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 1 of 3)

Agenda Item C.1

CPMS PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: April 7, 2026
TO: M
ayor and Councilmembers
SUBM
ITTED BY: Luz “Nina” Buelna, Public Works Director
PRE
PARED BY: Autumn Glaeser, Assistant Public Works Director SUBJ
ECT: Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Council Resolution No. 26- _____ entitled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of Goleta, California, Making Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, adopting the Addendum to the Initial Study M itigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improv ement Project, in connection with the San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project (CIP No. 9117).

BACKGROUND:

The San Jose Creek watershed is the largest creek watershed draining into the City of Goleta. The San Jose Creek captures drainage from the Los Padres National Forest, the Goleta Foothills, and a large portion of the City. The San Jose Creek ends just upstream of Hollister Avenue a nd flows i nto the concrete S an Jose Creek Channel. T he original channel, co nstructed in 1962, di verted the San Jose Creek so that instead of flowing through Goleta Old Town, i t flowed through t he channel l ocated east of Old Town and adjacent to State Route 217. T he channel terminates at the confluence with San Pedro Creek and flows into the Goleta Slough. The San Jose Creek Channel and natural creek are maintained by t he S anta Barbara C ounty F lood Control and Water Conservation District (Flood Control).

The City began development of the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project (Original Project) in 2005 to increase the capacity of the existing San Jose Creek Channel to contain the regulatory 100-year flood event and thereby remove a large portion of Old Town Goleta from the regulatory floodplain. In June of 2007, the City Council adopted a resolution (Resolution No. 07- 24) approving under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project. The project included widening the existing concrete channel, construction of flood walls, removal and replacement of the existing Hollister Avenue Bridge with a wider structure, removal of an existing secondary steel bridge, and 1 Meeting Date: April 7, 2026

Page 2 of 5 ends

relocation of an existing sewer line. Following discussions with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), in 2008, the City Council adopted a new resolution (Resolution No. 08-16) approving an Addendum to the approved IS-MND. The Addendum modified the project scope to accommodate a fish passage facility within the channel to allow steelhead trout to migrate from the Goleta Slough upstream through the concrete channel, while all other elements of the original project remained (replacement of Hollister Avenue Bridge, removal of secondary steel bridge, and relocation of the sewer line). The fish passage elements required modifications to the channel cross -section to accommodate a low- flow fish passage and the installation of numerous fish passage weirs. From this point forward, the modified project was referred to as the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project (Enhanced Original Project). The City continued development of the Enhanced Original Project but due to funding limitations, the scope of the project was reduced such that the project limit terminated approximately 200-feet downstream of Hollister Avenue, thereby removing from the scope the replacement of the Hollister Avenue Bridge, the removal of the secondary steel bridge, and the channel capacity and fish passage improvements upstream of the new termination point . The reduced project was referred to as the “ Phase 1 Project. ” Construction of the Phase 1 Project was completed in 2014.

In 2012, the City secured federal funding under the Highway Bridge Program to deliver, as a separate project, the Hollister Avenue Bridge Project (Phase 2 Project) . Phase 2 Project encompassed construction of the remaining channel capacity and fish passage improvements (from 200 feet downstream of Hollister Avenue to upstream of Hollister Avenue), the replacement and widening of Hollister Avenue Bridge, and the removal of the secondary steel bridge. These improvements are currently under construction as part of the City’s “Project Connect”.

The Phase 1 Project fish-passage construction, completed in 2014, consisted of a low - flow (depressed) channel located on the east side of the new flood channel , along with concrete and timber weirs placed at set intervals. T he Phase 1 Project constructed fish passage elements that did not function as intended. The system required unsustainable levels of maintenance and sediment removal, and the resulting facility did not provide a viable migration corridor for steelhead trout . In 2022, in compliance with the CDFW provisions of the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement for the Hollister Avenue Bridge Project, the City established a revised fish passage project to modify the existing fish passage elements , Capital Improvement Project 9117 San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project (Phase 3 Project) . Work on the Phase 3 Project began in 202 2 after the City approved professional services agreements with Northwest Hydraulic Consultant (NHC) for design services and with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for environmental and permitting services. Public Works staff established a cooperative design team with CDFW, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Santa Barbara County Flood Control District to oversee project development and to review and approve at critical project milestones.

Upon completion of all ongoing and planned construction projects along San Jose Creek (Hollister Avenue Bridge Project, San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project, and San Jose Creek Multi -Use Path Project , as well as the Caltrans Hwy 217 2 Meet ing Date: April 7, 2026
P
age 3 of 5
Bridge Replacements project, and the completed Hwy 101 bridge replacement over San Jose Creek) and acceptance of hydraulic modeling by FEMA, FEMA will approve a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) which will revise the 100-year floodplain boundaries and thereby eliminate portions of Goleta Old Town from the regulatory flood plain.

DI
SCUSSION:

F
ollowing approval of the Phase 3 Project in 2022 by the City Council, design concepts were developed and assessed, and through the implementation of a scaled physical model constructed at NHC laboratories in Seattle, WA, an optimized design was ultimately identified and successfully tested by the entire design team. The selected design was then verified through 3D digital modeling. The design includes removing the 17 wooden weirs and 25 timber wedges in the channel, minor modifications to the 12 existing concrete weirs, and the installation of 70 new concrete vortex-type weirs. The project also includes minor re-grading of the natural channel bottom along approximately 300 feet of San Jose Creek upstream of Hollister Avenue. The Phase 3 Project design will be finalized in late 2026.

B
etween 2024 and 2025, t he Public Works Project Team engaged with the permitting agencies to ensure alignment between the project and permitting requirements . In October and November 2025, permit applications were submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and to the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

M
ost elements of the Phase 3 Project are located within the constructed concrete San Jose Creek Channel, and the environmental impacts are considered minor. The Phase 3 Project was determined not to introduce new significant impacts beyond those already analyzed in the 2007 IS-MND and 2008 IS-MND Addendum, and would not worsen any previously identified significant impacts. The project will not require new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the 2007 IS-MND.

St
aff retained Rincon Consultants to prepare an Addendum to the existing IS -MND to ensure CEQA compliance and address the current project design. The IS -MND was completed in 2007 for the original Phase 1 and Phase 2 Projects, San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project, and an Addendum was completed in 2008. To support this Addendum, a current Restoration Plan, Biological Resources Assessment, and Aquatic Resources Delineation Report were prepared. Assembly Bill 52 requirements were address ed by preparing a Cultural Resources Technical Report, and project notification letters were submitted to the Chumash Tribes in the region.

F
ollowing the approval of the Addendum to the IS -MND, the completion of the project design, and the issuance of permits, Public Works staff will proceed to the construction of the Phase 3 Project.

P
ublic Works staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the IS- MND for the San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project. 3 Meet ing Date: April 7, 2026
P
age 4 of 5
F
ISCAL IMPACTS:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the Addendum to the IS-MND for the San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project . The project has a total estimated budget of $7.3 million, funded from the General Fund as shown in Table 1 below.

T
able 1: Project Costs – San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project Project
Components Estimated Costs Funding Source Funding Amounts Conceptual
Design
$110,000
General Fund (101) $7,325,000
Environmental $247,500
Final Design $675,000
Land Acquisition $0
Construction $6,292,500
Total: $7,325,000 Total: $7,325,000
ALTERNATIVES:

T
he City Council can elect not to adopt the Addendum to the IS-MND for the San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project, in which case the project will not be able to proceed into construction.

L
EGAL REVIEW BY: Isaac Rosen, City Attorney
A
PPROVED BY: Robert Nisbet, City Manager
AT
TACHMENTS:

1. C
ouncil Resolution No. 26-_____ entitled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of Goleta, California, Mak ing Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Adopting the Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project, in connection with the San Jose Cr eek Channel Fish Passage Modific ation Project (CIP No. 9117).

Exhibit A – 2025 Addendum to the IS-MND for the San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project (CIP No. 9117),
4 Meeting Date: April 7, 2026

Page 5 of 5 ends

Exhibit B – 2007 Original IS-MND for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project, and 2008 Addendum to IS-MND.

2. Presentation

5 ATTACHMENT 1
A Resolution of the Council of the City of Goleta, California, Making Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Adopting the Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project In Connection With the San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project (CIP No. 9117)
6 1
RESOLUTION NO. 26-

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA,

CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162, ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SAN JOSE CREEK

CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN CONNECTION WITH THE

SAN JOSE CREEK CHANNEL FISH PASSAGE MODIFICATION
PROJECT (CIP NO. 9117)
WHEREAS, the City of Goleta ("City") is a municipal corporation organized a nd existing under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, in 2007, the City, acting as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq.), prepared an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS -MND") for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project , which consisted of modifications to existing concrete channeling and flood pro tection infrastructure in San Jose Creek to accommodate the regulatory 100 -year flood event conveyance through the channel , including the widening of the existing concrete channeling , construction of flood walls, removal and replacement with a wider structure t he existing Hollister Avenue Bridge, removal of an existing secondary steel bridge, and relocation of an existing sewer line ("Original Project"); and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution No. 07 -24 adopting the Final I S-MND (SCH #2007031035) (Exhibit B) for the Original Project together with an accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"); and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution No. 08 -16 adopting an Addendum to the Final IS -MND (SCH #2007031035) (Exhibit B), to accommodate modifications to the scope of the Original Project to accommodate fish passage within the San Jose Creek Channel while retaining the regulatory 100-year flood event conveyance capacity within the channel and retaining the removal and replacement with a wider structure, the existing Hollister Avenue Bridge, removal of the existing secondary steel bridge, and relocation of the existing sewer line (“Enhanced Original Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City approved the Enhanced Original Project for construction in 2011; and
7 Resolution No. 26-_ Adopting the Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project
WHEREAS, due to funding limitations, the scope of the Enhanced Original Project was reduced such that the project limit terminated approximately 200-feet downstream of Hollister Avenue, thereby removing from the scope the replacement and widening of the Hollister Avenue Bridge, the removal of the secondary steel bridge, and the channel capacity and fish passage improvements upstream of the new termination point The Enhanced Original Proje ct was reduced and became known as the “Phase 1 Project” ; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, the City secured federal funding under the Highway Bridge Program, to deliver as a separate project the improvements not included in the construction of the Phase 1 Project, which consisted of the remaining channel capacity and fish passage improvements, the replacement and widening of Hollister Avenue Bridge, and the removal of the secondary steel bridge (“Phase 2 Project” or “Hollister Avenue Bridge Project”); and
WHEREAS, construction of the Phase 1 Project commenced in 2013 and was completed in 2014; and
WHEREAS, following construction of the Phase 1 Project, as a result of the fish passage facilities failing to meet all performance goals, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), per stipulations in the Streambed Alteration Agreement with the City of Goleta, Notification No. 1600-2016-0011-R5 approved on January 3, 2023 for the Phase 2 Project, required that the City of Goleta repair and install new facilities along the same footprint as those fish passage facilities that were constructed in the Phase 1 Project all in order to ensure proper fish passage function through the San Jose Creek Channel (“Phase 3 Project”); and WHEREAS, in 2022 the City of Goleta City Council approved of the creation of a new capital improvement project or the San Jose Creek Channel Modification Fish Passage/Phase 3 Project to address the fish passage modifications required by CDFW; and
WHEREAS, design of the Phase 3 Project commenced in 2022 with anticipated completion of design in April 2026; and
WHEREAS, specifically, the Phase 3 Project includes the following: (1) removal of all timber wedges and existing wooden weirs downstream of Station 46+96; (2) modification of existing straight permanent concrete weirs upstream of Station 48+00; (3) addition of new vortex -type weirs within the fish line throughout the length of the constructed flood control channel; (4) extending the existing hydraulic channel section northward to the new Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project; and (5) regrade of a short section of a portion of the natural channel bottom of San Jose Creek, north of the Hollister Avenue Bridge, to permit access for Southern California Distinct Population Segment steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss); and
8 Resolution No. 26-_ Adopting the Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project
WHEREAS, the project site for the Phase 3 Project is the same approximately

5.85-acre site analyzed in the adopted Final IS -MND for the Enhanced Original Project, located within San Jose Creek on the west side of State Route 217 in the City of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City, as lead agency, has determined that an Addendum to the previously adopted Final IS -MND associated with the Enhanced Original P roject is the appropriate form of CEQA documentation because only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a Subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration have occurred; and WHEREAS, the City caused to be prepared a thorough Addendum to the adopted Final IS -MND ("Addendum"), dated October 2025 (Exhibit A), prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., which analyzes the potential environmental effects of th e Phase 3 Project in relation to the previously approved Enhanced Original Project across all applicable CEQA impact categories, including aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, wildfire, and mandatory findings of significance; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that the Phase 3 Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects, would not involve substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Enhanced Original Pr oject was undertaken requiring major revisions to the adopted Final IS -MND, and would not involve new information of substantial importance showing significant effects not previously examined; and WHEREAS, the Addendum further concludes that the analyses conducted, conclusions reached, and mitigation measures contained in the Final IS-MND adopted in June 2007 remain valid and applicable to the Phase 3 Project, and that the MMRP adopted for the Enhanced Original Project in June 2007 shall remain applicable to the Phase 3 Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), the Addendum to an adopted negative declaration need not be circulated for public review, and this Addendum was not so circulated; and
WHEREAS, this Addendum and the 2007 Final IS-MND with the accompanying 2008 Addendum, together with all technical appendices and supporting materials, have 9 Resolution No. 26-_ Adopting the Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project
been presented to the City Council and made available for public inspection in advance of this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council h as independently reviewed and considered the Addendum, the adopted Final IS -MND and 2008 Addendum , the MMRP, and all other information in the record before making a decision on the Phase 3 Project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d).

NOW, THE REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Goleta as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals
The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Findings Regarding CEQA Compliance
The City Council hereby finds and determines as follows:

A. The City of Goleta is the lead agency for the Phase 3 Project under CEQA.

B. The adopted Final IS -MND (SCH #2007031035), dated May 2007, was lawfully adopted by the City for the Original Project in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and remains valid.

C. The adopted Addendum to the Final IS-MND (SCH #2007031035), dated April 2008, was lawfully adopted by the City for the Enhanced Original Project in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and remains valid.

D. The Phase 3 Project involves only minor technical changes and additions to the Enhanced Original Project, and none of the conditions set forth in CEQA G uidelines Section 15162(a) requiring preparation of a Subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration have occurred. Specifically:
i. The Phase 3 Project does not involve substantial changes to the Enhanced Original Project that would require major revisio ns to the adopted Final IS -MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; ii. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances u nder which the Phase 3 Project is being undertaken that would require major revisions to the adopted Final IS -MND due to the involvement of new significant 10 Resolution No. 26-_ Adopting the Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
iii. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Final IS-MND was adopted, shows that the Phase 3 Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Final IS -MND, that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe, that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, or that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Final IS-MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

E. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec tion 15164(b), preparation of an Addendum to the adopted Final IS-MND is the appropriate form of additional CEQA documentation for the Phase 3 Project.

F. The Addendum, dated October 2025, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelin es, and provides a sufficient analysis of the potential environmental effects of the Phase 3 Project. The Addendum is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

G. The analyses, conclusions, and mitigation measures set forth in the adopted Final IS- MND remain valid and applicable to the Phase 3 Project. The MMRP adopted in May 2007 in connection with the Enhanced Original Project remains applicable to the Phase 3 Project and shall be implemented accordingly.

SECTION 3. Adoption of the Addendum.

The City Council hereby adopts the Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2007031035), dated October 2025, for the San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project or Phase 3 Project, as prepared by the City of Goleta with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. The Addendum is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. MMRP.

The City Council hereby confirms that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in May 2007 in connection with the Enhanced Original Project remains in full force and effect and shall apply to the Phase 3 Project. All applicable mitigation measures identified in the adopted Final IS-MND shall be implemented in connection with the Phase 3 Project. Language has been added to the biological mitigation measures in the IS-MND Addendum to help clarify the intent of each measure. Although the languag e has been 11 Resolution No. 26-_ Adopting the Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project
slightly altered, the intent of the biological mitigation measures remains the same, such that these mitigation measures are not considerably different from those analyzed in the Final IS-MND and thus do not warrant the preparation of a Subsequent IS-MND.

SECTION 5. Reliance on Record
Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 6. Limitations
The City Council analysis and evaluation of the Amended Project, including this Resolution, are based on the entire record, including the best information currently available. This includes competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project, absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on the analysis of the Amended Project is the City Council's lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions.

Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are, in effect, regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 7. Custodian of Records
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Resolution is based are located at the City of Goleta, 130 Cremona Drive, Suite 120, Goleta, California 93117. The City Clerk is the custodian of records for the record of proceedings.

SECTION 8. Summaries of Information
All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 9. Duration of the Resolution. This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent Resolution
SECTION 1 0. Effective Date of the Resolution . This Resolution will become effective immediately after adoption.
12 Resolution No. 26-_ Adopting the Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project
SECTION 11. Certification of the Resolution. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of April 2026. __________________________

PAULA PEROTTE
MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ __________________________

DEBORAH LOPEZ ISAAC ROSEN

CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
13 Resolution No. 26-_ Adopting the Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA) ss.

CITY OF GOLETA )

I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 2 6-_ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Goleta at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of April 2026 by the following roll call vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

(SEAL)

DEBORAH S. LOPEZ

CITY CLERK

14 San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage
Modification Project
Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH #2007031035
prepared by
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, California 93117
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
319 East Carrillo Street, Suite 105
Santa Barbara, California 93101
October 2025
15 Table of Contents
Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................................. iii 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background and Purpose of the IS-MND Addendum ......................................................... 1

1.2 Basis for the Addendum ...................................................................................................... 2 2 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 5 3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 13

3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 17

3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 19

3.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................... 23

3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 33

3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 37

3.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 39

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 43

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 45

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 49

3.11 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 55

3.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 57

3.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 59

3.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 61

3.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................... 63

3.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 65

3.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 67

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 71

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 73

3.20 Wildfire.............................................................................................................................. 77

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 79 4 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 83 5 References .................................................................................................................................... 85 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2 Project Site Location ......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3 Project Design ................................................................................................................... 11 16 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

ii
Appendices
Appendix A State Water Resources Control Board General Protection Measures Appendix B B iological Resources Assessment Addendum
Appendix C Cultural Resources Technical Report
Appendix D E ngineering Project Design and Cross-Sections Appendix E E ngineering Cross-Section Detail

17 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration iii Acronyms and Abbreviations
BMPs Best Management Practices
CDFW C alifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA C alifornia Environmental Quality Act
EIR E nvironmental Impact Report
GHG G reenhouse Gas
IS-M ND Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration MMRP M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
RVPRP R iparian Vegetation Protection and Replacement Plan RWQCB R egional Water Quality Control Board
SBCAPCD S anta Barbara County Air Pollution Control District SCCAB S outh Central Coast Air Basin
SCH S tate Clearinghouse
SLF S acred Lands File
SR S tate Route
SSC S pecies of Special Concern
SWPPP S tormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB S tate Water Resources Control Board
USACE Un ited States Army Corps of Engineers
VMT V ehicle Miles Traveled
18 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

This page intentionally left blank.

