenue, and expanded in the 1930s and again during World War II. The post office was moved from Goleta to La Patera in 1936 which resulted in the shift of the town center to the western end of Hollister Avenue. The University of California, Santa Barbara campus was developed in 1954 next to the airport. Aerospace companies entered the area in the 1950s, including the Studebaker-Packard Corporation and Raytheon. Farming was impacted by this increased development and population growth necessitated the construction of housing tracts and commercial development. The City of Goleta formally incorporated in 2002 (San Buenaventura Research Associates 2010; HRG 2018). 385
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

22 4 Methods
This section presents the methods for each task completed during the preparation of this study.

Background and Archival Research
Desktop Background and Archival Research
Rincon completed desktop background archival research in support of this study spanning from April 2024 to April 2025. A variety of primary and secondary source materials were consulted.

Sources included, but were not limited to, historical maps, aerial photographs, and written histories of the area. The following sources, in addition to those listed in the References section of this report, were utilized to develop an understanding of the APE and its context:
▪ Historical aerial photographs accessed via Nationwide Environmental Title Research Online (NETR)
▪ Historical aerial photographs accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Library FrameFinder (UCSB Framefinder)
▪ Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps accessed through the Library of Congress ▪ Historical USGS topographic maps accessed via topoView online ▪ Geologic Maps via the USGS National Geologic Map Database ▪ Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) Plat maps California Historical Resources Information System Records Search
A cultural resources records search was previously performed for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project on January 14, 2009 (SAIC 2009). Due to the age of the previous search, Rincon conducted an updated search of the CHRIS to ensure completeness of the records.

On March 10, 2025, Rincon requested a cultural resources records search of the CHRIS from the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) located at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History (Appendix A). The CCIC is the official state repository for cultural resources records and reports for Santa Barbara County. The purpose of the records search was to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the APE and a

0.25-mile radius surrounding it. Rincon also reviewed the following inventories of known cultural resources in an effort to identity historic properties with the potential to be affected by the proposed project: NRHP, the CRHR, California Historical Landmarks list, Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list, Built Environment Resources Directory, California Historical landmarks list, and the lists of Santa Barbara County Landmarks and Places of Historic Merit. 386
Methods

Cultural Resources Technical Report 23
Native American Heritage Commission
Rincon contacted the NAHC on March 26, 2024, to request a search of the SLF, as well as a contact list of Native American groups traditionally and culturally affiliated with the APE.

Native American Outreach
On March 11, 2025, Rincon sent outreach letters to the ten Native American contacts included on the NAHC-provided contact list. The purpose of this outreach was to obtain information related to cultural resources in the area of the APE and does not constitute formal consultation under Section 106. The USACE will complete the necessary Section 106 consultation requirements separate from this study. The letter included a description of the undertaking and requested information related to potential cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE that have the potential to be affected by development of the undertaking. Follow up calls and emails were sent on March 21 and April 4, 2025. Appendix C provides documentation of Rincon’s outreach effort.

Local Interested Party Outreach
On March 11, 2025, Rincon sent outreach letters to the following local interested parties known to have knowledge of and interest in cultural resources in the area of the APE: Goleta Valley Historical Society (GVHS), County of Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission (HLAC), and Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation (SBTHP). On March 12, 2025, an additional outreach letter was sent to the Goleta Historic Preservation Commission (GHPC). The purpose of this outreach was to obtain information related to cultural resources in the area of the APE and does not constitute formal consultation under Section 106. The letter included a description of the undertaking and requested information related to potential cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE that have the potential to be affected by development of the undertaking. Appendix C provides documentation of Rincon’s outreach effort.

Cultural Resources Field Survey
Rincon Archaeologist Debbie Balam, BA, conducted a pedestrian field survey of the APE on April 4, 2025. Due to variable conditions within the APE associated with the overgrown vegetation and water within the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel, a combination of systematic and opportunistic survey methodologies was implemented to identify cultural resources (Figure 3). In areas with visible ground surfaces, systematic pedestrian survey was conducted using transect intervals spaced 5 to 10 meters apart and oriented from east to west. Areas with overgrown vegetation and/or water were subject to opportunistic survey. Accessible areas were inspected for the presence of cultural resources, when safe to do so. Exposed ground surfaces were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools), ecofacts (marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, historical debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, foundations. Ground disturbances such as burrows and drainages were also visually inspected. Survey accuracy was maintained using a handheld Global Positioning System unit and a georeferenced map of the APE. Site characteristics and survey conditions were documented using field records and a digital camera. Copies of the survey notes and digital photographs are maintained at the Rincon Santa Barbara office. 387
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

24 The background research conducted for this study indicated that the portion of the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel in the APE was constructed in 1964. Therefore, pursuant to California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Guidelines (California OHP 1995), the channel was recorded and evaluated for listing in the NRHP and on California Department of Parks 523 series forms (DPR forms) (Appendix D). In support of the channel’s recordation and evaluation, Ms. Balam also conducted a built environment survey of the APE under the direction of Rincon Senior Architectural Historian Rachel Perzel, MA, on April 4, 2025. During the survey, the overall condition and integrity of the channel was documented and assessed. Site characteristics and conditions and potential character defining features were documented using notes and digital photographs which are maintained at the Rincon Santa Barbara office.
388
Methods

Cultural Resources Technical Report 25
Figure 3 Survey Coverage Map

389
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

26 5 Findings
Known Cultural Resources Studies
The CHRIS records search and background research identified 26 cultural resources studies that have been previously conducted within roughly 0.25 miles (while a 0.25-mile search radius was used, some of the previously conducted cultural resources studies provided by the CCIC are slightly further from the APE than 0.25 miles) of the APE (Appendix A). Of these studies, 16 include a portion of the APE. Known studies that included portions of the current APE are discussed in further detail below.

Study SR-00155
Study SR-00155, Archaeological Reconnaissance Petkin Condominiums, Goleta, was prepared by Robert Hoover in 1980. The study summarized the methods and results of a three-acre survey in an area east of Kellogg Avenue and West of San Jose Creek. The survey identified no surface indications of archaeological sites but notes that Goleta is generally an archaeologically sensitive area (Hoover 1980).

Study SR-00246
Study SR-00246, Final Report Intensive Cultural Resources Survey for the Goleta Flood Protection Program Santan Barbara County California, was prepared by Archaeological Systems Management, Inc. (ASM) under the direction of the USACE in 1982. The report presents the result of a cultural resources literature search and intensive level survey of the major tributaries, including San Jose Creek, and perimeter of the Goleta Slough. The report states that San Jose Creek may have been a major route of travel for inland Chumash traders coming over San Marcos Pass. The study identified several prehistoric sites on and in the vicinity of San Jose Creek (SBA-562, SBA-1556, SBA-1569, SBA- 1570, SBA-1702, SBA-1567) (ASM 1982). However, none of these sites are within or in the immediate vicinity of the current APE.

Study SR-01067
Study SR-01067, Draft Negative Declaration San Jose Flood Control Maintenance 90-ND-75, was prepared by McClelland Consultants (West), Inc. in 1990. The study area associated with Study SR- 01067 included the portion of San Jose Creek north of Hollister Avenue within the current APE.

However, the study did not present any detailed analysis related to cultural resources. Rather, it stated the project it was analyzing may occur in the vicinity of one or more identified cultural resources and that it would be considered a potentially significant impact (McClelland Consultants [West], Inc. 1990).

Study SR-01746
Study SR-01746, Archaeological Resources on Fourteen Stream Channels in Coastal Santa Barbara County, was prepared by Joseph L. Chartkoff in 1967. The study area associated with Study SR- 01746 included 14 stream channels in Santa Barbara County including San Jose Creek from Somerset Drive to its mouth, encompassing the entirety of the current APE. The study included a 390
Findings

Cultural Resources Technical Report 27
reconnaissance level survey and identified 22 previously known archaeological sites located in or adjacent to the stream channels. The study does not include locational information associated with the sites it identified. However, based on the results of the CHRIS search, none of the sites identified by SR-01746 are located within or adjacent to the current APE (Chartkoff 1967).

Study SR-02004
Study SR.02004, A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Evaluation for three Segments of Pacific Lightwave Incorporated's Fiber Optic Cable Network in Santa Barbara County, California, was prepared by Larry R. Wilcoxon, in 1997. The study presents the results of archival research and field survey for three underground segments of a proposed fiber optic cable system. The study resulted in the identification of one limited scatter of marine shell adjacent to 5410 Hollister Avenue, roughly 0.30 miles east, across Ward Memorial Boulevard, from the current APE (Wilcoxon 1997).

Study SR-02187
Study SR-02187, Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for Elements of the Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, was prepared by SAIC, in November 1996. The study summarized the results of a Phase 1 cultural resources investigation conducted in support of the Goleta Old Town Revitalization project.

The study included a literature review and surface survey of several key sites proposed as part of the Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, one of which is a bike trail along the banks of San Jose Creek, including the portion within the current APE. The study identified two prehistoric archaeological sites (SBA-1567 and SBA-1702), both of which are located roughly 0.30-mile north of the current APE. No resources were identified with the current APE as a result of SR-02187 (SAIC 1996).

Study SR-02541
Study SR-02541, Historic Property Survey Report for Goleta Old Town Transportation Improvements, Santa Barbara County, California, was prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (AE, Inc.) in January 2000. The study analyzes potential impacts associated with construction of two roads, two bridges, a bicycle path, and capacity increases to the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel. The study included a literature review, local interested party consultation and survey. It included an archaeological survey report and historic property survey report as attachments. While the study area associated with SR-02541 included much of the current APE south of Hollister Avenue, it did not record or evaluate San Jose Creek. The study identified no archaeological or built environment resources (AE, Inc. 2000).

Study SR-02690
Study SR-02690, Records and Literature Search and Archeological Survey for Proposed Old San Jose Creek Restoration Project was prepared by Stephen Dibble, in May 2001. The study included a records and literature search and archeological reconnaissance survey of the Old San Jose Creek Restoration Project’s APE. The project’s APE includes the segment of San Jose creek beginning at Armitos Avenue and ending at Hollister Avenue (the portion of the current APE north of Hollister Avenue). The study indicated that the general area is culturally sensitive. However, it identified no cultural resources it its APE. It additionally concluded that its APE “is extensively disturbed by previous earthmoving activities, and fill placement, and it is unlikely that buried archaeological deposits are present (Dibble 2001).”
391
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

28 Study SR-04638
Study SR-04638, Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Flood Control Maintenance Activities in the Goleta Slough, is a draft subsequent environmental impact report prepared by Padre Associates (Padre) in March 2010. The study analyzed the environmental impacts of several flood control maintenance activities in the Goleta Slough including San Jose Creek. The study area associated with Study SR-04638 includes the southernmost 600 feet of the current APE (west creek bank). The study discusses the presence of Resource SBA-46 “adjacent to the southwestern edge of the San Jose Creek Study Area (Padre 2010).” Given the location description in the study, Resource SBA-46 is located roughly 0.40 mile southeast of the current APE. The study goes on to state that “SBA-46 was first recorded just above the beach by Rogers (1929). His excavations revealed a site with deep cultural deposits. This site has been evaluated many times [Greenwood, 1975; Erlandson, 1985; SRSI, 1985; Wilcoxon et al., 1982]. The San Jose Creek study area was surveyed previously with negative results [Chartkoff, 1967]” (Padre 2010).

Study SR-04704
Study SR-04704, Historic Property Survey Report for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project, was prepared in 2009 by archeologists Brent Leftwich and Craig Woodman of URS Corporation. The study is a supplemental report to Study SR-02541 described above. The study included expansion of the project’s previously considered APE. However, the expanded portions of the APE did not include any additional portions of the current APE. The study, which included a survey of areas added to the project’s APE following the preparation of Study SR-02541, described above, and no cultural resources were identified. The associated Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) was not provided by the CCIC as a result of the records search conducted for the current undertaking. However, based on review of a resource record provided by the CCIC for Resource P-42-041000, further described below, the HRER included an evaluation of one property located adjacent to the current APE, 5544 Hollister Avenue, prepared by Post Hazeltine. Post Hazeltine recommended 5544 ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR and for local designation as a City of Goleta Landmark. (Leftwich and Woodman 2009; Post Hazeltine 2009).

Study SR-04793
Study SR-04793, Phase I Archaeological Investigation of Approximately 4.2-Acres for the Kellogg Avenue Properties Project 170 South Kellogg Avenue and 5580 Hollister Avenue Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California, was prepared by Mary Maki of Conjeo Archaeological Consultants in June 2011. The study consisted of a records search at the CCIC, background research, a NAHC SLF search, Native American consultation, and an archaeological survey of the 4.2-acre project site, which is located adjacent/to the west of the portion of the current APE north of Hollister Avenue.

The study identified no cultural resources within its associated project site but noted the general area’s sensitivity or both prehistoric and historic period cultural resources (Maki 2011).

Study SR-04826
As previously discussed, Study SR-04826, An Archaeological Inventory Survey San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project in the City of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California was prepared by SAIC in 2009. The project associated with Study SR-04826 proposed design improvements and modifications to the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel, inclusive of the portion within the current APE from Hollister Avenue south. The study included a records search at the CCIC and a 392
Findings

Cultural Resources Technical Report 29
surface reconnaissance survey. The study identified “…small disparate pockets of friable invertebrate fragments…” on the ground surface on the San Jose Creek embankment. However, the study concluded that “…this shellfish is probably a result of local soil importation (e.g., from the Goleta Slough)” and indicated that therefore, “they do not reflect a significant cultural resource… (SAIC 2009).”
Study SR-04905
Study SR-04905, Archaeological Resources Assessment Concrete Recycling Facility 903, 905, 907, & 909 South Kellogg Avenue City of Goleta, California, was prepared by Ms. Alan Hansen of Dudek in June 2010. The study explored a site adjacent/to the west of the southern portion of the current APE. It included a description of previous archaeological investigations, environmental reconstruction of the project site, and an analysis of the project’s potential consistency with relevant City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies. The study demonstrated that numerous archaeological investigations have been performed within and in the vicinity of the project site, and no prehistoric or historic recorded archaeological resources have been recorded within it. The study stated that “the project area is located in what was the Goleta Slough prior to modern urban development” and that therefore, “the potential for unknown sub-surface prehistoric archaeological resources to exist within the project area is highly unlikely, as Chumash settlement occurred outside and above areas of tidal influence” (Hansen 2010).

Study SR-05025
Study SR-05025, An Archaeological Surface Survey and Updated Records Search for the Goleta Slough Flood Control Dredging Project. Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California, was prepared by Thor Conway of Heritage Discoveries, Inc., in 2009. The study area associated with SR-05025 included ten proposed dredging locations, approximately 0.50 mile long and 0.25 mile wide, throughout the Goleta Slough. The study included a CCIC search, a SLF search, and a surface survey of the ten proposed dredging locations. One of the proposed dredging locations is within San Jose Creek immediately south of the current APE and extending into the current APE from the south.

Consistent with Study SR-04638 described above, SR-05025 indicates the presence of SBA-46 adjacent to San Jose Creek, roughly 0.40 mile south of the current APE (Conway 2009).