19 Introduction

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 1 Introduction
This Addendum was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. This document has been prepared to serve as an Addendum to the previously approved Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2007031035) for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project (Original Project). The City of Goleta (City) was the lead agency for the adopted Final IS-MND and is the lead agency for the environmental review in this Addendum.

This Addendum addresses the proposed modifications in relation to the previous environmental review document prepared for the Original Project. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines an Addendum as:
(a) T
he lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) A
n addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (e) A
brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record.

1.1 Background and Purpose of the IS-MND
Addendum
The Final IS-MND for the Original Project (SCH #2007031035) was adopted in May 2007 by the City.

The adopted Final IS-MND consists of responses to public and agency comments received on the Draft IS-MND and the text of the Draft IS-MND. The adopted Final IS-MND is further supported by an accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Information and technical analyses from the adopted Final IS-MND are utilized or referenced throughout this Addendum. In conjunction with adoption of the Final IS-MND, the City also adopted the MMRP and approved the Original Project.

As approved, the Original Project consisted of modifications to existing concrete channeling and f
lood protection 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 the sewer line 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 O
riginal Project in 2011 and construction began in 2013. At that time, the City proposed to construct fish passage and flood control improvements in the concrete stream channel downstream of Hollister Avenue as an initial phase of the Original Project. Due to timing and 20 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

2 funding considerations, the City decided to separate the removal and widening of the existing Hollister Avenue Bridge into a separate, yet related, project (Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project) that has been permitted and is currently being constructed. The fish passage component of the Original Project proceeded as planned; however, a modification made to some of the timber weirs within the channel 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.

Project Site
The project site is located in San Jose Creek within the city of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California, along the west side of SR 217 (Figure 1 ). The approximately 5.85- acre project site is located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 071-190-039, 071-190-035, 071-190-017, 071-170-086, 071- 170-036, 071-140-080, 071-140-060, 071-140-040, 071-090-090, 071-090-089, 071-090-037, and 071-090-098. The topography of the project site is generally flat, with minor sloping south- southwest towards the Pacific Ocean. Surrounding land uses include commercial and residential uses to the north; commercial, office, and industrial uses to the south; SR 217 to the east; and commercial, office, industrial and open space (riparian) uses to the west. Access to the project site is provided by Hollister Avenue and South Kellogg Avenue.

Addendum
The City now proposes modifications to the Original Project, herein referred to the “Modified Project.” As noted above, the fish passage portion of the Original Project became ineffective and is in need of repair to allow for unobstructed fish passage, which is the sole purpose of the Modified Project. This document is an Addendum to the previously adopted Final IS-MND and has been prepared by the City to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project. This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A detailed description of the Modified Project is provided in Section 2, Project Description, of this Addendum.

1.2 Basis for the Addendum
When an IS-MND has been adopted and a project is modified or otherwise changed after adoption, additional CEQA review may be necessary. The key considerations in determining the need for the appropriate type of additional CEQA review are outlined in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA) and Sections 15162, 15163 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines p
rovides that a Subsequent EIR is not required unless
the following occurs:
(1) S ubstantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) S
ubstantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 21 Introduction

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) T
he project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) S ignificant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) M itigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) M
itigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Pursuant to Section 15164(b)
of the State CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared by the Lead Agency that prepared the original negative declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred that require preparation of a Subsequent EIR or negative declaration.

An Addendum must include a brief explanation of the agency’s decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR and be supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole (Section 15164[e]). The Addendum to an adopted negative declaration need not be circulated for public review but it may be included in or attached to the adopted negative declaration (Section 15164[c]).

The decision-making body must consider the Addendum prior to making a decision on the project (Section 15164[d]).

An Ad
dendum to the adopted Final IS -MND for the Original Project is appropriate to address the proposed Modified Project because the proposed modifications to the approved Original Project do not meet the conditions of Section 15162(a) for preparation of a Subsequent EIR or negative declaration. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to: 1) substantial changes to the Original Project which requires major revisions to the adopted Final IS-MND; 2) substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Original Project are being undertaken which will require major revisions to the adopted Final IS-MND; or 3) new information of substantial importance showing significant effects not previously examined.

The ad opted Final IS- MND and this Addendum to the adopted Final IS-MND serve as informational documents to inform decision-makers and the public of the potential environmental consequences of approving the proposed Modified Project. This Addendum neither controls nor determines the ultimate decision for approval of the proposed Modified Project, described herein in Section 2, Project Description. The information presented in this Addendum to the adopted Final IS-MND will be considered by the City alongside the adopted Final IS-MND prior to making a decision on the Modified Project.
22 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

4 This page intentionally left blank.
23 Project Description

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 2 Project Description
The Modified Project would be located on the same project site as described and analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project. As described in the Final IS-MND, the project site is within San Jose Creek east of SR 217. Figure 1 i llustrates the location of the site within the region , Figure 2 s hows the project site within the neighborhood context, and Figure 3 s hows the project design.

As discussed in Section 1.1 , Background and Purpose of the IS-MND Addendum, construction of the Original Project began in 2013; however, the fish passage component did not function as originally anticipated. The Modified Project includes redesign, maintenance, and repair (or removal) of the existing weirs within the San Jose Creek concrete channel, which were installed as part of the Original Project. The Modified Project also includes regrading of a short section of the natural portion of San Jose Creek, north of the Hollister Avenue Bridge. These modifications would permit access for southern California Distinct Population Segment of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss; southern California steelhead). The existing flood control channel fish passage weirs require alterations to reduce sediment and debris accumulations, in addition to lowering the maintenance requirements for the City. The Modified Project would:
 R
emove all ( approximately 25) timber wedges throughout the channel, and all (17) existing wooden weirs downstream of Station 46+96.
 M odification of 12 existing straight 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.
 A
ddition of 70 new vortex -type weirs within the ‘fish line’ throughout the entire length of the constructed flood control channel, 13 of which (located at the downstream end of the channel) are combined with a low curb extending across 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 and will be installed on top of the existing articulated concrete mat in the channel bottom. 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.  O
f 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 Replacement Project (a separate, yet related project further described below).
 E
xtending the Hollister Avenue Bridge ‘hydraulic transition feature’ (further described below) to the north to form an expanded bridge approach by re-grading the natural channel near the bridge and placing riprap on the banks and channel bottom.  R e- grading the natural channel for approximately 320 feet upstream of the Hollister Avenue Bridge ‘hydraulic transition feature’ by excavating the unconsolidated channel bottom bed materials between the left/east and right/west descending channel bank toes to form a new natural channel bed gradient and channel profile commensurate with the approximate original 24 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

6 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 preferred design modifies the weir layout and configuration such that the weir crest will direct l
owest flows to the center of the fish passage channel, mobilize sediment deposits between weirs, and allow woody debris to pass cleanly over the weirs. These measures will reduce the maintenance effort required to periodically clean the flood control channel. The vortex weirs feature a V-shaped geometry with the apex of the weirs pointing upstream centered over the lowest thalweg of the fish channel at the ‘Fish Line’. The 13 combination vortex weirs and low cross curbs are configured with the vortex weir across the fish channel and the low broad cross weir arranged perpendicularly across the upper driving surface of the flood control channel invert. Refer to Appendices D and E for plan sets demonstrating the structure and cross-sections of the proposed weirs. These combination weirs are only to be implemented between Station 21+75 and Station 30+00. All weirs will have approach and exit slopes of 1:2 on the downstream side and 1:1 on the upstream side similar to existing straight weir shapes except for the low cross weir curbs which will have 1V:2H side slopes both upstream and downstream. The shallower upstream and downstream cross weir curb slopes are intended to facilitate driving maintenance vehicles over them.

Within a portion of the Project’s footprint is the Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement P roject, which
is a separate, yet related project that has been permitted and is currently being constructed. The Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project includes key fish passage elements that have been designed in coordination with the Modified Project to culminate in complete fish passage along this section of San Jose Creek. The Hollister Avenue Bridge design (Caltrans 2015, URS 2014, URS 2015) includes the following components, which are included herein for informational purposes:
 M odification of the old existing trapezoidal channel shape through the Hollister Avenue Bridge reach (beneath the new bridge and to approximately 200 feet downstream, between Station 59+60 and 63+77) by lowering and widening the existing concrete flood control channel and extending the vertical sidewalls, forming the same rectangular shape as the downstream reach of the flood control channel. As a result, the entire concrete flood control channel will be rectangular in shape and no trapezoidal areas will remain. The channel sidewalls and invert will remain unchanged downstream of the Hollister Avenue Bridge modification.  R
e- grading the natural channel immediately upstream of Hollister Avenue Bridge to form an expanded bridge approach section about 120 feet in length (i.e., the ‘hydraulic transition feature’), with mitered approach sidewalls to the rectangular bridge opening and articulated mat in the channel bottom.

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 enlargement and lowering of the new section of the flood control channel immediately downstream and upstream of the Hollister Avenue Bridge, and will restore the original natural channel stream gradient, and increase its flood discharge capacity.

As part of the Modified P roject, the proposed invert lowering in the first 200 feet of the historically adversely impacted natural channel would 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 weir work in the channel and grading of the natural c reek, the upstream natural
creek will also be restored with native riparian vegetation after construction is complete.

Approximately 0.10 acre of native riparian trees 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. An additional 0.16 acres will be enhanced with non-native weed removal.

On a regional level, southern California steelhead have been listed as endangered under the Federal E
ndangered Species Act from Santa Barbara south to the California/Mexico 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 Modified 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 wa
ter is present throughout most of the creek’s reach within the study area. 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.

The following measures have been incorporated into the Modified Project and would be carried out as
part of Modified Project Implementation.
26 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

8 Pre-Construction Special-Status Species Surveys
A qualified biologist shall survey the workspaces and access routes for other special-status plant and wildlife species with potential to occur within the study area, concurrently with the pre-construction survey described in IS-MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1. The biologist shall have general knowledge of the natural resources of the area and shall also be experienced in the identification of regionally occurring special-status plant and wildlife species.

The pre-c onstruction survey sh all include the work area and surrounding 100-foot buffer, with an emphasis on areas where native vegetation removal is necessary to complete the Modified Project, as these areas are more likely to harbor special-status plants and wildlife than cleared areas. If special-status plants or wildlife are found, the location shall be documented, and population and health characteristics shall be recorded. If special-status wildlife species are found, the biologist shall relocate non-listed animals to a safe location outside the project disturbance area in suitable habitat (e.g., adjacent woodland or chaparral habitat).

Plan Requirements & Ti ming: A qualified monitor shall be on site prior to ground-disturbing activities and during any activities that could affect special-status species with potential to occur within the project site.

Monitoring: A qualified biological monitor shall be present during construction and shall prepare daily monitoring logs of all observations. These logs shall be summarized into a weekly memo-style report.

General Protection Measures
Pursuant to the Statewide Restoration General Order (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2022), the Modified Project is required to identify and incorporate General Protection Measures applicable to the Project. General Protection Measures are designed to minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources and protect water quality and sensitive habitats during construction. General Protection Measures include a range of measures, such as construction timing, environmental awareness trainings, erosion and pollution control, and invasive species prevention. General Protection Measures that will be followed by construction personnel are listed in Appendix A of this Addendum.

Plan Requirements & Timing: T
hese requirements shall be described and detailed on the project site and within the Modified Project plans. Erosion/sediment control measures shall be installed within the project site prior to commencement of construction. Other measures related to closed containers, equipment containment, and construction materials and spoils shall be maintained throughout construction activities.

Monitoring: B
iological monitors should ensure compliance prior to and throughout construction, in conjunction with monitoring activities as described in IS-MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1. 27 Project Description

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 Figure 1 Regional Location

28 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

10 Figure 2 Project Site Location

29 Project Description

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 Figure 3 Project Design

Source: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 2025
30 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

12 This page intentionally l eft blank.

31 Impact Analysis

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 3 Impact Analysis
A comparative analysis of the potential impacts associated with the proposed Modified Project and those of the approved Original Project analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND has been prepared using the CEQA checklist as a guide. This checklist is consistent with the format and environmental topics and questions of the checklist used in the Final IS-MND, but also includes recent updates to reflect the most recently adopted checklist provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The checklist considers the full range of environmental issues subject to analysis under CEQA (in rows), and then poses a series of questions (in columns) aimed at identifying the degree to which the issue was analyzed in the Final IS-MND. The checklist also includes a column identifying whether the proposed Modified Project constitutes new information of substantial importance relative to each environmental issue. The questions posed in each column are described below.

Where was impact analyzed?
This column provides a cross-r eference to the portions of the adopted Final IS-MND where information and analyses may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

The cross-references identified in this column correspond with page numbers and section numbers of the adopted Final IS-MND.

Do proposed changes require major revisions to the ad opted Final IS-MND? In accordance with Section 15162(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the proposed Modified Project would involve new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts that, in turn, would require major revisions of the adopted Final IS-MND.

Do new circumstances require major revisions to the ad
opted Final IS-MND?
In accordance with Section 15162(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether changes to the circumstances under which the Modified Project is undertaken or implemented have occurred that would involve new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts that, in turn, would require major revisions of the adopted Final IS-MND.

Is there any new information resulting in new or substantially more severe significant i
mpacts?
In accordance with Sections 15162(a)(3)(A) and 15162(a)(3)(B) of the S tate CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the adopted Final IS-MND was certified, shows additional or substantially more severe significant impacts not discussed in the adopted Final IS-MND.
32 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

14 Do mitigation measures included in the adopted Final IS-MND address and/or resolve impacts?
In accordance with Sections 15162(a)(3)(C) and 15162(a)(3)(D) of the S tate CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the adopted Final IS-MND was certified, shows that mitigation measures or alternatives in the adopted Final IS-MND would now be feasible, or identifies new mitigation measures or alternatives not in the adopted Final IS-MND that would reduce significant impacts, but which the applicant declines to adopt. 33 Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15

3.1 Aesthetics

Page 19 ends

b. Su bstantially damage scenic
resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?

Page 19 ends

c. I n non- urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that
are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?

Page 19 ends

d. C
reate a new source of
substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in
the area?

Page 19 ends

a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. W ould the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The Modified Project would be located o n the same site as the Original Project. As described in the adopted Final IS-MND, views surrounding the project site are generally limited due to existing development, landscaping, and vegetation. However, views of the Santa Ynez Mountains are visible from certain vantage points along Hollister Avenue. SR 217, to the east of the project site, is designated as a local scenic corridor within the City’s General Plan. The project site is not visible from any designated State Scenic Highways.
34 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

16 Views from Hollister Avenue and SR 217 would not be substantially affected by the Modified Project, as construction would be located within San Jose Creek and obscured by intervening vegetation, and Modified Project components would be located at ground-level. While a temporary obstruction of views may occur during Modified Project construction due to the presence of construction equipment, vehicles, and materials, the duration of construction would be brief and views from Hollister Avenue and SR 217 would be similar to existing conditions upon Modified Project completion.

Therefore, the Modified Project, similar to the Original Project, would not have a substantial ad
verse effect on scenic vistas. The Modified Project would not obstruct scenic views, or substantially damage a scenic resource visible from a State Scenic Highway. The Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts to scenic vistas or scenic resources beyond those identified in the previously adopted Final IS-MND. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas and no impact to scenic resources visible from a State Scenic Highway.
c. W
ould the project, in non- urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The Modified Project would be located at the same s
ite as the Original Project. The site has retained
the same general appearance as was analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project.

The project site is located within an urbanized area primarily surrounded by commercial and industrial development. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would consist of modifications to infrastructure within San Jose Creek and would not include the addition of new, tall structures that would conflict with existing regulations governing scenic quality. The Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts involving conflict with regulations that govern scenic quality beyond those identified in the previously adopted Final IS-MND. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would have a less than significant impact. d. W
ould the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The project site does not contain any substantial sources of light or glare. As described in the a
dopted Final IS-MND, the Original Project would not constitute any increase in light or glare in or around the project site.

Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not introduce any new sources of light or g
lare to the project site. Construction lighting may be required during morning or evening work, but such lighting would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction activities.

Therefore, the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts to light and glare beyond those identified in the previously adopted Final IS-MND. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would have no impact involving light and glare. 35 Impact Analysis
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Page 2 ends

1 No No No N/A
b. C onflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?

Page 2 ends

c. C onflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code
Section 4526); or timberland
zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
N/A No No No N/A
d. R
esult in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
N/A No No No N/A
e. I
nvolve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or
nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?

Page 21 ends

No No No N/A
36 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

18 a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. W ould the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c. W ould the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. W
ould the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. W ould the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As descr ibed in the adopted Final IS -MND, the project site is not on or adjacent to land currently under agricultural operation. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2022).

Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Farmland of Local Importance are located east of SR 217; however, these agricultural areas would not be impacted by Modified Project construction or operation. Therefore, the Modified Project would not affect an agricultural resource area, would not displace existing agricultural lands, and would not affect any land designated or zoned for agricultural uses, such as parcels under a Williamson Act contract.

The project site does not constitute forest land and is not zoned for forest land or timber land p
roduction. Thus, the Modified Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, nor would the Modified Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Therefore, the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts to agriculture and fo
restry resources beyond those identified in the previously adopted Final IS-MND. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would have no impact on agriculture and forestry resources. 37 Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19

3.3 Air Quality

Page 24 ends

b. Re sult in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?

Page 24 ends

c. E
xpose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?

Page 24 ends

d. Re
sult in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?

Page 24 ends

a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The M odified Project site, as with the Original Project site, is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), an area that currently attains all national ambient air quality standards but does not attain the state standards for ozone or particulate matter (PM 10) (California Air Resources Board
2025). The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) regulates air emission sources within the Santa Barbara County portion of the SCCAB. As discussed in the adopted Final IS- MND, the Original Project would result in temporary construction emissions, including fugitive dust and emissions from construction equipment and vehicles. The Original Project would not include any new emissions-generating facilities. Similarly, the Modified Project would result in the same type of construction emissions, and also would not include any new emissions-generating facilities.

A project would be consistent with SBCAPCD’s 2
022 Ozone Plan if its direct and indirect emissions
have been accounted for in the 2022 Ozone Plan’s emissions forecast assumptions and if it would incorporate the standard fugitive dust control measures recommended by SBCAPCD during construction activities. The 2022 Ozone Plan is based on countywide employment data provided by the California Department of Finance. The 2022 Ozone Plan also states that its growth projections are similar to that of the 2019 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments’ (SBCAG) Regional Growth Forecast 2050, in which assumptions about future land development patterns were used to generate future population and jobs forecasts for Santa Barbara County (SBCAG 2019). The 38 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

20 Modified Project would not directly increase population growth and would not increase the number of new employees in Goleta. Therefore, the Modified Project would not exceed SBCAG’s growth forecasts of population and jobs for Goleta.

In addition, in accordance with standard practices in the City, the following standard SBCAPCD fu
gitive dust control measures, in the Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, would be required for project implementation:
 D uring construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site and from exceeding SBCAPCD’s limit of 20 percent opacity for greater than three minutes in any 30-minute period. At a minimum, this should include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 miles per hour (mph). Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible.

However, reclaimed water shall not be used in or around crops for human consumption.  T
he amount of disturbed area shall be minimized.
 On-s ite vehicle speeds shall be no greater than 15 mph when traveling on unpaved surfaces.  A track -out prevention device shall be installed and operated where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention device can include any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out of dirt such as gravel pads, pipe-grid track-out control devices, rumble strips, or wheel washing systems.  I
f stockpiling of material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than one day shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.  A fter clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation is completed, the disturbed area shall be treated by watering, or using roll-compaction, or revegetating, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. All driveways and sidewalks to be paved/surfaced shall be completed as soon as possible.  T he contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off-site.

Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SBCAPCD prior to grading/building permit issuance and/or map clearance.
 T
he project applicant shall comply with SBCAPCD Rule 345: Control of Fugitive Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities, including all applicable standards and measures therein.

As the Modified Project would not exceed SBCAG’s growth forecasts of population and jobs, it would be accounted for in the 2022 Ozone Plan’s emissions forecast assumptions. Additionally, the Modified Project would implement the above-mentioned SBCAPCD fugitive dust control measures.

Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would have a less than significant impact involving conflict with an applicable air quality management plan.
39 Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The adopted Final IS-M ND for the Original Project determined that impacts involving net increases of criteria pollutants would be potentially significant, as construction of the Original Project would generate fugitive dust (PM10) emissions, for which the SCCAB is in nonattainment. The adopted Final IS-MND required implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, which consist of dust control measures (AQ-1) and dust monitoring during construction (AQ-2). With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Final IS-MND concluded that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The Modified Project, as with the Original Project, would also generate fugitive dust emissions d
uring construction. The scope of construction envisioned under the Modified Project does not exceed that included in the Original Project; thus, the Modified Project would not result in construction emissions exceeding those analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND. Additionally, the Modified Project would adhere to SBCAPCD fugitive dust control measures, in the Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents (refer to Threshold 3.3[a]) in accordance with standard City construction practices. These fugitive dust control measures are more stringent than Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 presented in the adopted IS-MND.

Therefore, impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions from project construction would be less than significant, and the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions from construction beyond those identified in the previously adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project. With adherence to SBCAPCD’s fugitive dust control measures, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 from the adopted Final IS-MND would not be required.
c. W
ould the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The M odified Project would occupy the same site as the Original Project, and is not in proximity to residences or other sensitive receptors that could be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations from construction of the Modified Project. No new sensitive receptors have been constructed in proximity to the project site since adoption of the Final IS-MND. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollution beyond those identified in the previously adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
d. W
ould the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts related to odors beyond those i
dentified in the previously adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project. The Modified Project would, like the Original Project, involve infrastructure improvements that do not consist of a use that would generate other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people (such as those leading to odors) not already discussed in Threshold 3.3(c) above. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new or significantly increased impacts from other emissions (such as those leading to odors) beyond those analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 40 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

22 This page intentionally left blank.
41 Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23

3.4 Biological Resources

and 34
No No No Yes
b. Hav e a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural
community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?

Page 34 ends

c. Hav
e a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
Pages
34 and 35
No No No Yes
d. I nterfere substantially with
the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?

Page 35 ends

42 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

24 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the IS-MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the IS-MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the IS-MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do IS-MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
e. Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?

Page 35 ends

f. Conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

Page 35 ends

a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The Modified Project would occur within the same project site as the Original Project. As reported o
n page 33 of the adopted Final IS-MND, Original Project construction activities within San Jose Creek would occur during the dry season, which would avoid interference with southern California steelhead (as upstream migration would not occur at that time of year). As such, the Original Project would not result in an impact to southern California steelhead. Additionally, the adopted Final IS- MND determined no California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; federally threatened, California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] Species of Special Concern [SSC]) were observed within, upstream, or downstream of the project site. However, adult California red-legged frog have a moderate potential to occur during times of migration, most specifically in the natural channel, but have a low potential to be found breeding within the project site. If individual California red-legged frogs were to be present during Original Project construction activities and were affected during construction, impacts would be potentially significant.

The Biological Resources Assessment Addendum f
ound that several special-status wildlife species
have a moderate, or higher, potential to occur within the project site.  Mo narch butterfly (Danaus plexippus; federally proposed threatened and CDFW Special Animal) has a low potential to overwinter in the project site. While mobile individuals are likely to avoid construction activities, overwintering roosts could be at risk. However, these known roosts are located north of the project site and out of the impact area. Nevertheless, indirect impacts to monarch butterfly could occur in the form of noise from the use of heavy equipment and/or vehicles that result in altered behavior and other species-specific patterns of activity. 43 Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25  Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi; federally endangered and CDFW SSC) has a moderate potential to occur within the project site, and only in the downstream end of the proposed work area. The species is not expected in the majority of the concrete channel nor in the upstream natural channel as there are not sufficient flows nor suitable tidally influenced habitat in these areas. Southern California steelhead have a moderate potential to occur within the project site, depending on the rainfall and associated flows. These special-status fish species are not expected to be directly impacted due to the restriction of in-stream work to the dry season.

However, if water is present within the project site during Modified Project construction, direct impacts to tidewater goby and steelhead could occur in the form of injury or mortality through dewatering activities. Indirect impacts to special-status fish could occur from changes in water quality due to use of heavy equipment and/or vehicles that result in altered behavior and other species-specific patterns of activity.
 A
s discussed in the Final IS -MND, California red-legged frog has a moderate potential to occur within the project site. California red-legged frog are not anticipated to be indirectly impacted by Modified Project activities, since they are mobile and can escape noise, dust, and vibrations.

Direct impacts to California red-legged frog may occur if individuals are present at the project site during construction activities.
 P allid bat (Antrozous pallidus) has a moderate potential to occur within the project site. Direct impacts to pallid bat could occur in the form of injury or mortality through initial ground- disturbance activities and/or disturbance of roosting sites. However, no individuals or roosts were observed during surveys of the project site. Indirect impacts to pallid bat could occur in the form of noise from the use of heavy equipment and/or vehicles that result in altered behavior and other species-specific patterns of activity.  C
ooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) have a moderate potential to occur within the project site. Because birds are highly mobile and would be able to avoid contact with construction equipment, the adults are likely to move away from construction activities and are not anticipated to be directly impacted through injury or mortality; however, impacts to eggs and nestlings could occur during the nesting season. Indirect impacts to special-status bird species could occur in the form of noise, dust, and vibrations from the use of heavy equipment and/or vehicles that result in altered behavior and other species-specific patterns of activity.

According to the Biological Resources Assessment Addendum p repared in support of the Modified
Project (Appendix B), no special-status plant species were observed or detected during the reconnaissance survey conducted in March 20 and 21, 2024. One special-status plant species, Santa Barbara honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata; California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2), was determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the project site. Direct impacts to Santa Barbara honeysuckle are anticipated to occur if this species is present during vegetation removal activities in suitable habitat; however, none have been observed. Potential indirect impacts may occur from Modified Project activities, such as the introduction of dust and other material from excavation and grading activities, which could degrade the habitat and prevent establishment of individual Santa Barbara honeysuckle plants. However, the Modified Project would incorporate Final IS-MND Mitigation Measure BIO-3, which requires preparation of a Riparian Vegetation Protection and Replacement Plan (RVPRP). The RVPRP would minimize damage to Santa Barbara honeysuckle through avoidance and restoration measures that would increase the likelihood that Santa Barbara honeysuckle would resprout following construction. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new or significantly increased impacts involving special-status plant species beyond those analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
44 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

26 Pre-construction special-status species surveys outlined in Section 1.3, Project Description, would reduce the potential for significant impacts by requiring a pre-construction survey and subsequent preparation of an enhancement, relocation, or exclusion plan if special-status wildlife species are found. In addition, general Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in Section 1.3, Project Description, would reduce the potential for significant impacts by requiring general housekeeping, erosion and sediment controls, staging placement, and hazardous materials control aimed at protecting wildlife. Furthermore, the Modified Project would implement Final IS-MND Mitigation Measures BIO-1 (California Red-Legged Frog), BIO-2 (Native Trees), BIO-3 (Riparian Vegetation), and BIO-4 (Breeding Birds). With implementation of the abovementioned measures, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to special-status wildlife species beyond those identified in the previously adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project.

Mitigation Measures
The Modified Project would implement Final IS-MND Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4.

Language has been added to the mitigation measures below to help clarify the intent of each measure. Although the language has been slightly altered herein, the intent of the mitigation measures remains the same, such that these mitigation measures are not considerably different from those analyzed in the Final IS-MND and thus do not warrant the preparation of a Subsequent IS-MND. Changes to the measures are shown in strikethrough and underline.

BIO-1 California Red-Legged Frog and Tidewater Goby
A qualified monitor shall be present during installation of any water diversions, i nitial vegetation clearing, and excavation/rock placement work upstream of Hollister Avenue. The monitor will check the area for California red-legged frogs prior to the work. If any are found, work would be halted until the frogs leave the work area or until consultation with the USFWS has been completed and authorization for take has been authorized so that they can be relocated upstream to suitable habitat by the monitor.

Prior to the start of dewatering in the downstream portion of the concrete channel, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for tidewater goby. If tidewater goby is found, they will be relocated downstream of the cofferdam. Similarly, other native aquatic species will be relocated. A qualified monitor shall be present during installation of any water diversions installed at the lower portion of the concrete channel for tidewater goby.

Plan Requirements & Timing: The requirement for a California red-legged frog monitor shall be included on all project plans prior to final approval, and a qualified monitor shall be on site prior to new ground disturbing activities and when any activities that could affect the species take place.

The requirement for a tidewater goby monitor shall be included on all Modified Pro ject plans prior to final approval, and a qualified monitor shall be on-site during dewatering activities.

Monitoring: A qualified biological monitor shall be present during work and will prepare daily monitoring logs of all observations. These logs shall be summarized into a weekly memo-style report.

BIO- 3 Riparian Vegetation
A Riparian Vegetation Protection and Replacement Plan (RVPRP) s hall be prepared and approved prior to vegetation clearing. This plan can be developed as a component of the Landscape Plan.

Plan Requirements & Ti ming: The Plan RVPRP shall be completed and approved prior to vegetation clearing and shall minimally include the following elements:
45 Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27  Measures to minimize damage to riparian vegetation including avoidance and cutting riparian vegetation that must be removed, but not excavated, at ground level and covering cut stems with approximately 3-6 inches of native topsoil. Wooden mats will be placed over the fill prior to access by heavy equipment to avoid damage to the cut stems. This technique will increase the likelihood that willows and other riparian vegetation will resprout following construction.
 E ucalyptus trees to be removed within the riparian woodland upstream of the work area shall be clearly marked and checked by a biologist to verify that the trees are not used by monarch butterflies or roosting/nesting raptors. Removal will be performed in a manner that minimizes disturbance to adjacent native riparian vegetation, and native trees will be planted to replace them.
 A Mitigation Plan will be prepared as part of the RVPRP to address native vegetation to be removed. The mitigation plan shall address species, size, source, and timing of replacement planting. In addition, monitoring, performance criteria, and reporting shall be addressed. It is anticipated that replacement planting will be conducted on-site where vegetation was removed. The boulder slope at the upstream end of the new channel walls would provide an excellent location for establishing willows, blackberry, and other riparian vegetation. All native riparian vegetation removed (approximately 0.25 0.13 acre) shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, as required by the Goleta General Plan, with the same species removed, if feasible.

Eucalyptus trees removed will be replaced with native trees appropriate for the sites where the trees are removed. Replacement plants will be from local stock, except as allowed in project permits. The Mitigation Plan will include a map of planting locations.  Seas onal constraints on vegetation removal and nesting bird survey specifications to reduce impacts to nesting birds within the work area, per Mitigation Measure BIO-4.

Monitoring: Biological monitors shall be present during vegetation clearing to ensure that riparian vegetation removal is consistent with the Plan RVPRP. Weekly memo-style reports shall be completed with the results of monitoring as recorded on daily monitoring logs.

A restoration specialist shall oversee the planting, maintenance, and monitoring of replacement v
egetation until they have met the performance criteria. Monitoring shall occur for a minimum of five years, and annual monitoring reports shall be prepared.

BIO- 4 Breeding Birds
The pre-a pproved Riparian Vegetation Protection and Replacement Plan (Mitigation Measure BIO-3) shall include seasonal constraints on vegetation removal and nesting bird survey specifications to reduce impacts to nesting birds within the work area.

Plan Requirements & Ti
ming: The vegetation clearing timing restrictions and bird survey requirements shall be included on all project plans prior to final approval. The Plan RVPRP shall be completed and approved prior to vegetation clearing and shall minimally include the following elements:
 T
iming of vegetation removal. On the north side of Hollister Avenue, vegetation removal (including eucalyptus trees for biological and flood control mitigation) is recommended to occur during the non-nesting season from August 15 to February 1 to minimize disturbance to nesting birds within the riparian corridor. If vegetation is to be removed within the breeding season, nesting bird surveys will be conducted as described below, and in compliance with permit conditions.
46 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

28  Nesting bird surveys. If construction activities are scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 through August 15), a qualified biologist shall inspect the area to confirm the absence of nesting birds in the area of direct disturbance and to determine appropriate buffer areas from any nest sites found near the work area. Efforts shall be made to reduce impacts to riparian vegetation wherever feasible. A minimum of a 300-foot buffer shall be applied to raptor nest sites during nesting and fledging (per CE 8.4). The buffer for other species protected under the MBTA shall be established by a qualified biologist and will take into account the species, location of the nest, and potential for disturbance by construction activities.

Monitoring: Bi ological monitors shall conduct pre-disturbance surveys of the area, determine buffer areas, and be present during vegetation clearing (if vegetation is removed between February 1 and August 15) to ensure that riparian vegetation removal is consistent with the Plan RVPRP and that predetermined buffer areas between the construction activities and known nests are clearly defined and implemented. Monitors shall have the authority to stop work in the immediate vicinity if a non- compliance event occurs. Weekly memo-style reports shall be completed with the results of monitoring as recorded on daily monitoring logs.
b. W
ould the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Final IS-M
ND found that the Original Project would involve removal of riparian trees and approximately 0.25 acre of native riparian vegetation, consisting of arroyo willow and associated understory. Additionally, the Original Project would involve the removal of non-native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation. Construction of the Original Project could result in the introduction of pollutants, such as motor fuels, into San Jose Creek, which could affect riparian habitat within San Jose Creek. The Final IS-MND determined that impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3.

The project site contains four s ensitive plant communities: arroyo willow thickets, black cottonwood woodland, California sycamore coast live oak riparian woodland, and pickleweed mats. Direct impacts of the Modified Project to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would occur through construction of the ‘hydraulic transition feature’ in the upstream natural channel, which would permanently impact 0.08 acre of arroyo willow thickets. Direct impacts would occur to all four sensitive plant communities through grading the channel bottom in the upstream natural channel, which would temporarily impact 0.16 acres. Indirect impacts from dust and other construction equipment may occur, but due to the temporary nature of these activities and implementation of standard BMPs, the potential for substantial indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities is relatively low. As with the Original Project, the Modified Project would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3, which would reduce potential impacts to a less-than- significant level.

The p
roject site occurs within National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-designated critical habitat for steelhead; however, the habitat is considered low-quality due to the lack of spawning habitat, fish passage barriers in the concrete channel, and sediment and debris accumulations in the concrete channel (Appendix B). The Modified Project would enhance this existing critical habitat through the provision of steelhead passage to the upper watershed for migration and spawning. The channel downstream of Hollister Avenue is lined with concrete and a complete barrier to upstream 47 Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 movement of steelhead. The Modified Project is designed to improve the existing passage conditions for steelhead. Consequently, impacts to riparian habitat for steelhead would not be significant.

Therefore, t he Modified Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and the Modified Project would not create new or more severe impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to riparian habitat and/or sensitive natural communities. Language has been added to the mitigation measures below to help clarify the intent of each measure. Although the language has been slightly altered herein, the intent of the mitigation measures remains the same, such that these mitigation measures are not considerably different from those analyzed in the Final IS-MND and thus do not warrant the preparation of a Subsequent IS-MND. Changes to the measures are shown in strikethrough and underline.

BIO-2 Native Trees
A Native Tree Protection and Replacement Plan (N TPRP) shall be prepared by a certified arborist or qualified expert and approved prior to vegetation clearing. All native trees to be removed, except willows (Salix spp.), which are included in the Riparian Vegetation Protection and Replacement Plan described below (Mitigation Measure BIO-3), will be covered. This plan can be developed as a component of the Landscape Plan.

Plan Requirements & Ti ming: The Plan NTPRP shall be completed and approved prior to vegetation clearing and shall minimally include the following elements:
 D etails on native trees that would be removed including species, diameter at breast height (DBH), overall health, general location, and reason for removal.  D etails on native trees that the contractor would preserve including species, diameter at breast height (DBH), overall health, general location, and what actions would be taken to preserve each tree (e.g., fencing around the drip line). The project would be designed to minimize damage to existing trees located within the fill area north of Hollister Avenue, by avoiding placement of soil around the trunks and providing adequate drainage.  A mit igation plan to address native trees, excluding those included in the riparian vegetation (see BIO3), that would be removed (Table 4) shall be prepared as part of the NTPRP to address protected native trees, excluding the willows which are mitigated as riparian vegetation per Mitigation Measure BIO-3, that would be removed. The mitigation plan shall address species, size, source propagules, location, and timing of replacement tree planting.

In addition, monitoring, performance criteria, and reporting shall be addressed. All protected native trees removed will be replaced at a 10:1 ratio with the same species removed. Replacement trees will be from local stock, except as allowed in project permits.

The mitigation plan will include a map of approximate planting locations.

Table 4. Native tree replacement
Species No. Removed No. Replaced
Coast live oak 1 10
Sycamore1 2 or 3 20 or 30
Note: 1. Actual number would be determined during construction. 48 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

30 Monitoring: Biological monitors shall be present during vegetation clearing to ensure that tree removal is consistent with the Native Tree Protection and Replacement Plan NTPRP. Weekly memo- style reports shall be completed with the results of monitoring as recorded on daily monitoring logs.

A restoration specialist shall oversee the planting, maintenance, and monitoring of replacement t
rees until they have met performance criteria. Monitoring shall occur for a minimum of five years and annual monitoring reports shall be prepared.

BIO- 3 Riparian Vegetation
Refer to Threshold 3.4(a).
c. W ould the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
As discussed on page 34 of the Final IS-M ND, construction of the Original Project would result in the temporary removal of up to 160 square feet of wetlands under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); up to 7,200 square feet of wetland under the jurisdiction of the State
1; and up to 1,600 square feet of open water under the jurisdiction of the State. However, the Original Project would create approximately 860 square feet of wetlands under the jurisdiction of USACE. Additionally, the Original Project would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3, which would require the creation of additional wetlands and riparian tree replacement, such that overall impacts to State or federally protected wetlands would be less than significant.