Study SR-05313
Study SR-05313, Supplemental Extended Phase 1 Archaeological Investigation, Old Town Village Mixed Use Project, Kellogg Avenue/Ekwill Street, Goleta, California, was prepared by David Stone and Ken Victorino of Dudek in April 2014. The study presents the results of a Supplemental Extended Phase 1 Archaeological Investigation conducted in support of the proposed Old Town Village Mixed Use Project. The study included the excavation of ten, two-inch diameter geophones within the study’s associated proposed project site, which is located adjacent/to the west of the current APE. The study did not identify any prehistoric or historical archaeological materials within its proposed project site. The study states that “the location of the project site, at approximately the 20-foot contour elevation, is considered to be 10 feet higher than the boundary of the Goleta Slough when prehistoric occupation occurred, over 250 years ago” (Stone and Victorino 2014). 393
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

30 Study SR-05416
Study SR-05416, Historic Property Survey Report for the Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project City of Goleta, County of Santa Barbara, California (with attached Archaeological Survey Report) was prepared by Brent Leftwich and Craig Woodman of URS Corporation in November 2014. The study included the delineation of the Hollister Bridge Project’s APE, Native American consultation, a CCIC and SLF search, and an archaeological survey. The APE for the project encompasses the portions of Hollister Avenue within the current APE. The study identified no historic properties within its APE or the current APE (Leftwich and Woodman 2014a).

Known Cultural Resources
The CHRIS records search and background research identified nine previously recorded resources, two of which are located adjacent to the current APE (P-42-041000 and P-42-041793) and all of which consist of historic age buildings, within a 0.25-mile radius of the APE. Resources recorded in the search radius are listed in the records search results in Appendix A. Resources located adjacent to the APE are indicated in Table 1 and discussed in further detail below.

Table 1 Previously Recorded Resources located Adjacent to the APE Primary
Number Trinomial
Resource
Type Description
Recorder(s)
and Year(s) Eligibility Status
Relationship
to APE
P-42-
041000
N/A Building Newland Property. A
multiple-family
property consisting
of five vernacular
cottages.

Post Hazeltine
2006
Recommended
ineligible for listing in
the NRHP, the CRHR
and as a City of Goleta
Landmark.

Adjacent
P-42-
041793
N/A Building 5555 Hollister
Avenue. One-story
commercial building
designed in Googie
style.

HRG 2021 Recommended
eligible for listing as a
City of Goleta
Landmark.

Adjacent
Source: Central Coastal Information Center 2025
Resource P-42-041000
Resource P-42-041000 consists of the Newland Property at 5544 Hollister Avenue. It is located north of Hollister Avenue and along the eastern bank of San Jose Creek, adjacent to the northern extent of the APE. The property was recorded and evaluated by Post Hazeltine Associates (Post Hazeltine) in 2006. Although it was not identified by the CHRIS search, review of the resource record associated with P-42-041000 indicated that it was prepared as part of the Supplemental Historical Resources Evaluation Report for Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project, which is currently ongoing adjacent to (to the east of) the northern portion of the current APE in the Hollister Avenue right-of- way ROW (Post Hazeltine 2009). The 2006 recordation identified five vernacular cottages within the triangular-shaped property, with varying approximate construction dates of 1938 to 1954, some of which may have been moved on to the property. Frank and Nellie Newland, chiropractors from Santa Barbara, acquired the property in 1929 from Horace Sexton, an heir of horticulturalist Joseph Sexton, who operated a nursery on lands that included those within the Newland Property ca. 1870s through his death in 1917. Post Hazeltine found that the Newland Property lacked significant association with themes of settlement and development in the Goleta Valley, and that the property 394
Findings

Cultural Resources Technical Report 31
did not retain sufficient integrity to convey association with Joseph Sexton. Therefore, the property was recommended ineligible for the NRHP. Since 2006, at least one of the formally extant buildings has been demolished as part of projects ongoing in the area. None of the built features on the property would be at all physically altered by the current undertaking Additionally, due to the nature of the undertaking, which would not extend outside the existing banks of San Jose Creek, the setting of these resources would also not be altered by implementation of the undertaking.

Resource P-42-041793
Resource P-42-41793 consists of 5555 Hollister Avenue (Bishop Event Center); the resource is also identified as Hill Homestead Witness Tree, Blue Ox Steak House, and Sizzler Steak House. P-42- 41793 was recorded by HRG as part of a historic survey of Goleta in 2021. It consists of a one-story, Googie style commercial building situated on a flat parcel adjacent (to the west) of the current APE.

The building was constructed in 1967, with patio improvements in 1976, alteration to accommodate a theater in 1989, landscape design, signage, and roofing replacement in 1998. The building’s outdoor patio was built around the Hill Homestead Witness Tree, a large sycamore tree that “was designated as a Historical Landmark prior to the City’s [i.e. Goleta’s], incorporation” (HRG 2001).

HRG recommended the building eligible as a City of Goleta Historic Landmark. Neither the building nor the Hill Homestead Witness Tree would be physically altered by the current undertaking.

Additionally, due to the nature of the undertaking, which would not extend outside the existing banks of San Jose Creek, the setting of these resources would also not be altered by implementation of the undertaking.

Native American Heritage Commission
The NAHC responded to Rincon’s SLF and contact list request on March 27, 2024, stating that the results of the SLF search were positive, meaning Sacred Lands have been documented within one to three miles of the APE. Mescalitan Island is a well known resource and the location of the village of Helo where human remains have been previously identified. The positive SLF results are likely due to the proximity of Mescalitan Island, however, the resource falls outside of the 0.25-mile records search buffer for the project. The NAHC recommended that tribes on the contact list they provided be contacted for additional information regarding the positive SLF. The results of the SLF search are included in Appendix B.

Native American Outreach
The following summarizes the responses received from the NAHC-listed Native American groups contacted by Rincon as part of the outreach effort:
▪ On March 21 and April 4, 2025, Rincon attempted to call Cultural Resource Chair Barabara Lopez with the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians. The call was unanswered, and Rincon left a voicemail and sent a follow-up email. No response has been received to date of this report. ▪ On March 21, 2025, Rincon called and spoke with Chairperson Eleanor Fishburn of the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians. Chairperson Fishburn advised that she would respond over the weekend and added that there is a high chance of cultural sensitivity if the APE is near a creek. Rincon sent a follow up email shortly after the phone call. On March 31, 2025, Chairperson Fishburn responded via email stating that she suggests Native American monitoring 395
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

32 if ground disturbance will reach 18 feet in depth. On April 1, 2025, Rincon responded via email and reconfirmed Chairperson Fishburn’s request for native monitoring. ▪ On March 21, 2025, Rincon called and spoke with Chair Matthew Vestuto of the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians. Chair Vestuto stated that the tribe defers to the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians, but he would like to be contacted if they do not respond.

On the same day, Rincon sent a follow up email to Chair Vestuto and reconfirmed his request. ▪ On March 21 and April 4, 2025, Rincon attempted to call Chairperson Julio Quair with the Chumash Council of Bakersfield. On both attempts, the phone was disconnected and Rincon was unable to leave a voicemail. Follow up emails were sent on both occasions, but both emails were marked as undeliverable.
▪ On March 21 and April 4, 2025, Rincon attempted to call Chairperson Gabe Frausto with the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation. Both calls were unanswered, and Rincon left a voicemail and sent follow up emails on both occasions. No response has been received as of the date of this report.
▪ On March 11, 2025, Chairperson Violet Walker with the Northern Chumash Tribal Council responded via email stating that the tribe would like to participate to learn and help with the undertaking. On March 11, 2025, Rincon responded via email to re-confirm Chairperson Walker’s request and that her information would be passed to the lead federal agency involved. ▪ On March 11, 2025, Cultural Resources Administrative Assistant Aileena Diaz responded via email stating that the tribe would like to have a formal consultation regarding the undertaking and would like to schedule a date and time for discussion with Cultural Resources Archaeologist Dr. Wendy Teeter. On March 12, 2025, Rincon responded via email to confirm Ms. Diaz’s email and stated that Dr. Teeter’s information would be passed along to the lead agency.

No additional comments were received from those contacted as part of this outreach effort.