San Jose Creek and its associated riparian areas occur within the project site. The Modified Project w
ould result in a permanent impact to non-wetland waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the USACE (0.02 acre), non-wetland waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (0.09 acre), CDFW-jurisdictional streambeds (0.09 acre), City-designated wetlands (0.09 acre), and City Streamside Protections Areas (0.11 acre) through placement of riprap on the banks and channel bottom for the ‘hydraulic transition feature’.

Temporary impacts to non-wetland waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of USACE (4.49 acres), non-wetland waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB (5.14 acres), CDFW-jurisdictional streambeds (5.14 acres), City-designated wetlands (0.15 acres), and City Streamside Protections Areas (5.14 acres) would occur through installation of a regrading to form a new natural channel bed, operation of equipment along the channel bottom, and diversion if water is present where weirs need to be removed or built. Neither USACE wetland waters of the U.S., Central Coast RWQCB wetland waters of the State, nor coastal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission would be impacted.

General BMPs described in
Section 1.3, Project Description, would reduce the potential for significant impacts by requiring general housekeeping, erosion and sediment controls, staging placement, and hazardous materials control aimed at protecting jurisdictional waters. Furthermore, the Modified Project would implement Final IS-MND Mitigation Measures BIO-2 (Native Trees) and BIO-3 (Riparian Vegetation). With implementation of these measures, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to jurisdictional waters beyond those identified in the previously adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project.

1 “State wetlands are defined therein as “State wetlands require that only one of the .. [USACE] criteria must be met. This wetland definition is used by CDFW, the California Coastal Commission, the City of Goleta, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 49 Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to jurisdictional waters. Language has been added to the mitigation measures below to help clarify the intent of each measure. Although the language has been slightly altered herein, the intent of the mitigation measures remains the same, such that these mitigation measures are not considerably different from those analyzed in the Final IS-MND and thus do not warrant the preparation of a Subsequent IS-MND. Changes to the measures are shown in strikethrough and underline.

BIO-2 Native Trees
Refer to Threshold 3.4(b).

BIO- 3 Riparian Vegetation
Refer to Threshold 3.4(a).
d. W ould the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? As described on page 35 in the Final IS-M
ND, construction of the Original Project would not
substantially interfere with terrestrial or aquatic wildlife movement. No mapped wildlife movement corridors are present within the project site. However, the project site includes San Jose Creek, through which wildlife may travel. Surrounding vegetated areas provide suitable small-scale wildlife movement corridors for wildlife to travel locally and are important in linking non-contiguous or fragmented wildlife habitats. The project site itself is primarily surrounded by urban development, including SR 217, Hollister Avenue Bridge, and Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park, which lessens the likelihood of wildlife traveling through the project site. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the Modified Project would not introduce new barriers to the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife species (i.e., fish), as the Modified Project would replace existing fish weirs for steelhead migration. Therefore, the Modified Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and the Modified Project would not create new or more severe impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND.
e. W
ould the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
As discussed on page 35 of the Final IS-M ND, the Original Project would be consistent with the Goleta General Plan. The Original Project would not impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (Coastal Act Policies 30107.5 and 30240) or the biological productivity of San Jose Creek (Coastal Act Policy 30231) within the Coastal Zone.

Mature/protected trees are identified as any native tree measuring 4 inches or greater DBH of the larg
est trunk. Multiple trees are present within the project site and surrounding area that have at least one trunk that is 4 inches in DBH or greater, including the Sister Witness Tree,2 and therefore are considered City-protected trees. The Sister Witness Tree is located on the west bank of San Jose Creek, within the California sycamore-coast live oak riparian woodlands, outside the project site.

2 The Sister Witness Tree is the largest western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) in the United States and is named because of its proximity to the “Witness Tree” located across Hollister Avenue.
50 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

32 Given the distance from Modified Project activities, the Sister Witness Tree is not expected to be impacted.

Native t rees were identified within the black cottonwood woodlands, California sycamore -coast live oak riparian woodlands, and arroyo willow thick vegetation communities. The Modified Project will temporarily encroach upon the root zone of protected native trees located at or near the toe of the bank slope where grading will occur, and would potentially result in direct impacts to protected native trees. Indirect impacts to 17 trees would occur as a result of increased dust in the air; however, impacts would be negligible as the work area is situated adjacent to an active mining area where dust is already generated and is unlikely to change substantially from existing conditions.

The M odified Project would be required to comply with the City’s policies and development standards regulating biological resources. The City does not currently have a tree protection ordinance in place, but Goleta General Plan Conservation Element Policy CE-9 states that removal of mature native trees shall be mitigated.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2
and BIO-3 would ensure that any potential impacts to
protected trees would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would require the preparation of a NTPRP that identifies native trees that would be removed, identifies native trees that the contractor would preserve, and outlines the required mitigation required as a result of impacts. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 includes a RVPRP that aims to minimize damage to riparian vegetation including avoidance and cutting riparian vegetation that must be removed, but not excavated, at ground level and covering cut stems with approximately 3-6 inches of native topsoil.

Pursuant to implementation of these mitigation measures, the Modified Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and the Modified Project would not create new or more severe impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 and BIO-3 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to protected trees.

BIO- 2 Native Trees
Refer to Threshold 3.4(c).

BIO- 3 Riparian Vegetation
Refer to Threshold 3.4(a).
f. W ould the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
As described on page 35 of t
he Final IS-MND, there are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that apply to the Original Project site. The Modified Project site is the same as the Original Project site. Therefore, the Modified Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and the Modified Project would not create such impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND.
51 Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33

3.5 Cultural Resources

Page 42 ends

b. C
ause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological pursuant to
§15064.5?

Page 42 ends

c. D isturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?

Page 42 ends

a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
As discussed on page 42 in the Final IS-M ND, no historical resources were identified on the project site. The Modified Project site is the same as the Original Project site. Consequently, the Original Project would result in no impacts to historical resources.

The Cultural Resources Technical Report prepared in support of the Modified Project (Appendix C) d
id not identify historical resources within the project site. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on historical resources beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
b. W ould the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
As discussed in the Final IS-M ND for the Original Project, no known archaeological resources are located on the project site. However, the project site is located in an archaeologically sensitive area due to the presence of fresh water. Therefore, the Final IS-MND concluded that unknown archaeological resources may be encountered during Original Project construction, and impacts to unknown archaeological resources may be potentially significant. However, implementation of IS- MND Mitigation Measure ARCH-1, which would include on-site monitoring during construction activities and an unanticipated discovery protocol, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

The Cultural Resources Technical Report p
repared in support of the Modified Project (Appendix C) included a Sacred Lands File (SLF) request and a California Historical Resources Information System records search. The SLF results were positive, indicating the project site is located within a culturally 52 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

34 sensitive area. The California Historical Resources Information System records search did not identify any known archaeological resources within the project site. Additionally, a pedestrian survey conducted on April 4, 2025 did not identify any archaeological resources or deposits within the project site. The project site 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 the existing concrete-lined channel. The Cultural Resources Technical Report concluded that the project site is unlikely to contain intact, buried archaeological resources (Appendix C). However, given the cultural sensitivity of the area, unknown or previously unrecorded archaeological materials may exist within the project site. If these materials constitute unique archaeological resources under CEQA, disturbance of these resources during construction of the Modified Project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource and impacts would be potentially significant. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would implement Mitigation Measure ARCH-1 (Archaeological Monitoring), and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Thus, the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on archaeological resources beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND.

Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure ARCH-1 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources.

ARCH- 1 Archaeological Monitoring
On-s ite monitoring by a qualified arch aeologist 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. c. W
ould the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
As discussed in the Final IS-M ND for the Original Project, no known human remains were recorded or anticipated within the project site. Consequently, the Final IS-MND concluded the Original Project would result in no impact to human remains.

The Cultural Resources Technical Report prepared in support of the Modified Project (Appendix C) d
id not identify human remains within the project site. However, given the cultural sensitivity of the project site and its location to fresh water, there is potential for the unanticipated discovery of human remains during Modified Project construction. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains during construction, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all construction activities halt in the vicinity of the discovery and the County Coroner be contacted immediately. The County Coroner would make a determination of origin and disposition of the human remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which would determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD would complete an inspection of the site within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD 53 Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 would be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. Recommendations by the MLD may include: (1) the nondestructive removal and analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American human remains; (2) preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place; (3) relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment; or (4) other culturally appropriate treatment.

With compliance with existing regulations prescribed in the State of California Health and Safety C
ode Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.8, the Modified Project would result in no impacts to human remains, similar to the Original Project. Thus, the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND. 54 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

36 This page intentionally left blank.
55 Impact Analysis
Energy

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37

3.6 Energy

The Modified Project would require construction-r elated energy consumption in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the site, and vehicles used to transport materials to and from the site. The Modified Project would not require additional construction beyond that analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND, and accordingly, would not result in an increase in construction- related energy consumption when compared to the Final IS-MND analysis. Similar to the Original Project, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. In the interest of cost-efficiency, construction contractors also would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. 56 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

38 Operation of the Modified Project would not involve the use of electricity or natural gas. Therefore, construction and operation of the Modified Project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Project does not have the potential to conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no impact would occur.

As the Modified Project would not require additional construction when compared to the Original P
roject, and operation and maintenance activities would remain the same (and not require energy), the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to energy than those previously identified in the Final IS-MND.
57 Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39

3.7 Geology and Soils

Page 45 ends

1. R
upture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for
the area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault?

Page 45 ends

2. St
rong seismic ground
shaking?

Page 45 ends

3. S eismic -related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?

Page 45 ends

4. L
andslides? Page 45 No No No N/A
b. Re sult in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Page 45 ends

c. B e located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?

Page 45 ends

d. B e located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life
or property?

Page 45 ends

58 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

40 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the IS-MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the IS-MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the IS-MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do IS-MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
e. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?

Page 45 ends

f. Directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
40 No No No N/A
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a.1 Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.2 S trong seismic ground shaking?
a.3 S eismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? a.4 L andslides?
The Original Project site is not located near an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or other fault zone as analyzed in the Final IS-MND. According to the Final IS-MND for the Original Project, the site contains a limited potential for liquefaction due to proximity to San Jose Creek; however, no habitable structures are included as part of Original Project and the risk of loss, injury, or death due to liquefaction would be minimal. The Final IS-MND also determined that the Original Project site is not located in an identified landslide hazard area, and given the flat topography of the site, the potential for landslide occurrence is low.

Given the Modified Project site is the same as the Original Project site, the geological and soil c
onditions identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project would be applicable to the Modified Project. The Modified Project would not include habitable structures or components that would exacerbate seismic risks related to fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides.

Therefore, the potential for the Modified Project to increase the risk of loss, injury, or death due to fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides would be the same as the Original Project as analyzed in the Final IS-MND, and the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 59 Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? As discussed in the Final IS-M ND, the Original Project would occur within San Jose Creek and would involve earth-moving activities during construction. Although no new source of sedimentation would be created, erosion and loss of sediment could occur during Original Project construction.

The Final IS-MND determined that this impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-1, which requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes erosion control measures.

The Modified Project, similar to the Original Project, would also involve earth-m oving activities during construction that could create soil erosion. As the Modified Project would disturb more than one acre of soil, the Modified Project would be subject to the requirements of SWRCB’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to control the discharge of pollutants, including sediment, into surface water drainages. Required elements of an SWPPP include (1) site description addressing the elements and characteristics specific to the project site; (2) descriptions of BMPs for erosion and sediment controls; (3) BMPs for construction waste handling and disposal; (4) implementation of approved local plans; and (5) proposed post-construction controls, including a description of local post-construction erosion and sediment control requirements. Therefore, the Modified Project would not require IS-MND Mitigation Measure WQ-1, which would be redundant with the existing regulatory requirement. With implementation of the requirements of the Construction General Permit, including preparation of the Modified Project-specific SWPPP, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
c. W
ould the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. W ould the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The Modif ied Project would be located on the same project site as the Original Project. The Final IS- MND did not identify unusual soil conditions, including unstable or expansive soils, on the Original Project site. Furthermore, the Modified Project, as with the Original Project, would not include habitable structures that could increase the risk to life or property due to unstable or expansive soils. Therefore, the potential for the Modified Project to result in unstable soils or to be damaged from expansive soils would be the same as the Original Project analyzed in the Final IS-MND, and the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts related to unstable or expansive soils beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. e. W
ould the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not require septic tanks or alternative w
astewater disposal systems, and no impact would occur, and the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 60 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

42 f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
As discussed on page 40 of the Final IS-M ND, no paleontological resources were expected to occur within the Original Project site. The Modified Project would be located on the same project site as the Original Project. Therefore, there are no known unique paleontological or geological features present within the Modified Project site. No impact to such features would occur from the implementation of the Original Project or the Modified Project. The Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts to unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 61 Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Page 24 ends

b. C
onflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

Page 24 ends

a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. C
onflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The Final IS-M ND did not include a separate section analyzing potential environmental impacts related to the topic of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because it was not required under the State CEQA Guidelines in effect at the time. The topic of GHG emissions was, however, addressed in the Air Quality section of the Final IS-MND in relation to the Original Project’s potential emissions during construction and operation.

Construction of the Modified Project would result in GHG emissions during construction, primarily fro
m fuel consumption associated with heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, and machinery. The Modified Project would not require additional construction beyond that analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND, and accordingly, would not result in an increase in construction-related GHG emissions when compared to the Final IS-MND analysis. The project would utilize construction contractors that would be required to comply with applicable California Air Resources Board regulations, such as accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- road and off-road equipment. Construction contractors are required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, and California Air Resources Board regulations, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial and off-road vehicles from idling for more than five minutes, minimizing unnecessary GHG emissions. Construction equipment would be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would minimize inefficient fuel consumption and, subsequently, GHG emissions. These construction equipment standards (i.e., Tier 4 efficiency requirements) are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Furthermore, in the interest of cost efficiency, construction contractors would not utilize fuel in a manner that is 62 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

44 wasteful or unnecessary, which would also have the effect of minimizing GHG emissions. Operation of the Modified Project would result in minimal generation of GHG emissions from vehicle travel to and from the project site for maintenance activities.

Since t he Modified Project would have no increased impacts relative to GHG emissions, the Modified Project would also not lead to any increased potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Therefore, the Modified Project would result in a less than significant impact involving GHG emissions.
63 Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 49 ends

b. C
reate a significant hazard to
the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?

Page 49 ends

c. E
mit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school?

Page 49 ends

d. B
e located on a site that is
included on a list of
hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?

Page 49 ends

e. F
or a project located in an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the
project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in
the project area?

Page 49 ends

64 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

46 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the IS-MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the IS-MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the IS-MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do IS-MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

Page 49 ends

g. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving
wildland fires?

Page 49 ends

a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. W
ould the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The F
inal IS- MND determined the Original Project would result in a potentially significant impact involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and the accidental release of hazardous materials in the environment. These impacts were determined to be potentially significant due to the use of paints, solvents, fuels, lubricants, and other materials associated with construction equipment and construction activities. However, these potentially significant impacts were determined to be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-1, which requires preparation of a SWPPP to prevent discharge of construction materials, contaminants, washings, concrete, fuels, and oils to San Jose Creek.

Similar to the Original Project, construction and operation of the Modified Project would involve the t
ransport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable standards that regulate the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, and adherence to these standards would minimize the Modified Project’s potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. As discussed under Threshold 3.7(b), the Modified Project would be subject to the requirements of SWRCB’s Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to control the discharge of pollutants into surface water drainages. Consequently, the Modified Project would not require IS-MND Mitigation Measure WQ-1, which would be redundant with the existing regulatory requirement. With implementation of the requirements of the Construction General Permit, including preparation of the Modified Project- specific SWPPP, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 65 Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The Final IS-M ND determined that no existing or proposed schools are located within 0.25 mile of the Original Project site. The Modified Project would be located on the same site as the Original Project, and no schools within 0.25 mile of the site have been constructed since adoption of the Final IS-MND. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. d. W ould the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
As discussed on page 49 o f the Final IS-MND, there are no recorded hazardous material sites on lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 within the Original Project site, and the Original Project would have no impact in this regard. The Modified Project would occur on the same project site as the Original Project, and no hazardous material sites within the Modified Project site have been recorded since adoption of the Final IS-MND (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2025; State Water Resources Control Board 2025). Therefore, the Modified Project would have no new or more severe impacts related to contaminated sites beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
e. Fo r a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? As discussed on page 49 in the Final IS-M
ND, the Original Project site is within two miles of the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. No private airports or airstrips are present in the Original Project site’s vicinity. Given the distance of the Original Project site to the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport’s runways, the Final IS-MND determined the Original Project would pose no safety risk or hazard resulting from proximity to the airport.

The Modified Project would occur on the same site as the Original Project. The Modified Project site is
located within the Airport Influence Area, noise contours, and Safety Zone 2 for the Santa Barbara Airport (SBCAG 2023). However, the Modified Project would not include new residences or employment opportunities at the Modified Project site, such that people would be subject to a potential safety hazard or excessive noise. Therefore, the Modified Project would have no new or more severe impacts related to airport hazards beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
f. W
ould the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Final IS-M ND determined the Original Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Construction vehicles would access the Modified Project site via ingress and egress at Hollister A
venue and South Kellogg Avenue. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would intermittently increase traffic on local roadways through the addition of construction vehicles; however, this impact would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction activities. Furthermore, the Modified Project would not involve any temporary lane closures during 66 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

48 construction activities. The addition of construction vehicles to these roadways would not result in impairment or interference with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan.

Operation of the Modified Project would involve minimal vehicle trips for maintenance activities.

The Modified Project would have no new or more severe impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
g. W
ould the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The Final IS-M ND determined the Original Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, as the Original Project site is located within the urbanized city of Goleta.

The Modified Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or fire hazard severity zo
ne (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2025). Land uses surrounding the Modified Project site consist of urbanized (commercial and industrial) land uses, riparian vegetation associated with San Jose Creek, and SR 217. Due to the urbanized nature of the site’s surroundings and lack of wildland areas, the risk of fire within or near the Modified Project site is relatively low.

Furthermore, the Modified Project would not involve the construction of habitable structures or permanent employment of people at the Modified Project site. The Modified Project would have no new or more severe impacts related to exposure of people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
67 Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 52 ends

b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

Page 52 ends

c. Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

(i) Result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-
or off-site

Page 52 ends

(ii) Substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
off-site

Page 53 ends

(iii) Create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff

Page 53 ends

(iv) Impede or redirect flood
flows?

Page 53 ends

68 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

50 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the IS-MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the IS-MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the IS-MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do IS-MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?

Page 53 ends

e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
N/A No No No N/A
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The Final IS-M ND determined that the Original Project would not result in any wastewater discharge that violates a State or federal water quality standard. However, construction of the Original Project would involve the use of paints, solvents, fuels, lubricants, and other materials associated with construction equipment and construction activities that could adversely affect water quality if improperly used or stored at the project site. If construction materials were to enter San Jose Creek, such impacts to water quality would be potentially significant. The Final IS-MND concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-1, which requires preparation of a SWPPP and the use of BMPs to minimize discharge of construction materials to San Jose Creek, the Original Project’s impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Construction activities under the Modified Project would be subject to State, regional, and local laws an
d regulations related to water quality. Similar to the Original Project, construction activities associated with the Modified Project could have the potential to affect water quality in San Jose Creek, should construction materials inadvertently enter the creek. However, construction of the Modified Project would disturb more than one acre and would therefore be required to obtain coverage under a Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to control the discharge of pollutants into surface water drainages. As discussed under Threshold 3.7(b), the SWPPP would specify BMPs for construction waste handling and disposal such that the potential for construction materials to enter San Jose Creek is minimized. Therefore, the Modified Project would not require IS-MND Mitigation Measure WQ-1, which would be redundant with the existing regulatory requirement. With implementation of the requirements of the Construction General Permit, including preparation of the Modified Project-specific SWPPP, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
69 Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The Final IS-M ND determined that the Original Project would have no impact on groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge, as the Original Project would not reduce groundwater supplies and the removal of concrete lining would likely increase infiltration within the project site.

The Modified Project would not introduce new impervious surfaces to the project site and would n
ot require a water supply during construction or operational activities. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would have no impact on groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge, and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
c. W
ould the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. R
esult in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The Final IS-M ND determined that the Original Project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of San Jose Creek. However, if precipitation occurred during construction of the Original Project, sedimentation as a result of project site erosion could occur. While the increase in sediment would be temporary and associated with construction activities, this impact would be potentially significant. The Final IS-MND determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-1, which would require a SWPPP with erosion and sediment control measures, the Original Project’s impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The Modified Project consists of the redesign, maintenance, and repair or removal of existing weirs w
ithin the San Jose Creek concrete channel, and would not have the potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of San Jose Creek. Additionally, the Modified Project would not introduce new impervious surfaces to the project site. Similar to the Original Project, construction activities associated with the Modified Project could have the potential to result in erosion or sedimentation. However, the Modified Project would be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that would specify BMPs for erosion and sediment control such that the potential for erosion and sedimentation is minimized. Therefore, the Modified Project would not require IS-MND Mitigation Measure WQ-1, which would be redundant with the existing regulatory requirement. With implementation of the requirements of the Construction General Permit, including preparation of the Modified Project-specific SWPPP, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 70 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

52 c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
ii. S
ubstantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii. C reate or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The Final IS-M ND determined that the Original Project would have a less than significant impact associated with increased runoff and polluted runoff, as the Original Project would not alter existing drainage patterns or introduce a new source of runoff to the project site.

As discussed under Threshold 3.10(c.i), the Modified Project would neither substantially alter the e
xisting drainage pattern of San Jose Creek nor introduce new impervious surfaces to the project site. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not introduce a new source of runoff to the project site. Additionally, implementation of the SWPPP, as required by the Construction General Permit, would include the use of BMPs that would minimize the potential for sediment or construction materials to be transported off-site via stormwater runoff. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
c. W ould the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
iv.

I mpede or redirect flood flows?
d. I n flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The Final IS-M ND identified that the project site is located outside of a tsunami hazard area but within a 100-year floodplain. The Original Project would increase the capacity of the existing San Jose Creek drainage to prevent the flooding of structures by the 100-year flood flow. The Final IS- MND determined that the Original Project would have a less than significant impact involving impediment of flood flows or the release of pollutants due to project inundation.

As discussed under Threshold 3.10(c.i), the Modified Project would neither substantially alter the e
xisting drainage pattern of San Jose Creek nor introduce new impervious surfaces to the project site. The project site is located within a regulatory floodway and Zone AE, which is defined as a special flood hazard area with a one percent annual chance of flooding (100-year floodplain) (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2018). The Modified Project would not introduce new habitable structures to the project site, require permanent employees at the project site that could be at risk during a flood event, or introduce new structures that would have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows outside of San Jose Creek.

The southern portion of the project site is located within a tsunami hazard area (DOC 2025). There is n
o potential for seiche at the project site due to the lack of a significant water body in the immediate vicinity. The Modified Project would not involve the storage of hazardous materials at the project site and consequently would not have the potential to risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation during a flood or tsunami event. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 71 Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Although this impact was not explicitly addressed in the Final IS-M ND because it was not included in the State CEQA Guidelines in effect at the time, as discussed throughout this section of the Addendum, the Modified Project would have no new or more severe significant impacts related to water quality or groundwater than those identified in the previously adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project. The Modified Project would therefore also not have any new or more severe significant impacts related to its potential to conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. 72 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

54 This page intentionally left blank.
73 Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55

3.11 Land Use and Planning

Page 57 ends

b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

Page 57 ends

a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The Final IS-M ND determined that the Original Project would not physically divide an established community. The Modified Project would be located on the same site as the Original Project. Land uses surrounding the Modified Project site consist of urbanized (commercial and industrial) land uses, riparian vegetation associated with San Jose Creek, and SR 217. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not include linear components, such as new roadways, that would have the potential to physically divide an established community. The Modified Project would have no new or more severe impacts related to the division of an established community beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. b. W ould the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The Final IS-M
ND determined the Original Project would not result in inconsistencies with existing land use and zoning designations. However, the Original Project site contains Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. Pursuant to Goleta General Plan Policy CE 1.6, components of the Original Project, such as flood improvements, are generally permitted in an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where mitigation measures would avoid or lessen impact to the maximum extent feasible. The Final IS- MND determined that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures throughout the Final IS-MND.

The Modified Project site has a Goleta General Plan land use designation of Public/Quasi-p ublic and
Commercial-Old Town (City of Goleta 2023). The Modified Project consists of the redesign, maintenance, and repair or removal of existing weirs within the San Jose Creek concrete channel, and would not introduce new land uses or operational activities not previously analyzed in the Final IS-MND that would conflict with the Public/Quasi-public and Commercial-Old Town land use designations. The Modified Project would represent a continuation of existing operational activities, 74 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

56 and as such, would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the Modified Project would have no new or more severe impacts related to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 75 Impact Analysis
Mineral Resources

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57

3.12 Mineral Resources

Consistent with the findings of the Final IS-MND for the Original Project, the Modified Project would have no impact on mineral resources, and no new or more severe impacts on mineral resources of value or important mineral resource recovery sites.

3 The Final IS-MND is missing pages 59 through 68, which correspond to the Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation sections of the environmental analysis. To supplement the analysis, this Addendum uses the findings of the Final IS-MND Addendum No. 1 for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project, adopted in April 2008, which contains the analysis for the Original Project.
76 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

58 This page intentionally left blank.
77 Impact Analysis
Noise

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59

3.13 Noise

However, implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and would require limiting the hours of construction (N-1) and maintenance of sound control devices for construction equipment (N-2). Once construction is completed, the Original Project would not generate noise during operation, and there would be no permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.

Similar to the Original Project, construction of the Modified Project would result in noise generation b
y construction equipment and haul trucks. As construction of the Modified Project would be similar to construction of the Original Project, construction noise could potentially exceed the City’s noise standards.
78 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

60 Goleta General Plan Policy NE 6.4 restricts construction activities in nonresidential areas to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Modified Project would be located in a nonresidential area and would thus adhere to these construction hours. Additionally, Goleta General Plan Policy NE 6.5 requires the following measures to be incorporated into grading and building plan specifications to reduce construction noise:
 A
ll construction equipment shall have properly maintained sound -control devices, and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust system.
 C ontractors shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures including but not limited to changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, and installing acoustic barriers around significant sources of stationary construction noise.
 To
the extent practicable, adequate buffers shall be maintained between noise-generating machinery or equipment and any sensitive receptors. The buffer should ensure that noise at the receptor site does not exceed 65 decibels A-weighted (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level.

For equipment that produces a noise level of 95 dBA at 50 feet, a buffer of 1600 feet is required for attenuation of sound levels to 65 dBA.

As the Modified Project would involve grading activities, it w ould be required to comply with Goleta
General Plan Policy NE 6.5. Adherence to both Policies NE 6.4 and NE 6.5 would minimize potential temporary noise increases associated with construction of the Modified Project. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Consequently, the Modified Project would not require IS-MND Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2, which would be redundant with existing regulatory requirements. With adherence to Goleta General Plan Policies NE 6.4 and NE 6.5, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. b. W
ould the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The Final IS-M ND determined that construction activities associated with the Original Project would have a less than significant impact involving groundborne noise or vibration, as vibration-generating activities (such as concrete removal) would occur over short periods of time.

The Modified Project would not require additional types of construction equipment than those an
alyzed for the Original Project in the Final IS-MND. Therefore, there would be no new sources of groundborne vibration during project construction. Impacts would be less than significant, and the Modified Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to vibration beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. c. W
ould the project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Final IS-M
ND determined that the Original Project’s impacts involving exposure to excessive airport noise levels would be less than significant. As discussed under Threshold 3.9(e) in Section

3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Modified Project site is located within noise contours for the Santa Barbara Airport (SBCAG 2023). However, the Modified Project would not include new residences or permanent employment opportunities at the Modified Project site, such that people would be subject to excessive noise. The Modified Project would have no new or more severe impacts related to airport noise beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project 79 Impact Analysis
Population and Housing

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61

3.14 Population and Housing

Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the IS-MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the IS-MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the IS-MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do IS-MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
Page not
a
vailable
No No No N/A
b. Di splace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Page not
a
vailable
No No No N/A
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The Final IS-M
ND determined the Original Project would have no impact involving substantial unplanned population growth as the Original Project’s components would not have the potential to directly or indirectly induce population growth. As with the Original Project, the Modified Project does not include construction of residences or the creation of substantial employment opportunities. The Modified Project would therefore not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth than those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
b. W
ould the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Final IS-M ND determined the Original Project would have no impact involving the displacement of existing people or housing, as no people or housing occur within the Original Project site. The Modified Project would occur on the same site as the Original Project. The Modified Project would not involve new project components that would require demolition of existing housing or create long-term disturbances to residential land uses that would lead to the displacement of substantial numbers of people and necessitate construction of replacement housing. The Modified Project would therefore not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts from substantial displacement of existing people or housing than those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
80 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

62 This page intentionally left blank.
81 Impact Analysis
Public Services

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63

3.15 Public Services

1 Fi
re protection? Page not
a
vailable
No No No N/A
2 P olice protection? Page not
a
vailable
No No No N/A
3 Sch ools? Page not
a
vailable
No No No N/A
4 P arks? Page not
a
vailable
No No No N/A
5 O ther public facilities? Page not
a
vailable
No No No N/A
82 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

64 a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for:

1. F ire protection?

2. P olice protection?

3. S chools?

4. Pa rks?

5. O ther public facilities?
The Final IS-M ND determined the Original Project would have no impact on public services as the Original Project would not physically impact any existing public services within the project vicinity; nor would it indirectly result in the need for an increased capacity, amount, or requirement for public services.

As discussed in Section 3.14, P
opulation and Housing, the Modified Project, like the Original Project, would not include residential or commercial development that would induce population growth.

The Modified Project would not introduce new land uses to the project site that could change the existing demand for public services. No new fire protection facilities, police protection facilities, schools, parks, or other public facilities would need to be constructed to serve the Modified Project.

The Modified Project would therefore not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts on public services than those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 83 Impact Analysis
Recreation

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65

3.16 Recreation

As discussed in Section 3.14, P
opulation and Housing, the Modified Project, like the Original Project, would not induce population growth. The Modified Project would not introduce new land uses to the project site that could change the existing demand for recreational facilities. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would neither include recreational facilities nor necessitate the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities. The Modified Project would therefore not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts involving recreation than those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 84 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

66 This page intentionally left blank.
85 Impact Analysis
Transportation

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67

3.17 Transportation

Page 73 ends

b. C
onflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
N/A No No No N/A
c. Su
bstantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm
equipment)?

Page 73 ends

d. R
esult in inadequate
emergency access?

Page 73 ends

a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? As described on pag
e 73 of the Final IS-MND, the Original Project would not affect existing or planned bus stops or bicycle lanes, and would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. The Final IS-MND determined that no impact would occur.

The circulation system in the vicinity of the Modified Project site includes Hollister Avenue and S
outh Kellogg Avenue, with respective pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) along each roadway. There are no bicycle lanes or public transit stops along these roadways. Construction vehicles would access the Modified Project site via ingress and egress at South Kellogg Avenue and Hollister Avenue.

Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would intermittently increase traffic on local roadways through the addition of construction vehicles; however, this impact would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction activities. The Modified Project would not involve changes to the existing roadway system, including construction within roadway rights-of- way or lane closures, that would alter existing circulation patterns. The Modified Project would not involve construction-related traffic greater than that analyzed in the Final IS-MND. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 86 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

68 b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines S ection 15064.3(b), added in November 2018, defines acceptable criteria for analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA. It states that land use projects with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may result in a significant transportation impact and that projects that decrease VMT compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. The Final IS-MND, adopted in 2007 prior to the 2018 updates, did not include a VMT analysis.

The change in VMT regulations d oes not constitute a new impact or significant new information under CEQA. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would maintain existing operation and maintenance activities at the site after construction has been completed, and would not result in increased vehicle travel to and from the site when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the Modified Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Project would have no new or more severe impacts related to VMT.
c. W
ould the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? As discussed on page 73 of the Final IS-M ND, there is the potential for construction equipment to encroach into both Hollister Avenue and South Kellogg Avenue, and create roadway hazards.

Additionally, construction of the Original Project may damage South Kellogg Avenue in a manner that could create a roadway hazard. The Final IS-MND determined the Original Project’s impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS-1, TRANS-2, and TRANS-3, which would require a traffic management plan (TRANS-1), repair of South Kellogg Avenue following construction (TRANS-2), and review of the final design plans for Hollister Avenue Bridge and South Kellogg Avenue (TRANS-3).

In contrast to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not involve alterations to the Hollister A
venue Bridge and South Kellogg Avenue. The Modified Project would temporarily and intermittently increase traffic on local roadways through the addition of construction vehicles; however, construction vehicles and equipment would be staged within the Modified Project site and not along roadway right-of-way such that the presence of construction equipment would create a roadway hazard. Construction of the Modified Project would not involve any temporary lane closures during construction activities such that detours or signage would be required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not have any new or more severe significant impacts related to roadway hazards beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. The Modified Project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation would be required, which would be a lesser level of impact than the Original Project.
d. W
ould the project result in inadequate emergency access? As discussed on page 73 of the Final IS-M ND, the Original Project would not change the basic configuration of either Hollister Avenue or South Kellogg Avenue, but would result in slight alterations to the Hollister Avenue Bridge and would narrow South Kellogg Avenue. The Original Project’s design changes to these roadways were determined to have a less than significant impact involving inadequate emergency access.
87 Impact Analysis
Transportation

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would intermittently increase traffic on local roadways through the addition of construction vehicles; however, this impact would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction activities. Furthermore, the Modified Project would not involve any temporary lane closures during construction activities. The addition of construction vehicles to these roadways would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Operation of the Modified Project would involve minimal vehicle trips for maintenance activities.

Therefore, the Modified Project would have no new or more severe impacts related to inadequate emergency access beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 88 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

70 This page intentionally left blank.
89 Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Page 42 ends

b. A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the resource
to a California Native
American tribe.

Page 42 ends

90 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

72 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. L isted or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? b. A r esource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
The Final IS-M
ND did not include a separate section analyzing potential impacts related to the topic of tribal cultural resources because it was not required under the State CEQA Guidelines in effect at the time. The topic of tribal cultural resources was, however, addressed in the Cultural Resources section of the Final IS-MND. The Final IS-MND determined that the Original Project would result in a potentially significant impact to buried archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) due to the possibility that construction activities could disturb or damage undiscovered archaeological resources. However, implementation of IS-MND Mitigation Measure ARCH-1, which would include on-site monitoring during construction activities and an unanticipated discovery protocol, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the Cultural Resources Technical Report prepared in support of the Modified Project included a SLF request that returned positive results. Additionally, as detailed in the Cultural Resources Technical Report, outreach with the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians confirmed there is a high chance of cultural sensitivity within the project site, and the Tribe suggested Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities that reach 18 feet in depth (Appendix C). Although no tribal cultural resources were identified during preparation of the Cultural Resources Technical Report, given the cultural sensitivity of the area, unknown or previously unrecorded tribal cultural resources may exist within the project site, and the discovery of such resources is always a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project may result in a potentially significant impact to tribal cultural resources. As with the Original Project, the Modified Project would implement Mitigation Measure ARCH-1 (Archaeological Monitoring), and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Thus, the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on archaeological resources beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND.

Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure ARCH-1 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.

ARCH- 1 Archaeological Monitoring
Refer to Threshold 3.5(b) in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources. 91 Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems

Page 77 ends

b. H
ave sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?

Page 77 ends

c. R
esult in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?

Page 77 ends

d. G
enerate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?

Page 77 ends

e. C
omply with federal, state,
and local management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?

Page 77 ends

92 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

74 a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The Final IS-M
ND determined the Original Project would have no impact involving the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, and stormwater drainage facilities, as the Original Project would not generate a substantial demand for such facilities.

The Modified Project would consist of maintenance and repair o r removal of existing fish passage weirs in San Jose Creek, and would not result in a permanent increase in demand for water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Consequently, the Modified Project would not necessitate the construction or expansion of new water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. The Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. b. W
ould the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The Final-IS -MND determined that the Original Project would have no impact on water supplies as the Original Project would not require a permanent water supply and any water needed for construction activities would constitute a temporary demand that could be satisfied with existing water supplies.

Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not require a permanent water supply.

T
he Modified Project would not require additional construction beyond that analyzed in the Final IS- MND and, accordingly, would not result in an increase in temporary water demand for construction activities when compared to the Final IS-MND analysis. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts related to water supply availability beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
c. W
ould the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The Final IS-M
ND determined that the Original Project would have no impact on wastewater capacity, as the Original Project would not generate wastewater flows during construction or operation.

Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not generate wastewater flows during c
onstruction or operation, given the nature of Modified Project activities. Consequently, the Modified Project would not result in a determination by the Goleta Sanitation District that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the Modified Project. The Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. 93 Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. W
ould the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The Final IS-M ND determined that the Original Project would have a less than significant impact involving solid waste, as the Original Project would not result in the generation of solid waste in violation of any federal, State, or local solid waste regulations or statutes.

Construction of the Modified Project would generate solid waste through the removal of all timber
wedges throughout the concrete channel, and all existing wooden weirs downstream of Station 46+96. Pursuant to Chapter 8.10, Article IV of the Goleta Municipal Code, construction contractors are required to divert 65 percent of all construction and demolition waste by weight from landfill disposal for any new structure. The City would prepare a Waste Management Plan which would indicate how solid waste generated during demolition and construction would be diverted in accordance with City requirements. With adherence to existing regulations, construction of the Modified Project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.