Documentation in support of the Native American outreach conducted for this study and the SLF response letter are included in Appendix B of this report.

Local Interested Party Outreach
The following summarizes the responses received from the local interested parties contacted by Rincon as part of the outreach effort:
▪ On March 11, 2025, Assistant Executive Director of Cultural Resources Michael Imwalle with the SBTHP responded via email stating that The San Jose Winery (Santa Barbara County Landmark No. 25) is located west of San Jose Creek, approximately 1.7 miles north of the northern terminus of the APE. The San Jose Winery is an adobe within the Rancho of Mission Santa Barbara, located at 5320 Vineyard Road in Santa Barbara. The San Jose Winery does not appear to be affected by the undertaking. No additional historic resources were identified within the vicinity of the APE.
▪ On March 11, 2025, Director of Operations Lisa Potter with the GVHS responded via email stating that, judging by the images provided by Rincon, the undertaking wouldn't conflict with any historical buildings in their purview. The response recommended that Rincon also reach out to GHPC.
▪ On March 12, 2025, Rincon sent an outreach letter via email to Planning Manager Lisa Prasse with the GHPC. Ms. Prasse responded via email on the same day asking if Rincon has a specific radius or distance from the APE in mind. Rincon responded via email to clarify interest in 396
Findings

Cultural Resources Technical Report 33
resources within or adjacent to the APE that could potentially be affected by the undertaking.

No additional response has been received to date of this report. ▪ On March 18, 2025, Chair Keith Coffman-Grey with the HLAC responded stating that he reviewed the undertaking with vice-chair Ron Nye and no known historic resources were identified within the APE or its vicinity.

The outreach described above did not result in the identification of historic properties in the APE or its vicinity. Additional documentation in support of the interested party outreach is included in Appendix C of this report.

Aerial Imagery and Historical Topographic Maps
Review
Rincon completed a review of BLM GLO Plat maps, Sanborn fire insurance maps, historical topographic maps, and aerial imagery to ascertain the development history of the APE. A review of the BLM GLO Plat Maps from 1875 and 1927 show the APE as undeveloped land within Rancho La Goleta (BLM GLO 1875, 1927). By 1928, the APE is shown within an alluvial flood plain and large salt marsh (Goleta Slough), with the surrounding area is shown primarily as agricultural fields and SR 217 as a dirt road (UCSB FrameFinder 1928; Sanborn Map Company 1930; Figure 4). Aerial imagery from 1947 shows the APE as agricultural land, with residential development and “Old San Jose Creek” to the west (NETR Online 2024). By 1953, “Old San Jose Creek” no longer exists and is shown as what appears to be a dirt road (NETR Online 2024). Aerial imagery and historical topographic maps spanning from 1956 to 1959 depict a slight increase in modern development to the north, east and west of the APE (UCSB FrameFinder 1956, 1959; USGS 2024). The construction of SR 217 easterly adjacent to the APE was underway by 1962 (UCSB FrameFinder 1962). Aerial photographs from 1965 and 1967 depict San Jose Creek as channelized, with the upstream portion of the APE shown as a natural channel, and South Kellogg Avenue had been realigned running parallel to the completed SR 217 (UCSB FrameFinder 1965, 1967, Figure 5). A historical topographic map from 1967 shows the development of Thornwood Drive, commercial and industrial buildings in the vicinity of Thornwood Drive, and the West Wind Drive-In at the southern end of the APE (USGS 2024). Commercial and industrial development continues to increase to the east and west of the APE from 1971 to 2020 (NETR Online 2024; UCSB FrameFinder 1971, 1983, 1986; USGS 2024).

Between 2016 and 2018 the remaining agricultural field to the west of the APE had been graded and prepared for the development of the residential apartment complex between Surfrider Way and Ekwill Street (NETR Online 2024).
397
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

34 Figure 4 Historical Aerial Photograph Depicting Vicinity of APE, 1928

Source: UCSB Framefinder 1928
398
Findings

Cultural Resources Technical Report 35
Figure 5 Historical Aerial Photograph Depicting Vicinity of APE, 1967

Source: UCSB 1967
399
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

36 Geoarchaeological Review
According to published geologic mapping, the APE is underlain by Quaternary age, alluvial and colluvial deposits intermixed with silt, sand, and gravel derived as overbank deposits from San Jose Creek, which originally flowed approximately 475 feet west of the APE prior to channelization. More specifically, one surficial geologic unit comprises the site: (Qac) “poorly consolidated silt, sand, and gravel deposits of modern drainages and piedmont alluvial fans and floodplains” (Minor et al. 2009).

This geologic unit was deposited during the Holocene (beginning approximately 11,700 years ago) and upper Pleistocene (approximately 126,000 to 11,700 years ago). The Holocene dates to human occupation of the region and is generally conducive to the natural burial and preservation of archaeological deposits. The Pleistocene largely pre-dates human occupation of the region.

Three soils series have been documented within the APE, including the Elder-Soboba Complex, Elder sandy loam Series, and Camarillo fine-sandy loam Series (California Soils Resource Lab 2006, 2009).

The Elder-Soboba Complex is a combination of the Elder sandy loam Series and Soboba Series and consists of deep to very deep well-drained soils that formed from alluvial material derived from mixed rock sources and granitic rock sources and located along alluvial fans and floodplains. The Elder sandy loam Series is found from the California Central Valley to the Central Coastal Ranges at elevations ranging from 20 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level. A typical soil profile features gray coarsely structured fine sandy loam from 0 to 8 inches; gray friable sandy loam from 8 to 35 inches; and grayish brown friable fine sandy loam from 35 to 72 inches (California Soil Resource Lab 2009).

The Soboba series is found on alluvial fans and floodplains at elevations that range from 35 to 3,700 feet above mean sea level. A typical soil profile features grayish brown stony loamy sand from 0 to 11 inches and grayish brown stratified gravelly and cobbly sand from 11 to 60 inches (California Soil Resource Lab 2009). This Elder-Soboba Complex is mapped within the natural channel at the northern portion of the APE and covers approximately 28 percent of the total area. The Elder Series is also mapped within the middle portion of the APE and cover approximately 55 percent of the total area.

The Camarillo fine-sandy loam Series is formed from alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks along nearly level flood plains. This series is commonly found at elevations of 10 to 200 feet above mean sea level within coastal valleys of south-central California. A typical profile of this series features grayish to very dark grayish brown friable fine sandy loam from 0 to 24 inches; grayish to olive brown heavy loam at 24 to 36 inches; pale to olive brown fine sandy clay loam from 36 to 44 inches; friable light gray to brown sandy loam from 44 to 50 inches; and light gray to brownish gray fine sand from 50 to 88 inches below current surface (California Soil Resource Lab 2006). The Camarillo fine-sandy loam Series is mapped within the southern portion of the APE and covers approximately 17 percent of the total area.

Because of the episodic nature of alluvial sedimentation, the sudden burial of artifacts is possible, and alluvial soils have an increased likelihood of containing buried archaeological deposits (Waters 1992, Borejaza et al. 2014). Although the geologic unit identified within the APE was deposited during the Holocene, buried A horizons were not identified in the Elder-Soboba Complex, Elder sandy loam Series, or Camarillo fine-sandy loam Series (California Soil Resource Lab 2006 and 2009). 400
Findings

Cultural Resources Technical Report 37
Archaeological Sensitivity Summary
The SLF search conducted by the NAHC returned positive results, and the results of previously conducted studies as well as Native American outreach conducted for this undertaking indicate that the area is culturally sensitive. The southern portion of the APE lies near what would have been the shore of prehistoric Goleta Slough. The San Jose Creek, the close proximity of the Goleta Slough, and the Pacific Ocean (located approximately 0.5 mile to the south of the APE), would have made the area desirable for prehistoric habitation/occupation since they would have provided access to a variety of subsistence resources including fresh water, plants, and terrestrial and marine animals. In fact, ethnohistoric sources indicate that the villages that surrounded the Goleta Slough were amongst the largest in the Santa Barbara Channel area (Leftwich and Woodman 2014b).

The search of the CHRIS database did not identify any previously recorded historic-period or prehistoric archaeological resources within the APE or immediate vicinity. Although the area is known to be culturally sensitive, the APE itself has been previously disturbed due to episodic flooding events (and continual alluvial deposits) within San Jose Creek and the Goleta Slough, historic-era cattle ranching and agricultural activities, as well as the installation and maintenance of the concrete lined channel. Because the APE is situated in an area that was historically part of Rancho La Goleta, decades of cattle ranching resulted in denuded land, which exacerbated the substantial soil erosion that occurred as a result of heavy rains in the early 1860s that deposited large amounts of soil into the slough (San Buenaventura Research Associates [SBRS] 2010; Historic Resources Group [HRG] 2018). The review of historical topographic maps described above indicated agricultural activities were transpiring in the vicinity of the APE as early as 1928, and within the APE by 1947 (UCSB 1928). Moreover, San Jose Creek was channelized by 1965 (UCSB FrameFinder 1965).

Additionally, the geologic unit identified within the APE was deposited during the Holocene which dates to human occupation of the region and is generally conducive to the natural burial and preservation of archaeological deposits; however, the soil series mapped within the APE do not contain subsurface topsoil (buried A-Horizons), which are generally indicative of natural burial and preservation of archaeological deposits.

Although the APE and its vicinity is considered to be culturally sensitive, the negative results of the CHRIS search and field survey, the level of previous disturbances within the APE associated with historic-era ranching and agriculture, modern development and the debris flow, and the absence of subsurface topsoil, the archaeological sensitivity of the APE is considered moderate.

Survey Results
Built Environment Resources
The field survey and background research resulted in the identification of a portion of one historic- age property within the APE, the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel. As part of the current study, this property was recorded and evaluated for NRHP eligibility on DPR series forms, which are included in Appendix D and summarized below. The DPR forms also document the state and local eligibility of the channel. However, only the NRHP evaluation is summarized herein. 401
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

38 San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel
Physical Description
The segment of the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel in the APE (recorded segment) is an approximately 0.7-mile-long concrete flood control channel, which begins immediately north of Hollister Avenue and continues on a southwestward alignment to the south of Hollister Avenue, immediately west of Clarence Ward Memorial Boulevard (SR 217) in the City of Goleta. South of Hollister Avenue, the channel generally parallels Ward Memorial Boulevard (east) and S. Kellogg Avenue (west). Originally constructed in 1963-1964 as a trapezoidal flood control channel, the structure was extensively modified as part of the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project, completed in 2014. The project replaced most of the preexisting trapezoidal channel with the existing design, featuring a 50-foot width, rectangular profile, vertical concrete walls, an articulated concrete revetment and weirs supporting fish passage. The northernmost portion of the channel, immediately south of Hollister Avenue, retains a trapezoidal profile. The channel appears to be in good condition (Figure 6). The northernmost portion of the APE, north of Hollister Avenue is a natural channel.

Figure 6 Photograph of San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel, View Facing South

402
Findings

Cultural Resources Technical Report 39
Historical Development of San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel The San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel’s development in the early to mid-1960s occurred during the Post-World War II Development period (1946-1969) identified in the City of Goleta Citywide Historic Context Statement (HCS) (HRG 2021). The HCS provides an expanded history of Goleta’s development across multiple periods and themes, but does not provide information specific to the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel’s development. The following developmental history for the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel focuses on the historical development of the area of Goleta containing the subject channel.

The lands to the immediate east and west of the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel, located south of Hollister Avenue, were developed agricultural by the 1870s, including a 150-acre dairy and bean farm owned by Frank E. Kellogg, who owned 150 immediately south of Hollister Avenue and its present-day intersection with Ward Memorial Boulevard (State Highway 217). Kellogg’s farm was a major producer of dairy products for the local market and Kellogg established the first creamery in Santa Barbara County in 1892 (HRG 2021). Despite his success, Kellogg eventually sold his holdings to nearby major landowner J.F. More, who had pressured Kellogg to sell around the turn of the twentieth century in order to expand his own acreage. When More acquired Kellogg’s land he demolished the former dairy facilities and returned the acreage to use as agricultural fields (Modugno 2018). As the HCS notes, Goleta transformed from a community of scattered ranches and farms into a major citrus producer and oil town between World War I and World War II (HRG 2021).

By 1905, the portion of Goleta to the south of Hollister Avenue had experienced frequent flooding from San Jose Creek, which meandered southwestward to the west of the existing channel. In 1905 residents petitioned for the construction of a bridge over San Jose Creek on Kellogg Avenue near Hollister Avenue (The Morning Press 1905). Residential development during the interwar years included a few subdivisions in the vicinity of the future alignment of the subject channel; however, the growth of the subdivisions that were platted near San Jose Creek were challenged in some cases by flooding and also by a lack of domestic water supply, which ultimately stifled their development (HRG 2021, Modugno 2017).

Review of topographic maps and historical newspapers indicates that an effort to manage the flooding of San Jose Creek occurred by 1940, alongside a residential neighborhood developed along Fairview Avenue and to the east of Goleta Slough. This channelization appears to have been related to the development of a Marine Corps air station in the areas that became the Santa Barbara Airport and University of California at Santa Barbara campus after World War II (Leftwich and Woodman 2014a). Still, this earlier channel was faced with periodic blockages form debris flows during the rainier winter months (USGS 1943, 1950; Santa Barbara News-Press 1940). As of 1956, the immediate vicinity of the future San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel remained agricultural land, framed by Hollister Avenue at the north, Kellogg Avenue to the west, and Atascadero Creek at the south.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, Goleta experienced high demand for housing as oil companies and the aeronautics industry located in the region. Goleta began to experience greater population growth and development after the completion of U.S. 101 in 1947 and improved domestic water supply following the completion of the Cachuma Dam 1950 (Leftwich and Woodman 2014a). As described in the HCS:

Tracts of single-family residences were frantically subdivided to cater to the rapid population increase caused by the arrival of the aerospace companies, each of which brought several hundred employees to the area. The establishment of the University of California at Santa Barbara campus in 1954 […] also increased local demand for housing and amenities in Goleta. As 403
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

40 the only available land in Goleta was dedicated to agriculture, the creation of residential subdivisions necessarily caused a decrease in the area’s agricultural activity.

During this period the lands where the existing San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel was built remained agricultural (Data Basin 2024, Penfield & Smith 1956, Figure 3). The subject channel’s planning occurred in the early 1960s, as the decision to route the previously planned Clarence Ward Memorial Boulevard (State Highway 217), a major connector from the university campus to points to the northeast was carried forward (Santa Barbara News-Press 1961a, Leftwich and Woodman 2014a). A diagonal route for the boulevard, extending through agricultural areas to the south of Hollister Avenue was selected, despite controversy related to its alignment and the complexities of ROW acquisition and potential impacts to existing agricultural operations (Santa Barbara News- Press 1957). By February 1961, as the boulevard’s construction approached, property owners in the area reached an agreement to provide ROW for a new San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel, to be built alongside and generally parallel to the boulevard. As part of the project, the State Division of Highways planned to dig the channel and use excavated materials as fill during the highway’s construction, to reduce the overall cost of the roadway’s construction (Santa Barbara News-Press 1961a). As of September 1961, the new channel was not planned to be ready for use “for at least two winters because it cannot be used until the Ward Boulevard project is completed” (Santa Barbara News-Press 1961). It appears that channel was excavated but remained unlined as of November 1963 (Santa Barbara News-Press 1963). Following the boulevard’s completion in 1963, The Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water District awarded a contract for completion of the concrete channel to Stromberg Inc. of Santa Ana. Work was to commence by late May 1964, with completion scheduled in the late Summer/Early fall of 1964 before seasonal rains returned (Gazette-Citizen 1964). A newspaper article described:

San Jose Creek for years has meandered through valuable land in the south section of the town and has blocked its development, according to [Supervisor Daniel] Grant. Hundreds of acres of valuable industrial and commercial land which have been unusable without costly bridge construction will now be available for development with the completion of the creek realignment […] The new concrete channel will parallel the new Ward Memorial Blvd. (Gazette- Citizen 1964)
The earliest available aerial photograph of the completed channel alongside the previously built boulevard was taken in 1967 (UCSB 1967). By that year, land immediately to the east and west of the channel and parallel highway still consisted largely of agriculture fields, with commercial and industrial development concentrated along and southeast present-day South Kellogg Avenue and Ward Drive and further northwest. This included a drive-in movie theater to the southwest of the channel (UCSB 1967). By 1984 the manufactured home community, Rancho Goleta, was developed at the south end of Ward Drive, a frontage road paralleling the east side of the boulevard.