The Modified Project would not result in greater impacts involving solid waste when compared to the Original Project, and impacts would remain less than significant. The Modified Project would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
94 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

76 This page intentionally left blank.
95 Impact Analysis
Wildfire

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77

3.20 Wildfire

78 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. S ubstantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. D ue to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. R
equire the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. E
xpose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The Final IS-M ND did not include a separate section analyzing potential impacts related to the topic of wildfire because it was not required under the State CEQA Guidelines in effect at the time. The topic of wildfire was, however, addressed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Final IS-MND. Although a separate chapter evaluating wildfire impacts was not included in the Final IS-MND, a separate discussion of wildfire is included in this Addendum pursuant to the most recent version of the State CEQA Guidelines in which wildfire is included in the Appendix G checklist as a separate resource category.

The Modified Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or fire hazard severity zo
ne (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2025). The Modified Project would not include components that would substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (refer to Threshold 3.9[f]). The Modified Project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire, as the Modified Project would not introduce occupants to the site. The Modified Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate wildfire risks, as proposed infrastructure improvements would consist of alterations to fish passage weirs. The Modified Project would not exposure people or structures to significant post-fire risks of flooding or landslides, as no people or structures would occur on-site. Therefore, no impact would occur. The Modified Project would thus not result in new or more severe impacts than the Original Project. 97 Impact Analysis
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Page 78 ends

b. Does the project have
impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively
considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a
project are considerable
when viewed in connection
with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects)?

Page 79 ends

c. D
oes the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial
adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or
indirectly?

Page 79 ends

98 City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

80 a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the Modified Project would not have the potential t
o substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any known historical or archaeological or tribal resources. The Modified Project would therefore not eliminate an important example of major periods of California history or prehistory. With implementation of IS-MND Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 and ARCH-1, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and the Modified Project’s impact would be the same as or less than that analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
b. D
oes the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The Modified Project would not significantly change the current use or operation of the project site.

W
hile the Modified Project may have some construction impacts, such as increased noise and construction-related air emissions, these impacts would be temporary and were previously analyzed in the Final IS-MND. The Modified Project would not add permanent residents or employees to the project site. The Modified Project would not involve road closures and would not introduce a substantial amount of vehicle traffic to local roadways, such as Hollister Avenue and South Kellogg Avenue, such that the Modified Project and cumulative projects in the vicinity of the project site would result in a cumulative impact to transportation. Therefore, the Modified Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures referenced throughout this environmental document. The Modified Project would not result in new or more severe cumulative impacts than the Original Project.
c. D
oes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts on human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous m
aterials, noise, and wildfire. As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the Modified Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of SBCAPCD’s 2022 Ozone Plan and would not expose human beings to substantial air pollutant emissions in excess of regional and localized significance thresholds. As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, compliance with federal, State, and local laws regarding the transportation of hazardous materials would prevent accidental release of hazardous materials during construction, and the Modified Project would not involve the use of hazardous materials during operation. As discussed in Section 3.13, Noise, project construction noise would not be significant, and operation of the Modified Project would not involve noise-generating components. As discussed in Section 3.20, Wildfire, the project site is not within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone and would not include components that would 99 Impact Analysis
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 exacerbate post-fire risks of flooding/landslides or require installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that would result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Therefore, the Modified Project would not substantially adversely affect human beings, directly or in
directly. The Modified Project’s impact would be the same as or less than that analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND for the Original Project.
100
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

82 This page intentionally left blank.

101
Conclusion

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 4 Conclusion
As established in the analysis above regarding the potential environmental effects that may be generated as compared to the Original Project, it is concluded that substantial changes are not proposed to the Original Project nor have substantial changes occurred that would require major revisions to the adopted Final IS-MND prepared for the Original Project. Impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the adopted Final IS-MND would not be expected to occur as a result of the Modified Project. Overall, the proposed modifications to the Original Project that constitute the Modified Project would result in no new impact or mitigation information of substantial importance that would generate new, more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures compared to those identified for the Original Project in the adopted Final IS-MND.

Therefore, th e City of Goleta concludes that the analyses conducted, conclusions reached, and mitigation measures in the Final IS-MND adopted in May 2007 remain valid. As such, the Modified Project would not result in conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring supplemental environmental review or a Subsequent EIR, and these are therefore not required for the Modified Project. It can be emphasized that the Modified Project would remain subject to previously adopted, applicable, mitigation measures included in the Final IS-MND for the Original Project. The MMRP adopted for the Original Project in May 2007 would remain applicable to the Modified Project. Based on the above analysis, this Addendum to the previously adopted Final IS- MND for the project has been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
102
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

84 This page intentionally left blank.
103
References

Addendum to the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 5 References
California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ ( accessed June 2025). _______. 2025. Tsunami Hazard Area Map.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/ (accessed Ju
ne 2025).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-w e-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and- mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones ( accessed June 2025).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 20 25. EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=goleta# ( accessed June 2025).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2018. National Flood Hazard Layer. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5 5 29aa9cd (a ccessed July 2025).

Goleta, City of. 2023. Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, Land Use Plan Map. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showpublisheddocument/29899/63837641844937000 0 (
accessed June 2025).

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC). 2025. San Jose Creek Fish Passage engineering designs.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. 2019. Regional Growth Forecast 2050, Santa Barb
ara County. https://www.sbcag.org/wp-
c
ontent/uploads/2023/08/regional_growth_forecast_2050.pdf ( accessed June 2025). ______. 2 023. Santa Barbara Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. January 2023. https://www.sbcag.org/wp-c ontent/uploads/2023/09/sba_alucp_final.pdf ( accessed June 2025).

State Water Resources Control Board . 2022. Order WQ 2022-00 48-DWQ. Order for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements for Restoration Projects Statewide. Final. August 16, 2022.
______. 2025. GeoTracker Database.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=goleta (
accessed June 2025).
104
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

86 This page left intentionally blank.

105

Appendix A
State Water Resources Control Board General Protection Measures 106
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.
107
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 108
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).
109
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.
110
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. 111
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/. 112

Appendix B
Biological Resources Assessment Addendum
113

San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage
Modification Project
Biological Resources Assessment Addendum
prepared for
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, California 93117
Contact: Gerald Comati, PE
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
319 East Carrillo Street, Suite 105
Santa Barbara, California 93101
September 2025

114
Table of Contents

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Project History .................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 8

1.4 Regulatory Summary .........................................................................................................14 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................17

2.1 Literature Review ..............................................................................................................17

2.2 Field Reconnaissance Survey ............................................................................................18

2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation Survey ......................................................................................19

2.4 Protected Tree Survey.......................................................................................................19 3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................21

3.1 Physical Characteristics .....................................................................................................21

3.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ..............................................................23

3.3 General Wildlife ................................................................................................................33 4 Sensitive Biological Resources ......................................................................................................35

4.1 Special-Status Species .......................................................................................................35

4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat .........................................................42

4.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................43

4.4 Wildlife Movement ...........................................................................................................50

4.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances ....................................................51

4.6 Habitat Conservation Plans ...............................................................................................52 5 Mitigation Measures and Impact Analysis ....................................................................................57

5.1 Special-Status Species Impact Analysis .............................................................................61

5.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat Impact Analysis ...............................64

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Impact Analysis .......................................................65

5.4 Wildlife Movement Impact Analysis .................................................................................68

5.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances Impact Analysis ..........................68

5.6 Habitat Conservation Plans Impact Analysis .....................................................................69 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance ................................................................................73 7 References ....................................................................................................................................75 8 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................81 115
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

ii
Tables
Table 1 Summary of Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types..........................................24 Table 2 Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur within the Study Area ...................36 Table 3 Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur within the Study Area ...............37 Table 4 Potentially Jurisdictional Waters Delineated within the Study Area ................................43 Table 5 Summary of Protected Native Trees in Study Area ..........................................................52 Table 6 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers .....................................................64 Table 7 Impacts to Potentially Jurisdictional Waters Delineated within the Study Area ..............67 Table 8 Impacts to Protected Native Trees ...................................................................................69 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2 Project Location Map .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Overview of Project Design ...............................................................................................12 Figure 4 Soils ...................................................................................................................................22 Figure 5a Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Overview ............................................25 Figure 5b Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 1 ................................................26 Figure 5c Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 2 ................................................27 Figure 5d Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 3 ................................................28 Figure 5e Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 4 ................................................29 Figure 6 Critical Habitat ..................................................................................................................44 Figure 7a Jurisdictional Waters – Overview .....................................................................................45 Figure 7b Jurisdictional Waters – Panel 1 .........................................................................................46 Figure 7c Jurisdictional Waters – Panel 2 .........................................................................................47 Figure 7d Jurisdictional Waters – Panel 3 .........................................................................................48 Figure 7e Jurisdictional Waters – Panel 4 .........................................................................................49 Figure 8a Native Tree Locations – Overview ....................................................................................53 Figure 8b Protected Native Tree Locations – Panel 1 .......................................................................54 Figure 8c Protected Native Tree Locations – Panel 2 .......................................................................55 Figure 9 Impacts to Sensitive Natural Vegetation Communities ....................................................70 Figure 10 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters .......................................................................................71 Figure 11 Impacts to Protected Native Trees ...................................................................................72 116

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum iii

Appendix I S tate Water Board Statewide Restoration General Order – General Protection Measures
T
able of Contents
Appendices
Appendix A Regulatory Setting
A
ppendix B Site Photographs
A
ppendix C Floral and Faunal Compendium
A
ppendix D Special-Status Species Evaluation Tables
A
ppendix E Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
A
ppendix F Engineering Project Design and Cross-sections A
ppendix G Engineering Cross-section Detail
A
ppendix H Engineering Cut and Fill
117
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

This page intentionally left blank.

118
Executive Summary

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 1
Executive Summary
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) to document existing conditions and provide a basis for evaluation of potential impacts to biological resources for the City of Goleta (City) San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project (Project) located in Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. The proposed Project seeks to achieve improved and unimpeded passage for the 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 spawning and rearing habitat in the upper watershed. Modifications to the concrete flood control channel and a small portion of the upstream natural channel of San Jose Creek are necessary to meet these objectives. These modifications include removing the existing non-functioning wooden weirs, modifying the existing concrete weirs, adding new vortex-type weirs, and re-grading a small reach of the upstream natural channel to restore the original channel gradient. Additionally, the creek will be restored with native riparian vegetation after construction is complete. Native trees, shrubs, and forbs of local genetic stock will be installed along the creek banks 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.

This
BRA is an addendum to the BRA previously completed for the original construction of the fish passage project, herein referred to as the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project (Entrix 2010). In 2013, the City constructed the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project, which included a fish passage component. The currently proposed Project aims to install enhanced fish passage system within San Jose Creek.

This BRA addendum includes a literature re view to identify and evaluate any newly listed or candidate species, an evaluation of the potential for them to occur in the project area, and updates to the regulatory setting to reflect recent regulatory changes. In addition, this report documents existing site conditions via a desktop analysis and field surveys, including a reconnaissance survey, jurisdictional delineation, and tree survey, to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources based upon current Project plans. The 5.85-acre work area, along with a 100-foot buffer, was assessed, for a total of 28.45 acres, hereinafter referred to as the “study area.” Rincon assessed the potential for 8
6 special-status species (28 plant species and 58 wildlife species) to occur in the vicinity of the study area. Of these 86 species, 32 species (6 plants and 26 animals) were evaluated as having potential to occur. Five special-status plants have a low potential to occur.

One special-status plant has a moderate potential to occur within the study area: Santa Barbara honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata; California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2). Thirteen special- status wildlife species have a low potential to occur within the study area. Seven federally or state- listed special-status wildlife species were determined to have a moderate potential in the study area: southern California steelhead, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; federally threatened), southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida; federally proposed threatened and CDFW Species of Special Concern [SSC]), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii, state Watch List), white tailed kite (Elanus leucurus, state Fully Protected), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; federally and state endangered), and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus, CDFW SSC). One special-status species was determined to have a high potential to occur: tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi; federally endangered and CDFW SSC). One special-status species was present: monarch butterfly 119
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

2 (Danaus Plexippus; federally proposed threatened and CDFW Special Animal). During the March 20, 2024 field survey, a monarch butterfly individual was observed flying through the study area.

However, no roosting colonies were observed. Additionally, the study area provides potential nesting habitat for bird species protected under California Fish and Game Code and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No other special-status, federally, or state listed or proposed species were observed or otherwise detected within the study area.

The entirety of the study area within San Jose Creek is within designated critical habitat for southern California steelhead DPS. No other critical habitat is designated within the study area. Tidewater goby critical habitat is located approximately 40 feet southwest (downstream) of the study area.

Four v egetation communities designated as California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) sensitive natural communities are present in the study area: arroyo willow thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance), black cottonwood woodland (Populus trichocarpa Forest & Woodland Alliance), California sycamore-coast live oak riparian woodland (Platanus racemosa – Quercus agrifolia Woodland Alliance), and pickleweed mats (Sarcocornia pacifica [Salicornia depressa] Herbaceous Alliance). Each of the four vegetation communities and one land cover type qualify as City- designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and are present in the study area: black cottonwood woodland and California sycamore-coast live oak riparian woodland constitute Riparian ESHA and Raptor Roosting ESHA; arroyo willow thickets constitute Riparian ESHA; and open water constitutes Open Water ESHA. The City does not currently have a tree protection ordinance in place, but the General Plan Conservation Element states that removal of mature native trees shall be mitigated. The General Plan does not define mature native trees. As such, to err on the conservative side, mature/protected trees were defined in this report as any native tree measuring 4 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH) of the largest trunk. Multiple trees are present within the study area that have at least one trunk that is 4 inches in DBH or greater, including the Sister Witness Tree1 and therefore, these are considered City-protected trees.

One jurisdictional hydrologic feature (San Jose Creek) is present within the study area. San Jose Creek is subject to the jurisdictions of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), CDFW pursuant to California Fish and Game Code 1600 et seq., Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Water Code (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act), California Coastal Commission (CCC) per the California Coastal Act, and the City per the General Plan.

As previously identified in the 2010 BR A (Entrix 2010) and Initial Study / Final Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment (IS-MND/EA) (07-MND-01, City of Goleta 2007) for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project, direct and indirect impacts will occur as a result of the proposed Project; therefore, the project has the potential to impact special-status species with potential to occur within the study area, sensitive natural communities, critical habitat, and jurisdictional waters. However, the Project has been designed to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts to biological resources and incorporates resource protection design features that will be implemented during construction, including pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and special-status species with potential to occur on site, general best management practices, a Native Tree Protection and Replacement Plan, and a Riparian Vegetation Protection and Replacement Plan.

Direct and indirect impacts to the San Jose Creek system would be minimized with implementation of project design features, and there will be a net benefit to aquatic species as a result of improved

1 The Sister Witness Tree is the largest western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) in the United States and is named because of its proximity to the “Witness Tree” located across Hollister Avenue. The Sister Witness Tree measures 52.2 feet in circumference, has a 95.5-foot canopy, and a height of 94 feet (City of Goleta 2013).
120
Executive Summary

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 3
low-flow passage conditions. The overall purpose of the Project is to restore ecological function and improve habitat conditions for steelhead in San Jose Creek by modifying the channel within the flood control reach and immediately upstream natural reach. 121
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

4 This page intentionally left blank.
122
Introduction
Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 5
1 Introduction
This report documents the findings of a Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) conducted by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) for the City of Goleta (City) San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project (Project). The Project is located in Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. The proposed Project seeks to achieve improved and unimpeded passage for the 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 channel, and upstream to the natural migration corridor that leads to spawning and rearing habitat in the upper watershed. This BRA is an addendum to the BRA previously completed for the original construction of the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project (Entrix 2010). This BRA addendum includes a literature review to identify and evaluate any newly listed or candidate species, an evaluation of the potential for them to occur in the project, and updates to the regulatory setting to reflect recent regulatory changes. In addition, this report documents existing site conditions via a desktop analysis and field surveys, including a reconnaissance survey, jurisdictional delineation, and tree survey, to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources based upon current Project plans. This report describes existing biological conditions in the study area as defined in Section 1.3, and evaluates the potential for long-term (permanent) and construction (temporary) direct and indirect impacts to special-status species, sensitive natural communities and habitats, wildlife movement, jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, and local policy-protected trees, as well as recommends (as appropriate) avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential impacts to these regulated biological resources.

1.1 Project Location
The Project is located in San Jose Creek within the City along the west side of State Route (SR) 217 (Figure 1 and Figure 2). It is approximately 5.85 acres and located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 071-190-039, 071-190-035, 071-190-017, 071-170-086, 071-170-036, 071-140-080, 071-140-060, 071-140-040, 071-090-090, 071-090-089, 071-090-037, and 071-090-098. The approximate center location is latitude 34.431653°N and longitude -119.821308°W (WGS-84 datum). The site is within the Goleta, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (USGS quad; USGS 2024). The Public Land Survey System depicts the Project within Township 4N, Range 28W, Section 16, and Township 4N, Range 28W, Section 9, San Bernardino Meridian (Earth Point 2024). The southern portion of the Project site is within the Coastal Zone. See Figure 1 for the regional location of the Project. 123
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

6 Figure 1 Regional Location

124
Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 7
Figure 2 Project Location Map

125
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

8 1.2 Project History
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 a natural channel of reduced flood capacity and unnaturally low stream gradient. In addition, due to break out flood waters from the channel, it was determined that the channel should be increased in capacity to accommodate a 100-year flood event. The Project was constructed as the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project. The City prepared an Initial Study / Final Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment in 2007 (IS-MND/EA) (07-MND-01, City of Goleta 2007), Science Applications International Corporation, Inc. (SAIC) prepared an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment (MND/EA) in 2008 (SAIC 2008), and Entrix prepared the BRA in October 2010 (Entrix 2010). The City approved the project in 2011 and construction began in 2013. At that time, the project constructed fish passage and flood control capacity improvements in the concrete stream channel downstream of Hollister Avenue as an initial phase of the Project, with the replacement of the Hollister Avenue Bridge over San Jose Creek following in a subsequent phase (Caltrans 2015, URS 2014, URS 2015). Due to timing and funding consideration, the City opted to treat replacement of the bridge as a separate project.

The fish passage component of the project proceeded as planned; however, t he installed timber
weirs did not function as originally anticipated, and the overall fish passage facility retained too much sediment and debris. The end result was ineffective for fish passage and required an unreasonable and unattainable level of maintenance efforts by the City. The goal of the currently proposed Project is to create a fish passage facility that works and meets latest design protocols for fish passage. The project will remove all wooden weirs, modify the previously installed weirs, and install additional weirs. Some biological and permitting aspects of the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project remain relevant to the Project, such as previous agency coordination that addressed both projects collectively (Caltrans 2015).