Additional industrial development began to fill in the former agricultural areas to the west of the channel (NETR 1984). Since 1984, agricultural land to the west of the channel has been completely redeveloped with mixed uses, while lands to the east of channel and highway retain a mix of residential, industrial-commercial, and agricultural uses (NETR 1994, 2010, 2020).

The subject portion of the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel, completed in between 1963 and 1964, was demolished and reconstructed between 2012 and 2014 as a 50-foot-wide channel with vertical walls and an articulated concrete revetment bottom. The revetment included a fish passage (City of Goleta n.d.). Known as the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project, the redesign of the channel was completed to provide improved flood projection and resulted in the widening of 404
Findings

Cultural Resources Technical Report 41
the channel and redesign of the channel’s interior shape or profile, from an original trapezoidal design, to the existing rectangular design (SAIC 2009; NETR 2012, 2014).

STROMBERG, INC.

Stromberg, Inc. is identified as the general contractor in charge of the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel’s construction in between 1963 and 1964. Stromberg, Inc. was a Santa Ana-based general contracting firm, led by S.V. Tex Stromberg as of the early 1960s (Progress-Bulletin 1963). The company was known as Famulara-Stromberg Inc. in 1961 (The Register 1961). In 1961, the firm began using a grinding auger machine invented by Stromberg during the construction of a flood control ditch in Santa Ana. In 1963, Stromberg designed and received a patent for the Stromberg Ditch Lining Machine in 1963, which paved the sides and bottom of a flood control channel simultaneously. This machine was used in the construction of a trapezoidal flood control channel at Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County (Progress-Bulletin 1963).

National Register of Historic Places Evaluation
The portion of San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel in the APE is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under all evaluative criteria due to a lack of architectural or historical significance.

Evaluation guidance for water conveyance systems in California has been developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and notes, “For a water conveyance system to be eligible under Criterion A, it must be found to be associated with specific important events (e.g., first long-distance transmission of hydroelectric power) or important patterns of events (e.g., development of irrigated farming) (Caltrans 2000). The San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel was originally completed in approximately 1964 and was reconstructed between 2012 and 2014 along the same alignment. When originally constructed, the subject channel provided additional flood control capacity in an area of Goleta where a preexisting channel of San Jose Creek had been constructed (further to the west) by 1940. The subject channel was built generally parallel to the Clarence Ward Memorial Boulevard (SR 217), with the channel completed after the roadway. From 1962 to the 2000s, development in the vicinity of the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel transitioned from primarily agricultural to a mix of agricultural, industrial, commercial, and limited residential uses. Although the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel was built in an area that experience post-World War II development, and flood control likely factored into additional development of formerly agricultural areas in the immediate vicinity of the channel, it’s role in the developmental history of Goleta does not appear to be individually significant. Earlier flood control efforts to manage San Jose Creek were developed in the region and subsequent redesign of the channel resulted from ongoing adaption to evolving flood control needs. Further, the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel’s development has not been demonstrated to have been part of a major system with overarching significance to the region or state. Therefore, the subject segment of the channel is recommended ineligible under Criterion A/1 (Events).

The San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel has not been identified as having an association to any individuals who made significant contributions to history. This infrastructural project was carried out as part of local and State agency collaboration, during the early 1960s, but does not convey aspects of any one individual’s career such that is significant under Criterion B (Persons). Therefore, the subject segment of the channel is recommended ineligible under Criterion B/2 (Persons). 405
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

42 The subject segment of the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel does not appear to be individually significant under Criterion C as a water conveyance structure that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of a master, or which possesses high artistic values. The channel was originally constructed in 1964 by the firm Stromberg Inc as a concrete creek channel set on a northeast/southwest alignment that generally paralleled the Clarence Ward Memorial Boulevard to its immediate east. This channel was likely built using techniques and equipment that Stromberg specialized in and, as original built, featured a trapezoidal profile. Although Stromberg Inc. appears to have specialized in channel construction in the region and Tex Stromberg invented flood control channel construction equipment, including a patented ditch liner, holder for channel construction-related, this channel’s constructed occurred after these inventions were created. Moreover, the channel’s design was substantially changed in 2014, such that it does not embody the construction type and methods used in its original construction in 1964. Therefore, the subject segment of the channel is recommended ineligible under Criterion C/3 (Architecture).

Research does not indicate the property has the potential to yield important information pertaining to prehistory or history under Criteria D/4 as it is not and has never been the principal source of information relating to its construction type or construction methods (Information Potential).

Archaeological Resources
Terrain within the APE was generally flat, with coastal annual non-native grasses, as well as coast live oak and arroyo willow trees, lining the northern portion of the APE (Figure 7). Surficial soils consisted of brown sandy loam in the northern portion of the APE, whereas concrete was observed in the middle to southern portion of the APE (Figure 8). Ground visibility ranged from 0 to 60 percent due to overgrown vegetation coverage bordering the San Jose Creek Flood Control Channel and water in the middle portion of the APE (Figure 9). Areas of overgrown vegetation and water were opportunistically inspected but not systematically surveyed. Construction materials and modern trash were primarily observed in the northern portion of APE (Figure 10). No archaeological resources were identified as a result of the survey conducted for the undertaking. 406
Findings

Cultural Resources Technical Report 43
Figure 7 Photograph of Coastal Annual Non-native Grasses and Coast Live Oak and Arroyo Willow Trees Lining the Northern Portion of the APE, Facing West

Figure 8 Photograph of Concrete Observed in the Middle to Southern Portions of the APE, Facing North

407
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

44 Figure 9 Photograph of Water Observed in the Middle Portion of the APE, Facing North

Figure 10 Photograph of Construction Materials and Trash Observed in the Northern Portion of APE, Plan View

408
Conclusions and Recommendations

Cultural Resources Technical Report 45
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
This study identified no built environment properties within the APE that are considered historic properties under Section 106. Therefore, the project would not result in effects to built environment historic properties and no further management practices are recommended for built environment resources.

The results of the SLF search conducted for the undertaking was positive for Sacred Lands (likely due to the proximity of Mescalitan Island), and the results of Native American outreach as well as previously conducted studies within the vicinity have indicated that the APE is located within a culturally sensitive area. Additionally, San Jose Creek, as well as the close proximity of the Goleta Slough and the Pacific Ocean, would have provided an abundance of food sources and would have been conducive to supporting long-term habitation. However, the CHRIS records search conducted for the study did not identify any archaeological resources within the APE, and no archaeological resources or deposits were identified within the APE as a result of the field survey. Additionally, the APE has been previously disturbed due to episodic flooding events within San Jose Creek and the Goleta Slough, historic-era cattle ranching and agricultural activities, as well as the installation and maintenance of a concrete lined channel. Therefore, it is unlikely that the APE contains intact buried archaeological resources. Based on the results of this study, Rincon recommends a finding of no historic properties affected under Section 106 for the current undertaking.

Although the APE has been previously disturbed, it is possible that less disturbed sediments may exist within the deeper layers of the vertical APE. Given the known cultural sensitivity of the APE and its vicinity, the City will implement the following condition of approval, which is a requirement of the Original Project IS-MND and will require archaeological monitoring. Archaeological monitoring is a standard condition for construction in the region and consistent with the expectations of the local tribes. Additionally, in the event of a post-review discovery during ground disturbance associated with the undertaking, the procedures under 36 CFR Part 800.13 should be followed by the federal lead agency. Furthermore, in the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during implementation of the undertaking, they would be treated consistent with state and local regulations, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (included below) and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e).

Archaeological Monitoring (Required by Original
Project IS-MND)
On-site monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate Native American observer shall occur during all grading, excavation, and site preparation that involves earth moving operations. In the unlikely event archaeological remains or cultural resources are encountered during construction in the proposed project area, work shall be stopped immediately or redirected and the City shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report assessing the significance of the find and provide recommendations regarding appropriate disposition. Disposition would be determined by the City in conjunction with the affected Native American nation.

409
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

46 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the MLD) that it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

410
References

Cultural Resources Technical Report 47
7 References
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (AE, Inc.)
2020 Historic Property Survey Report for Goleta Old Town Transportation Improvements, Santa Barbara County, California (Study SR-02541). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

Archaeological Systems Management, Inc. (ASM)
1983 Final Report Intensive Cultural Resources Survey for the Goleta Flood Protection Program Santan Barbara County California (Study SR-00246). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

Arnold, Jeanne E.
1995 “Transportation Innovation and Social Complexity among Maritime Hunter-Gatherer Societies.” American Anthropologist 97(4):733-747.

Bancroft, Hubert How
1885 History of California, Volume III: 1825-1840. San Francisco, California: A.L. Bancroft & Co.

Bureau of Land Management’s General Land Office (BLM GLO) 1875 Original Survey Plat Image 5/16/1875
https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=287519&sid=xh3qkf2e.c kw#surveyDetailsTabIndex=0. (accessed April 2024)
1927 Original Survey Plat Image 10/28/1927
https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=287521&sid=xh3qkf2e.c kw#surveyDetailsTabIndex=0. (accessed April 2024)
California Office of Historic Preservation
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format.

Electronic document accessed August 17, 2023 from:
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/armr-remediated.pdf 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
2011 “California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register),” California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.

California Soil Resource Lab
2006 Soil Data Explorer – Camarillo Series.
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sde/?series=camarillo#osd (accessed March 2024).
2009 Soil Data Explorer – Elder Series.
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sde/?series=elder#osd (accessed March 2024). 2024 Soil Web. Electronic resource accessed April 2024. https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/
411
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

48 Chartkoff, Joseph L.
1967 Archaeological Resources on Fourteen Stream Channels in Coastal Santa Barbara County (Study SR-01746). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

Cole, Alexandra
1999 Santa Barbara Waterfront Historic Context. Prepared by Preservation Planning Associates. Prepared for the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department, Planning Division.

Conway, Thor
2009 An Archaeological Surface Survey and Updated Records Search for the Goleta Slough Flood Control Dredging Project. Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California (Study 05025).

Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

Dallas, S.F.
1955 The Hide and Tallow Trade in Alta California 1822-1848. Ph.D. dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.

Dartt-Newton, Deana and Jon M. Erlandson
2006 “Little Choice for the Chumash: Colonialism, Cattle, and Coercion in Mission Period California.” American Indian Quarterly 30(3/4):416-460
Dibble, Stephen
2001 Records and Literature Search and Archeological Survey for Proposed Old San Jose Creek Restoration Project (Study SR-02690). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

Dumke, Glenn S.
1994 “The Boom of the 1880s in Southern California.” Southern California Quarterly 76(1):99- 114.

Earth Point
2024 Township and Range grid. Available at: https://www.earthpoint.us/Townships.aspx.

Accessed April 2025.

Erlandson, Jon M.
1991 Early Maritime Adaptations on the Northern Channel Islands in Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Volume 1: Perspectives in California Archaeology. J.

M. Erlandson and R. Colten, eds. Pp. 101-111. Los Angeles, California: Costen Institute of Archaeology Press.
1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. New York, New York: Plenum Press. 1999 “The Evolution of “Barbareño” Chumash.” Proceedings of the California Society for Archaeology 12:106-113.

Erlandson, Jon M., Theodore Cooley, and Richard Carrico 1987 A Fluted Projectile Point Fragment from the Southern California Coast: Chronology and Context at CA-SBA-1951. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9:120–128. 412
References

Cultural Resources Technical Report 49
Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Terry L. Jones, and Judith F. Porcasi 2007 One If by Land, Two If by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? in California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, eds. Pp. 53-62.

Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.

Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell 2007 Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges in California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, eds. Pp. 191-213. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.

Goleta, City of (City)
2007 Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement & Fish Passage Project (dated May 2007). On file with Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Graffy, Neal
2010 Historic Santa Barbara: An Illustrated History. San Antonio, Texas: Historical Publishing Network.

Grant, Campbell
1978 Eastern Coastal Chumash in California. Volume 8: Handbook of North American Indians.

Robert F. Heizer, ed. and William C. Sturtevant, general ed. Pp. 509-519. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

Gumprecht, Blake
1999 The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hansen, Alan
2010 Archaeological Resources Assessment Concrete Recycling Facility 903, 905, 907, & 909 South Kellogg Avenue City of Goleta, California (Study 04905). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

Historic Resources Group (HRG)
2018 City of Goleta Citywide Historic Context Statement Final Administrative Draft, 5 March.

Hoover, Robert L.
1980 Archaeological Reconnaissance Petkin Condominiums, Goleta (Study SR-00155).

Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

Huckell, Bruce B.
1996 “The Archaic Prehistory of the North American Southwest.” Journal of World Prehistory 10(3):305-373.

Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford, Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited in Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. D.

Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney, eds. Pp. 541–545. Santa Barbara, California: USDI Minerals Management Service and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 413
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

50 Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer A. Ferneau
2002 Deintensification along the Central California Coast in Catalysts to Complexity, Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast. Volume 6: Perspectives in California Archaeology. Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, eds. Pp. 205-232. Los Angeles, California: Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Jones, Terry L. and Kathryn A. Klar
2005 “Diffusionism Reconsidered: Linguistic and Archaeological Evidence for Prehistoric Polynesian Contact with Southern California.” American Antiquity. 70(3):457-484. 2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Berkeley, California:

AltaMira Press.

Jones, Terry L., Nathan E. Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richard T. Fitzgerald, and Mark G. Hylkema 2007 The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu in California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, eds. Pp. 125–146. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.

Jones, Terry L., and Georgie Waugh
1997 Climatic Consequences of Population Pragmatism? A Middle Holocene Prehistory of the Central Coast. In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, pp. 111–128. Perspectives in California Archaeology 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Justice, Noel D.
2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

King, Chester D.
1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804 in The Evolution of North American Indians. David Hurst Thomas, ed. New York, New York: Garland Publishing.

Kyle, Douglas E.
2002 Historic Spots in California. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Livingston, M.M.
1914 “The Earliest Spanish Land Grants in California.” Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California 9(3):195-199.

Leftwich, Brent and Craig Woodman
2009 Historic Property Survey Report for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (Study SR-04704). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.
2014a Historic Property Survey Report for the Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project City of Goleta, County of Santa Barbara, California (Study 05416). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.
414
References

Cultural Resources Technical Report 51
2014b Archaeological Survey Report for the Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project City of Goleta, County of Santa Barbara, California. Obtained via the CCIC 2025.