1.3 Project Description
The Project seeks to achieve improved and unimpeded passage for southern California steelhead through the concrete flood control portion of the San Jose Creek flood control channel, and upstream to the natural migration corridor that leads to 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 optimize fish passage in conjunction with reducing sediment and debris accumulations, in addition to lowering the maintenance requirements for the City, and to improve fish passage. The design team, composed of staff from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), City of Goleta, Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SBCFCWCD), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 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:
126
Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 9
 Remove all (approximate quantity = 25) timber wedges throughout the channel and all (quantity = 17) existing wooden weir structures downstream of Station 46+96.  M odification of 12 existing straight 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.
 A ddition of 70 new vortex -type weirs within the ‘fish line’ throughout the entire length of the constructed flood control channel, 13 of which (located at the downstream end of the channel) are combined with a low curb extending across 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 and will be installed on top of the existing articulated concrete mat in the channel bottom. 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.  O
f 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).  Exten d ing the Hollister Avenue Bridge ‘hydraulic transition feature’ (further described below) to the north to form an expanded bridge approach by re-grading the natural channel near the bridge and placing riprap on the banks and channel bottom.  R e- grading the natural channel for approximately 320 feet upstream of the Hollister Avenue Bridge ‘hydraulic transition feature’ by excavating the unconsolidated channel bottom bed materials between the left/east and right/west descending 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 preferred design modifies the weir layout and configuration such that the weir crest will direct l
owest flows to the center of the fish passage channel, mobilize sediment deposits between weirs, and allow woody debris to pass cleanly over the weirs. These measures will reduce the maintenance effort required to periodically clean the flood control channel. The vortex weirs feature a V-shaped geometry with the apex of the weirs pointing upstream centered over the lowest thalweg of the fish channel at the ‘Fish Line’. The 13 combination vortex weirs and low cross curbs are configured with the vortex weir across the fish channel and the low broad cross weir arranged perpendicularly across the upper driving surface of the flood control channel invert. Refer to Appendices F and G for plan sets demonstrating the structure and cross-sections of the proposed weirs. These combination weirs are only to be implemented between Station 21+75 and Station 30+00. All weirs will have approach and exit slopes of 1:2 on the downstream side and 1:1 on the upstream side similar to existing straight weir shapes except for the low cross weir curbs which will have 1V:2H side slopes 127

10 Cit
y of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project both upstream and downstream. The shallower upstream and downstream cross weir curb slopes are intended to facilitate driving maintenance vehicles over them.

Within a portion of the Project’s footprint is the Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, which is a separate, yet related project that has been permitted and is currently being constructed. The Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project includes key fish passage elements that have been designed in coordination with the Fish Passage Project to culminate in complete fish passage along this section of San Jose Creek. The Hollister Avenue Bridge design (Caltrans 2015, URS 2014, URS 2015) includes the following components, which are included herein for informational purposes:
 Modification of the old existing trapezoidal channel shape through the Hollister Avenue Bridge reach (beneath the new bridge and to approximately 200 feet downstream, between Station 59+60 and 63+77) by lowering and widening the existing concrete flood control channel and extending the vertical sidewalls, forming the same rectangular shape as the downstream reach of the flood control channel. As a result, the entire concrete flood control channel will be rectangular in shape and no trapezoidal areas will remain. The channel sidewalls and invert will remain unchanged downstream of the Hollister Avenue Bridge modification.  Re-grading the natural channel immediately upstream of Hollister Avenue Bridge to form an expanded bridge approach section about 120 feet in length (i.e., the ‘hydraulic transition feature’), with mitered approach sidewalls to the rectangular bridge opening and articulated mat in the channel bottom.

The original 1960s 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 the original construction, these morphologic changes have resulted in reduced flood capacity and unnaturally low stream gradient within San Jose Creek. In 2014, the City completed the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project which modified most of the existing trapezoidal channel to a wider rectangular channel. Currently in construction, the new Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project will include enlargement and lowering of the new section of the flood control channel immediately downstream and upstream of the Hollister Avenue Bridge, and will restore the original natural channel stream gradient, and increase its flood discharge capacity.

As part of the Fish Passage Project, 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 weir work in the channel and grading of the natural creek, the upstream natural creek will also be restored with native riparian vegetation after construction is complete.

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 11
Recovery Plan (NOAA 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.

Appendix F
through H includes figures that show the geometry of weir types, location of weirs, extents of the channel modifications, and sample existing versus proposed cross-section views in the channel modification area. Appendix F also provides an overview of the Project design (Figure 3 ).
129
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

12 Figure 3 Overview of Project Design

130
Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 13
Project Construction Activities
The Project-specific IS-MND (City 2007) and IS-MND Addendum (SAIC 2008) include measures that the proposed Project will adhere to. No new measures are proposed for the Project. These measures are briefly listed below and described in detail in Section 5 I mpact Analysis and Mitigation Measures. Per the Statewide Restoration General Order (SRGO; State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2022), the Project is required to identify and incorporate General Protection Measures (GPMs) applicable to the Project. The following surveys, GPMs, and CEQA measures are incorporated into the Project and will be carried out as part of Project implementation.

Pre-C
onstruction Special -Status Species Surveys
IS-MN D BIO -1 described in Section 5 r equires a pre -construction survey for California red-legged frog (CRLF; Rana draytonii) prior to new ground disturbing activities and when any activities that could affect the species take place. A qualified biologist shall survey the workspaces and access routes for other special-status plant and wildlife species with potential to occur within the study area, concurrently with the preconstruction survey described in IS-MND BIO 1. The biologist shall have general knowledge of the natural resources of the area and shall also be experienced in the identification of regionally occurring special-status plant and wildlife species.

The pre-c
onstruction survey sh all include the work area and surrounding 100-foot buffer, with an emphasis on areas where native vegetation removal is necessary to complete the Project as these areas are more likely to harbor special-status plants and wildlife than cleared areas. If special-status plants or wildlife are found, the location shall be documented, and population and health characteristics shall be recorded. If special-status wildlife species are found, the biologist shall relocate non-listed animals to a safe location outside the project disturbance area in suitable habitat (e.g., adjacent woodland or chaparral habitat).

Plan Requirements & Ti
ming: Concurrently with the CRLF pre-construction surveys described in IS-MND BIO-1, a qualified monitor shall be on site prior to new ground disturbing activities and when any activities that could affect special-status species with potential to occur within the study area.

Monitoring: A qualified biological monitor shall be present during work and will prepare daily monitoring logs of all observations. These logs shall be summarized into a weekly memo-style report.

General P rotection Measures
Per the SRGO ( SWRCB 2022), the Project is required to identify and incorporate GPMs applicable to the project. These measures are designed to minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources and protect water quality and sensitive habitats during construction. GPMs include a range of measures, such as timing, environmental awareness trainings, erosion and pollution control, and invasive species prevention. GPMs as described in Final Order Attachment A of the SRGO – GPMs that will be followed by construction personnel are listed in Appendix I.

Plan Requirements &
Timing: These requirements will be described and detailed on the site, Project plans, and posted at the work site. Erosion/sediment GPMs shall be installed in the area prior to commencement of construction. Other GPMs related to closed containers, equipment containment, and construction materials and spoils shall be maintained throughout construction activities. 131
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

14 Monitoring: Biological monitors should ensure compliance prior to and throughout construction, in conjunction with monitoring activities as described in IS-MND BIO-1.

CEQA M easures
The Project’s measures are listed below and described in detail in Section 5 I mpact Analysis and Mitigation Measures.
 IS -MND BIO-1 California Red-legged Frog
 IS -MND BIO 2 Native Trees
 IS -MND BIO-3 Riparian Vegetation
 IS -MND BIO-4 Breeding Birds

1.4 Regulatory Summary
Regulated or sensitive resources studied and analyzed herein include special-status plant and wildlife species, nesting birds and raptors, sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement, regionally protected resources (e.g., Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs], Natural Community Conservation Plans [NCCPs]), and locally protected resources, such as protected trees. Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, state, and local authorities. Primary authority for regulation of general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the City of Goleta).

Definition of Special-Status Species
For the purposes of this report, special-status species include:
 S pecies listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) , including proposed and candidate species;
 S pecies listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA);
 W ildlife s pecies designated as Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern, or Watch List under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) and/or by the CDFW;  P lant species listed as State Rare (SR) under the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) ;  P lant species designated by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) with California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B;
 S pecies designated as sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management, if the Project would affect lands administered by these agencies; and  S pecies designated as locally important by the Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance, local policy, or HCPs/NCCPs.

Environmental Statutes
For the purpose of this report, potential impacts to biological resources were analyzed based on the following statutes (Appendix A):
 C alifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
 F ederal Endangered Species Act ( FESA)
132
Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 15
 California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
 N ative Plant Protection Act (NPPA)
 F ederal Clean Water Act (CWA)
 C alifornia Fish and Game Code (CFGC)
 M igratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
 T he Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
 P orter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
 C alifornia Coastal Act
 C ity of Goleta
Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance
The following threshold criteria, as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Initial Study Checklist, were used to evaluate potential environmental effects. Based on these criteria, the proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) H ave substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
b) H ave a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. c) H
ave a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) I nterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) C
onflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) C onflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 133
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

16 This page intentionally left blank.
134
Methodology

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 17
2 Methodology
The Project site includes an approximately 5.85-acre work area where the proposed construction will occur and a 100-foot survey buffer, for a total of 28.45 acres, herein referred to as the study area (Figure 2 ). Th e following sections describe the methodology for the literature review and field surveys.

2.1 Literature Review
Rincon conducted an updated literature review to characterize the nature and extent of biological resources on and adjacent to the Project site. Rincon reviewed Project-related documents, which included previous field surveys, including vegetation community mapping, jurisdictional delineations, tree inventory, botanical surveys, least Bell’s vireo (LBVI; Vireo bellii pusillus), CRLF, tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) habitat assessments, and roosting bat surveys conducted on the Project site. The following documents were reviewed:

San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project  Biological Resources Survey Report (Entrix 2010)
 I nitial Study /Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment (City 2007)  F inal Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment Addendum ( SAIC 2008)  C alifornia Red -Legged Frog and Other Wildlife Survey Report (SAIC 2007) Other Adjacent Projects
 Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Biological Resources Summary Report (URS 2014)  H ollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Natural Environment Study (NES; Caltrans 2015)  H ollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project IS-MND (URS 2015)  E kwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report (Rincon 2021)
 S an Jose Creek Multi -use Path Project BRA (Rincon 2019) Database queries of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Portal (2024a), USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; 2024b), CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; 2024a), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2024) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding State and federally listed species, and other special-status species, considered to have potential to occur. The CDFW CNDDB was queried for data within 5.0 miles of the Project site, while the remaining databases were queried for data within the Goleta, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle where the Project is located and the surrounding five quadrangles Dos Pueblos Canyon, Lake Cachuma, San Marcos Pass, Little Pine Mtn., and Santa Barbara (three remaining quadrangles of a standard nine-quad search consist solely of the Pacific Ocean). The results of database queries and lists of special-status species compiled from the project-related documents were reviewed by Rincon’s regional biological experts for accuracy and completeness.

The final list of special-status biological resources (species and sensitive natural communities) was 135
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

18 evaluated based on documented occurrences from the literature review and biologists’ expert opinions on species known to occur in the region. The evaluation results and justification were compiled into a table and are further discussed in Section 4.

The following resources were also re viewed for additional information on existing conditions relating to biological resources and site-specific conditions within the study area:
 C urrent and historical aerial photographs of the site (Google Earth 2024 and 2025)  Regional and site-specific topographic maps (USGS 2024)  Climatic data (U.S. Climate Data 2025)
 Un ited States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2025a)
 C DFW Special Animals List (20 25b)
 C DFW Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (202 5c)  C DFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System ( BIOS; 2024d)  iN aturalist (iNaturalist 2025)
The potential for wildlife movement corridors was evaluated based on the California Essential H
abitat Connectivity Project commissioned by the California Department of Transportation and CDFW (Spencer et al. 2010).

2.2 Field Reconnaissance Survey
Rincon biologists Kendra Bonsall and Julie Love conducted a reconnaissance-level field survey on March 20 and 21, 2024. Data from previous field surveys were used to inform the March 20 and 21, 2024 surveys. The survey on March 20, 2024 was conducted from 0915 to 1640 with temperatures ranging from 57 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit, partly cloudy skies, and calm winds (less than 5 miles per hour [mph]). The survey on March 21, 2024 was conducted from 0930 to 1345 with temperatures ranging from 58 to 65 degrees Fahrenheit, overcast skies, and calm winds. The survey was conducted as part of the BRA addendum to characterize the existing conditions within the study area, and to investigate the presence, or potential presence, of any newly listed or candidate special-status species. Field data were collected for vegetation communities, including sensitive vegetation communities, land covers, wildlife migration, and movement corridors. Portions of the project (i.e., Hollister Avenue Bridge) were previously evaluated in the study area (Entrix 2010, Caltrans 2015, URS 2014), and in those areas data collection was limited. Biological resources observed were photographed and recorded using a submeter-accurate Global Positioning System (GPS) unit (i.e., Geode GNS3 submeter) and Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) Field Maps application on Samsung tablets.

Plant species nomenclature and taxonomy followed T
he Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of
California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) and the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project eds. 2024). All plant species encountered were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible given the condition of the materials during the survey. The vegetation community mapping and classification system used for this analysis is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2024), and was modified as needed to accurately describe the existing habitats observed on-site. The land cover types that are not described in the MCV2 were classified using conventional naming practices (e.g., mixed woodland). 136
Methodology

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 19

2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation Survey
A jurisdictional delineation survey was conducted to document potentially jurisdictional waters within the Project site, concurrently with the reconnaissance survey on March 20 and 21, 2024. The survey was conducted on foot to identify and evaluate potential wetlands and non-wetland aquatic resources that might exhibit positive indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and/or presence of bed and banks that might constitute waters of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) waters of the United States (U.S.), CDFW-jurisdictional streambed/riparian habitat, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) waters of the State, California Coastal Commission (CCC) coastal wetlands, City wetlands, and City Streambeds Protection Areas (SPA). During the field delineation, general site characteristics were noted and vegetation present on-site was documented. Current federal and state policies, methods, and guidelines were used to identify and delineate potential jurisdictional waters (Appendix A). Data collection points in the study area were focused on areas containing potential wetland and non-wetland features and were chosen as best representation of the conditions at the study area. Detailed methodology is provided in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report prepared by Rincon (Rincon 2025; Appendix E).

2.4 Protected Tree Survey
A tree survey was conducted to inventory the protected native trees within the Project site, concurrently with the reconnaissance survey on March 20 and 21, 2024. Data from previous inventories from the Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project were used as feasible and expanded where needed (Caltrans 2015, URS 2014). Trees within the Project footprint with a diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) of 4 inches2 or greater were mapped and tree condition and level of expected impact were documented. A tree protection zone was mapped by recording the extent of the canopy at eight cardinal directions. This information was then provided to the Geographic Information System team, who produced a graphic of the tree protection zones within the Project site. The tree protection zone is defined as the area within the tree dripline out to approximately 5- feet from the dripline to account for the tree’s critical root zone.

Tree locations were recorded using a Geode GPS device capable of submeter accuracy and the ESRI F
ield Maps application on Samsung tablets, as close to the base of the trunk as possible.

Relationships among the trees (e.g., multiple trunks arising from the same root, mature clones of a no longer present parent tree) were not determined, as only above ground portions of the trees were examined. For each tree, the DBH was measured at 4.5 feet above natural grade using a DBH tape, or slightly higher or lower where a limb or swelling interfered; if the trunk split at or below 4.5 feet, the tree was considered a multi-trunk tree. Data collected included the following information for each tree: scientific and common name, DBH and visually estimated height, crown spread in eight compass directions representing the dripline, and a health assessment by visual tree assessment.

2 The City does not currently have a tree protection ordinance in place, but the General Plan Conservation Element (CE; City 2009) Policy CE-9 states that removal of mature native trees shall be mitigated. The General Plan CE-9 does not define mature native trees. As such, to err on the conservative side, mature/protected trees will be defined as any native tree measuring 4 inches or greater in DBH of the largest trunk. This value is based on the County Deciduous Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration Ordinance (County of Santa Barbara 2003), which protects deciduous oak trees measuring 4 inches DBH, although the Project is not required to meet the standards of this ordinance.

The same definition was used on the adjacent Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project. 137
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

20 This page intentionally left blank.
138
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 21
3 Existing Conditions
This section summarizes the general environmental setting, vegetation communities and land covers present, and plants and animals observed in the study area. Representative photographs of the study area are provided in Appendix B and a complete list of all plant and animal species observed on-site during the field surveys is presented as Appendix C.

3.1 Physical Characteristics
Topography and Geography
The study area is generally flat, ranging between approximately one and 52 feet above mean sea level. The weather in Santa Barbara County is typical of a Mediterranean climate. Summers are warm and dry while winters are cool and wet having an average high temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit and low of 53 degrees Fahrenheit, with average annual precipitation of 19.43 inches and most of the precipitation falling between November and March (U.S. Climate Data 2025). The study area is located within San Jose Creek, along SR 217, and consists primarily of a concrete channel.

The upstream portion of the study area is a natural channel, located upstream of the existing Hollister Avenue Bridge. Adjacent land uses include SR 217 to the east, commercial buildings to the west, the upstream natural channel portion of San Jose Creek (predominantly arroyo willow thickets) and adjacent parklands to the north, and the downstream natural portion of San Jose Creek to the south. The Hollister Avenue Bridge bisects the northern portion of the study area. San Jose Creek continues downstream until its confluence with the Pacific Ocean at Goleta Beach, approximately 0.9 mile downstream from the study area.

Watershed and Drainages
The study area is located in San Jose Creek, within the San Pedro Creek Watershed (12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 180600130202; USGS 2025). San Jose Creek is mapped as an intermittent stream at the upstream portion of the study area (within the natural channel) to Hollister Avenue Bridge and then mapped as a perennial stream river from Hollister Avenue Bridge to the downstream section of the concrete channel (USGS 2025). However, site conditions indicate that the perennial section of the creek does not extend entirely throughout the concrete channel and instead ends nearer to where the natural channel bottom meets the southern end of the concrete channel. San Jose Creek flows parallel to SR 217 (north to south) and eventually converges with San Pedro Creek and Atascadero Creek and ultimately leads to the Pacific Ocean via the Goleta Slough, approximately one mile south of the study area. No other jurisdictional features were observed or mapped by NWI or NHD within the study area.