Maki, Mary
2011 Phase I Archaeological Investigation of Approximately 4.2-Acres for the Kellogg Avenue Properties Project 170 South Kellogg Avenue and 5580 Hollister Avenue Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California (Study SR-04793). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

McClelland Consultants (West), Inc
1990 Draft Negative Declaration San Jose Flood Control Maintenance 90-ND-75 (Study SR- 01067). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

McLaren, Duncan, Daryl Fedje, Quentin Mackie, Loren Davis, Jon Erlandson, Alisha Gauvreau, and Colton Vogelaar
2019 “Late Pleistocene Archaeological Discovery Models on the Pacific Coast of North America.” PaleoAmerica 6(1):43-63.

Minor, S.A., K.S. Kellogg, R.B. Stanley, L.D. Gurrola, E.A. Keller, and T.R. Brandt 2009 Geologic Map of the Santa Barbara Coastal Plan Area, Santa Barbara County, California.

U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map SIM-3001, scale 1:25,000. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=42997 Mithun, Marianne
2001 The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press.

Moratto, Michael
1984 California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc.

National Geographic Society and Esri
2025 Goleta Quadrangle USGS topographic base map.

National Park Service (NPS)
1983 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Professional Qualifications in Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Department of the Interior. 1997 National Register Bulletin-How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

Accessed online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB- 15_web508.pdf. October 2022.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online
2024 Aerial Images of the Goleta Area and APE. Available at:
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed April 2024).

Padre Associates (Padre)
2010 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Flood Control Maintenance Activities in the Goleta Slough (Study SR-04638). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.
415
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

52 Post Hazeltine Associates
2009 Resource Record for 5544-5550 Hollister Avenue (P-42-041000). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

Rawls, James J.
1984 Indians of California: The Changing Image. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.

San Buenaventura Research Associates (SBRA)
2010 Historic Resources Report: Cavaletto Tree Farm Housing Project, Goleta, CA. Prepared for Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Sanborn Map Company
1930 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. Library of Congress. Accessed April 2024, through https://www.loc.gov/item/sanborn00570_001/.

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
2009 An Archaeological Inventory Survey, San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project in the City of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California (Study SR-04826) Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.
2008 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental Assessment Addendum San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project. On file with Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1996 Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for Elements of the Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan (Study SR-02187). Obtained from the CCIC. 2025.

Stone, David and Ken Victorino
2014 Supplemental Extended Phase 1 Archaeological Investigation, Old Town Village Mixed Use Project, Kellogg Avenue/Ekwill Street, Goleta, California (Study 05313). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.

Treganza, Adan E. and Agnes Bierman
1958 “The Topanga Culture: Final Report on Excavations, 1948.” University of California Anthropological Records 20(2):45–86.

University of California, Santa Barbara FrameFinder (UCSB FrameFinder) 1928 Historical aerial photograph online database. Flight C_285, Frame D-3. Accessed April 2024, through https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 1956 Historical aerial photograph online database. Flight HA_AN, Frame 1-126. Accessed April 2024, through https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 1959 Historical aerial photograph online database. Flight HA_GN, Frame 52. Accessed April 2024, through https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 1962 Historical aerial photograph online database. Flight HA_OI, Frame 89. Accessed April 2024, through https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 1965 Historical aerial photograph online database. Flight HB_FV, Frame 65. Accessed April 2024, through https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 416
References

Cultural Resources Technical Report 53
1967 Historical aerial photograph online database. Flight HB_JW, Frame 173. Accessed April 2024, through https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 1971 Historical aerial photograph online database. Flight HB_SJ, Frame 12. Accessed April 2024, through https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 1983 Historical aerial photograph online database. Flight PW_SB_5, Frame 20. Accessed April 2024, through https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. 1986 Historical aerial photograph online database. Flight PW_SB_6, Frame 14. Accessed April 2024, through https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
2024 USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer.
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html (accessed April 2024).

Wallace, William J.
1955 “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California. Volume 8: Handbook of North American Indians. Robert F. Heizer, ed. and William C. Sturtevant, general ed. Pp. 25-36. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

Warren, Claude N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast in Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States. C. Irwin-Williams, ed. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1–14.

Waugh, John C.
2003 On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How it Changed the Course of American History. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc.

Wilcoxen, Larry R.
1997 A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Evaluation for three Segments of Pacific Lightwave Incorporated's Fiber Optic Cable Network in Santa Barbara County, California (Study SR.02004,). Obtained via the CCIC. 2025.
417
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

54 This page left intentionally blank.

418

Appendix A
California Historical Resources Information System Records Search Results

419
Central Coast Information Center
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History
2559 Puesta del Sol
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
PHONE (805) 682-4711 ext. 181
FAX (805) 682-3170
EMAIL [email protected]

3/12/2025 R ecords Search # 25-046

Josh Bevan
Rincon Consulta nts
180 N Ashwood Ave
Ventura, CA 93003

Re: San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project

The Central Coast Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Goleta USGS 7.5’ quad(s). The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a one-quarter mile radius:

As indicated on the da ta request form, the locations of reports and resources are provided in the following format:  custom GIS maps  shapefiles ☐ hand-drawn maps ☐ none

Resources within project area: Two: 42-041000; 42-041793 Resources within ¼ mile radius: Seven: Please see Resources List Reports within project area: 16: Please see Reports
Reports within ¼ mile radius: 10: Please see Report List

Resource Database Printout (list):  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records:  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list):  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records:  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies:  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies:  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed OHP Historic Properties Directory: ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested  nothing listed

The following sources of information are available at http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28065. Some of these resources used to be available through the CHRIS but because they are now online, they can be accessed directly. The Office of Historic Preservation makes no guarantees about the availability, completeness, or accuracy of the information provided through the sources listed below.

420
California State Lands Commission Shipwreck Database Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory U.S. Geological Survey Historic Topographic Maps Rancho Plat Maps National Park Service National Register of Historic
Places Nominations
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Soil Survey Maps
US Bureau of Land Management General Land Office
Records
California Historical Landmarks Listing
(by county)
Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (1988)
Historical Soil Survey Maps

Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to t
he sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) dat a via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records t
hat have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search.

Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record s
earch number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the CHRIS.

Sincerely,

Aria James
Assistant Coordinator
421
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
P-42-002204 CA-SBA-002204 Agency Nbr - Sexton House;
Agency Nbr - Sexton Place
SR-00730, SR-
01406
Site Historic AH04; AH15 1988 (J. Brock, Archaeological Advisory Group, 1539 Monrovia
Ave., Suite 11, Newport Beach, CA
92663-2806)
P-42-040467 OHP PRN - 3102-0632-9999;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0001;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0002;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0003;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0004;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0005;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0006;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0007;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0008;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0009;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0010;
OHP PRN - 3102-0632-0011;
OHP Property Number - 73063;
OHP Property Number - 85842;
OHP Property Number - 85843;
OHP Property Number - 85844;
OHP Property Number - 85845;
OHP Property Number - 85846;
OHP Property Number - 85847;
OHP Property Number - 85848;
OHP Property Number - 85849;
OHP Property Number - 85850;
OHP Property Number - 85851;
OHP Property Number - 85852;
Other - Circulating Pump
Housing;
Other - Concrete Cistern;
Other - Concrete Retaining Wall
and Steps;
Other - Historic Grove;
Other - Paved Driveway;
Other - Polygonal Pool;
Other - Pumphouse;
Other - Rectangular Concrete
Pool;
Other - Sandstone Wall and
Associated Walkways;
Resource Name - Sexton House;
Other - Sexton, Joseph and Lucy
Foster House;
Other - Sundial Platform
Building,
Structure,
Object, Site,
District
Historic HP02 2021 (Christine Lazzaretto, Molly
Iker‐Johnson, Robby Aranguren,
Historic Resources Group)

Page 1 of 2 ends

Goleta City CouncilApril 7, 2026

Goleta City Council
April 7, 2026