Soils
The Web Soil Survey identifies three soil map units within the study area: Camarillo fine sandy loam, Elder sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 14, and Elder-Soboba complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes (USDA, NRCS 2025a,Figure 4 ). O nly the Camarillo fine sandy loam soil map unit is considered a hydric soil (USDA, NRCS 2025b). Each of these soils map units are described in detail below:
139
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

22 Figure 4 Soils

140
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 23
 Camarillo fine sandy loam (Ca) is a poorly drained soil occurring on flood plains. It is formed from alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock. A typical soil profile contains two distinct horizon; the first between 0 to 19 inches containing fine sandy loam, and the second horizon between 19 to 57 inches containing loam. The runoff class is low, and the soil is considered hydric. This soil is mapped within the southern portion of the study area and covers approximately 17 percent of the total area.
 E lder sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 14 (EaA) is a well-drained soil occurring on the flood plains and alluvial fans. It is formed from mixed alluvium and a typical soil profile contains four distinct horizons. The first horizon occurs between 0 to 8 inches and contains sandy loam, the second horizon occurs to a depth of 23 inches and contains sandy loam, the third horizon occurs to a depth of 31 inches and contains sandy loam, and the fourth horizon occurs to a depth of 60 inches and contain sandy loam. Available water storage is moderate (about 6.6 inches), and the runoff class is low. This soil is not considered hydric. This soil is mapped within the middle portions of the study area, between the other two mapped soil units, and covers approximately 55 percent of the total area.
 E lder -Soboba complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes (Eb) is a well-drained soil occurring on alluvial fans. It is formed from stratified alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. A typical soil profile contains two distinct horizons. The first horizon is between 0 to 30 inches and contains sandy loam, and the second horizon is between 30 to 72 inches and contains stratified loamy sand to loam. The runoff class is very medium, and the soil is not considered hydric. This soil is mapped within the natural channel at the northern portion of the study area and covers approximately 28 percent of the total area.

3.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Eight vegetation communities and four land cover types were documented within the study area during the field survey: annual brome grassland (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi- Natural Alliance), arroyo willow thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance), black cottonwood woodland (Populus trichocarpa Forest & Woodland Alliance), California sycamore coast live oak riparian woodland (Platanus racemosa – Quercus agrifolia Woodland Alliance), coyote brush scrub (Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance), eucalyptus grove (Eucalyptus spp. Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance), pickleweed mats (Sarcocornia pacifica [Salicornia virginica] Herbaceous Alliance), and the disturbed vegetation, mixed woodland, open water, urban development, and urban stream channel land cover types (Figure 5 a through Figure 5 e). F our vegetation communities designated as CDFW- sensitive are present in the study area, including arroyo willow thickets, black cottonwood woodland, California sycamore coast live oak riparian woodland, and pickleweed mats. Table 1 p
rovides the approximate acreage and percent area of the vegetation communities and land cover types within the study area.
141
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

24 Table 1 Summary of Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Biological Study Area
Type Approximate Acreage Approximate Percent Area
Vegetation Communities
Annual brome grassland 0.25 1%
Arroyo willow thickets*+ 0.80 3%
Black cottonwood woodland*+ 0.33 1%
California sycamore - coast live oak riparian woodlands*+ 0.35 1% Coyote brush scrub 0.82 3%
Eucalyptus groves 0.38 1%
Mixed woodland 0.33 1%
Pickleweed mats*+ 0.01 <1%
Subtotal 2.94
Land Cover Types
Disturbed vegetation – H ollister Avenue Bridge 0.31 1% Open water+ 0.13 1%
Urban development 20.20 71%
Urban stream channel 4.54 16%
Subtotal 25.51
Total 28.45 100%
*CDFW-sensitive natural community
+ City-de signated ESHA
Brief descriptions of the vegetation communities and land cover types present in the study area are provided below. Representative photographs of the vegetation communities and land cover types are provided in Appendix B. A list of plants observed within the study area during the surveys is provided in Appendix C.

Annual Brome Grassland
Wild oats and annual brome grasslands (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance) are generally found in open areas in valleys and foothills throughout coastal and interior California. This non-native vegetation community typically occurs on soils consisting of fine-textured loams or clays that are somewhat poorly drained. Non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs, primarily of Mediterranean origin, dominate this vegetation type, probably as a result of human disturbance. Scattered native grass and wildflower species, representing remnants of the original vegetation may also be common (Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2024). This vegetation alliance is ranked GNASNA due to the predominance of non-native species and is not considered sensitive (CDFW 2025a).

Annual brome grassland covers an approximately 0.25-a
cre section of the study area, along the west
side of the concrete channel at the southern portion of the study area and a small portion on the west side of the natural channel at the northern portion of the study area, outside of any impact areas. This vegetation community contains only non-native grasses and is dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). Other non-native species observed included redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and smilo grass (Stipa miliacea). 142
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 25
Figure 5a Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Overview

143
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

26 Figure 5b Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 1

144
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 27
Figure 5c Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 2

145
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

28 Figure 5d Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 3

146
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 29
Figure 5e Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 4

147
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

30 Arroyo Willow Thickets
Arroyo willow thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance) commonly occur along stream banks and benches, slope seeps, and alongside drainages between 0 to 7,120 feet above mean sea level. This native vegetation community is characterized by having arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) as dominant in the shrub canopy (>50% relative cover) (Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2024). This vegetation community (ranked G4S4) is considered a CDFW-sensitive natural community (CDFW 2025a).

Arroyo willow thickets c over an approximately 0.80-acre section of the study area, within the natural channel temporary impact area at the northern portion of the study area and adjacent to the pickleweed mats on the east bank at the southern portion of the study area, outside of the concrete channel temporary impact area. This vegetation community is dominated by arroyo willow. Other native species in this vegetation community include mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), creek clematis (Clematis ligusticifolia), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). A few patches of the invasive non-native giant reed (Arundo donax) are present in this vegetation community. Other non-native species observed included iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis) and cape ivy (Delairea odorata).

Black Cottonwood Woodland
Black cottonwood woodland (Populus trichocarpa Forest & Woodland Alliance) is primarily found in seasonally flooded and permanently saturated soils on stream banks and alluvial terraces. This native vegetation community is characterized by having black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) dominant or co-dominant in the tree canopy with other species such as white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and arroyo willow (Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2024). This vegetation community (ranked G5S3) is considered a CDFW-sensitive natural community (CDFW 2025a).

Within the study area, black cottonwood woodland covers an approximately 0.33-acre section at
the northern-most section of the study area. A small portion of this vegetation community is within the natural channel temporary impact area. This vegetation community is dominated by black cottonwood. Other native species found included white alder, island cherry tree (Prunus ilicifolia ssp. lyonia), blue elderberry (Sambucus Mexicana), and arroyo willow. Non-native species observed included cape ivy, shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei), and blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus).

California Sycamore Coast Live Oak Riparian Woodland
California sycamore - coast live oak riparian woodlands (Platanus racemosa – Quercus agrifolia Woodland Alliance) are typically found in gullies, intermittent streams, springs, seeps, stream banks, and terraces adjacent to floodplains that are subject to high-intensity flooding and consist of rocky or cobbly alluvium with permanent moisture at depth. Elevations for this native community range between two and 7,874 feet above mean sea level. California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) are dominant in the tree layer in a riparian setting (Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2024). This vegetation community is ranked G3S3, which is considered a CDFW-sensitive natural community (CDFW 2025a).

This vegetation community covers an approximately 0.35-acre section of the study area at the northernmost section of the study area. A portion of this vegetation community intersects the natural channel temporary impact area. California sycamore coast live oak riparian woodlands are dominated by California western sycamore and coast live oaks. Other native species within the vegetation community included arroyo willow, California bay (Umbellularia californica), and wild 148
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 31
cucumber (Marah fabacea). Non-n ative species observed included shamel ash, English ivy ( Hedera helix), and garden nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus).

Coyote Brush Scrub
Coyote brush scrub (Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance) is typically found on coastal bluffs, terraces, stabilized dunes of coastal bars, spits along the coastline, river mouths, stream sides, open exposed slopes, ridges, and gaps in forest stands. Soils are variable, sandy to relatively heavy clay.

The shrub canopy is dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), deer weed (Acmispon glaber), and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and occasional coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees. The shrub canopy is generally relatively open with a scattered distribution of shrubs with annual grasses such as wild oats (Avena spp.) and bromes (Bromus spp.), and annual herbs such as redstem filaree in gaps between shrubs (Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2024). This vegetation community is ranked G5S5, which is not considered a sensitive natural community (CDFW 2025a).

Coyote brush scrub covers an approximately 0.82-ac re section of the study area, along the east side of the downstream end of the concrete channel, along the State Route (SR) 217, outside of any impact areas. The vegetation community is dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Non- native species observed included pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), fountain grass (Pennisetum alopecuroides), and castor bean (Ricinus communis).

Disturbed Vegetation – Hollister Avenue Bridge
The disturbed vegetation land cover type is not characterized in the MCV2 classification system.

Disturbed vegetation covers approximately 0.31 acre in the study area, within Hollister Avenue Bridge area at the northern end of the study area. Vegetation species in this land cover type were removed during the separate project associated with Hollister Avenue Bridge. Remaining vegetation is sparse and previously disturbed, consisting primarily of annual non-native grasses, such as wild oats and bromes.

Eucalyptus Groves
Eucalyptus groves (Eucalyptus spp. Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance) are found planted as trees, groves, and windbreaks, as well as in settings where it has become naturalized on uplands or bottomlands and adjacent to stream courses, lakes, or levees from zero to 6,234 feet above mean sea level. Eucalyptus species (Eucalyptus spp.) contain more than 80 percent cover within the tree layer (Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2024). This vegetation community is ranked GNASNA and is not considered sensitive (CDFW 2025a).

Eucalyptus groves c
over an approximately 0.38-acre section of the study area, in a small area in the northeastern portion of the study area, outside of any impact areas. This vegetation community is dominated by arroyo willow. Other native species in this vegetation community include mugwort, California blackberry, and poison oak. A few patches of the invasive non-native giant reed are present in this vegetation community. Other non-native species observed included iceplant and cape ivy.

32 California black walnut (Juglans californica) (some of which appear to have been planted as part of a previously existing orchard, that were cut and have resprouted from their bases), jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), and other non-native grasses. The understory is disturbed and consists primarily of annual non-native grasses dominated by cape ivy and garden nasturtium.

Open Water
The open water land cover type is not characterized in the MCV2 classification system. The open water land cover type includes the portion of San Jose Creek within the natural channel and concrete channel at the southernmost end of the study area. Open water covers approximately 0.13 acre in the study area. This land cover type is mostly devoid of vegetation and bordered by arroyo willow thickets on the east bank and urban development on the west bank. Shorebirds such as snowy egret (Egretta thula) and great blue heron (Ardea Herodias) may feed in this land cover type.

Additionally, native fish species, such as the federally endangered tidewater goby and top smelt (Atherinops affinis) may utilize the open water land cover type, specifically in the natural channel.

Pickleweed Mats
Pickleweed mats (Sarcocornia pacifica [Salicornia depressa] Herbaceous Alliance) are found on coastal salt marshes and alkaline flats. Native pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica) is dominant or co- dominant in the subshrub and herbaceous layers with algae and other species such as bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), swamp grass (Crypsis schoenoides), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), and alkali heath (Frankenia salina) (Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2024). This vegetation community is ranked G4S3, which is considered a CDFW-sensitive natural community (CDFW 2025a).

Pickleweed mats c over less than 0.01-acre section of the study area, in a small area on the eastern bank at the downstream portion of the study area, outside of any impact areas. This vegetation community is dominated by pickleweed with alkali heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) also present. No non-native species were observed in this vegetation community.

Urban Development
The urban development land cover is characterized by type existing paved areas, roads, structures, or other urban areas that have limited vegetative cover due to pavement or compaction; landscaped and ornamental vegetation is present.

Within the study area, the urban development lan d cover type covers the greatest area in the study area, at approximately 20.20 acres. Urban development includes the existing Hollister Avenue Bridge, the concrete channel, rip rap along the west bank of the natural channel, SR 217, and Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park. Native species observed included coyote brush, western sycamore, and black cottonwood saplings in the concrete channel. Non-native species observed included red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), bottlebrush (Callistemon sp.), castor bean, tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and ornamental shrubs and trees.

Urban Stream Channel
The urban stream channel land cover includes the portion of San Jose Creek in the concrete channel.

Within the study area, the urban stream channel land cover type covers most of San Jose Creek within the study area, at approximately 4.54 acres. The urban stream channel is entirely lined with concrete, surrounded by urban development, and devoid of vegetation. During the dry months, the urban stream channel generally lacks surface flow.
150
Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 33

3.3 General Wildlife
Various wildlife species were observed in the study area. Riparian and woodland habitats support a robust suite of passerine species in the study area. Common avian species observed included California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus). Three nests were observed during the surveys on March 20 and 21, 2024; one unidentified nest located under Hollister Avenue Bridge, one unidentified nest at the northern portion of the study area, on the east bank of San Jose Creek, and one raptor nest at the northeastern portion of the study area in a eucalyptus tree. A spotted towhee was observed in the nest on the east bank of San Jose Creek. However, spotted towhees typically nest on the ground and was likely scavenging the nest. The surveyors could not confirm the species or if the nests were active or not during the reconnaissance survey. Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) was also observed. No mammals were observed in the study area, but a vole (Microtus californicus) mortality was observed just outside of the study area, along Hollister Avenue. An individual monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) was observed flying through the study area. No overwintering monarch roosts were observed. No aquatic species were observed, other than invertebrates. Special-status species are discussed below in Sections 4 a nd 5. A complete list of all
p
lant and animal species observed on-site during the field surveys is presented as Appendix C. 151
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

34 This page intentionally left blank.
152
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 35
4 Sensitive Biological Resources
This section discusses special-status species and sensitive biological resources observed in the study area and evaluates the potential for the project site to support additional special-status species and sensitive biological resources. Assessments for the potential occurrence of special-status species are based upon known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the database review, previous reports for the project site, and the results of surveys of the project site.

The potential for each special-status species to occur in the study area was evaluated according to the following criteria:
 N o Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime), and species would have been identifiable on the site if present (e.g., oak trees). Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species.  Lo
w Potential. Few of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species.
 Mo
derate Potential . Some of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.  H
igh Potential. All the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.
 P resent. Species was observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently (within the last five years).

4.1 Special-Status Species
The literature review identified 86 special-status plant and animal species (28 plant species and 58 wildlife species) that are known to occur in the vicinity of the study area. Of these 86 species, 14 species (6 plants and 25 animals) were evaluated as having potential to occur. A discussion of the findings is provided in each section below. A complete list of special-status species evaluated for this Project is presented in Appendix D.

Special-Status Plant Species
Based on the results of the literature review and field surveys, five special-status plant species have a low potential to occur within the study area and one special-status plant species has a moderate potential to occur within the study area, Santa Barbara honeysuckle (CRPR List 1B.2, Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata). No special-status plant species have a high potential to occur within the study area. Each special-status plant species, its listing status, and its potential to occur is included in Table 2 .
153
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

36 Table 2 Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur within the Study Area Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Potential to Occur
Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s saltbush CRPR 1B.2 Low Potential Atriplex serenana var. d avidsonii Davidson’s saltscale CRPR 1B.2 Low Potential Centromadia parryi ssp. australis southern tarplant CRPR 1B.1 Low Potential Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata Santa Barbara honeysuckle CRPR 1B.2 Moderate Potential Ribes amarum var. hoffmannii Hoffman’s bitter gooseberry CRPR 3 Low Potential Suaeda esteroa estuary seablite CRPR 1B.2 Low Potential CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank
1B = Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 3 = Need more information (Review List)
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened/ high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-8 0% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 1 CDFW 2025b
For the purposes of this BRA, special-status plant species that have a low potential to occur are not addressed further in this section. The remaining 22 special-status plant species identified during the literature review are not anticipated to occur based on a variety of factors, including the disturbance history of the site, lack of suitable soils or habitat, the study area’s location in relation to the species known geographic range, elevation of the site, and/or inappropriate hydrologic conditions. Please see Appendix D for complete justification on each species’ potential to occur. No special-status plants were observed during the reconnaissance-level survey. However, note that the surveys were not protocol-level botanical surveys and did not include systematic transects over the entire study area. In addition, some species are annual and may not be evident and identifiable outside of blooming periods. Species with a moderate potential to occur within the study area (Santa Barbara honeysuckle) are further discussed below.

Santa Barbara Honeysuckle
Santa Barbara honeysuckle is a perennial evergreen shrub/v ine commonly found in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats. The species is ranked by the CNPS as a List 1B.2 species, meaning the species is moderately threatened in California. Suitable woodland habitat is present within the northern (upstream) portion of the study area. Thirteen CNDDB occurrences are documented within 5 miles of the study area. The closest occurrence is approximately 2 miles southwest of the study area, near Los Carneros Road, from 2013 (Occurrence 143). The species was not observed during the field reconnaissance survey on March 20 and 21, 2024; if the species was present, it would be identifiable given its shrub life form and the survey being conducted during its blooming season. The species has a moderate potential to occur in the study area.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
Based on the results of the literature review and field reconnaissance survey, a total of 26 special- status wildlife species have potential to occur within the study area. Thirteen special-status wildlife species have a low potential to occur within the study area, 11 have a moderate potential, one has a high potential to occur, and one is present. Each special-status wildlife species, its listing status, and its potential to occur is included in Table 3 .
154
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 37
Table 3 Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur within the Study Area Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Potential to Occur
Invertebrates
Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee SA Low (foraging) Low (nesting)
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee SCE Low (foraging)
No Potential (nesting)
Bombus pensylvanicus American bumble bee SA Low(foraging) Low (nesting)
Danaus plexippus monarch butterfly FPT Present (individual) Low Potential (overwintering)
Fish
Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby FE, SSC High
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10 steelhead - southern California DPS FE, SE Moderate Amphibians
Rana draytonii California red-l egged frog FT, SSC Moderate ( transient) Low (estivation)
Taricha torosa coast range newt SSC Low (transient)
L
ow (estivation)
Reptiles
Anniella pulchra Northern C alifornia legless lizard SSC Low (transient) L
ow (estivation)
Actinemys pallida southwestern pond turtle FPT,
SSC
Moderate (transient)
L
ow (estivation)
Birds
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk WL Moderate ( nesting) Moderate (foraging)
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird ST, SSC Low ( nesting) Low (foraging)
Ardea alba great egret SA No Potential ( nesting)
Moderate (foraging)
Ardea herodias great blue heron SA No Potential ( nesting) Moderate (foraging)
Coccyzus americanus yellow-bi lled cuckoo FT, SE Low (nesting) L
ow (foraging)
Elanus leucurus white tailed kite FP Low ( nesting)
Moderate (foraging)
Empidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher FE, SE Low ( nesting) Low (foraging)
Nannopterum auritum double-c rested cormorant WL No Potential ( nesting) Low (foraging)
Nycticorax nycticorax black-c rowned night heron SA No Potential (nesting) L
ow (foraging)
Rallus obsoletus levipes light-f ooted Ridgway's rail FE, SE No Potential (nesting) L
ow (foraging)
Riparia riparia bank swallow ST Low ( nesting)
Low (foraging)
155
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

38 Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Potential to Occur Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s vireo FE, SE Moderate ( nesting) Moderate (foraging)
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat SSC Low ( roosting)
Moderate (foraging)
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-ea red bat SSC Low (roosting) L
ow (foraging)
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat SA Moderate (roosting)
M
oderate (foraging)
Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis SA Moderate (roosting)
M
oderate (foraging)
FE = Federal Endangered
FT = F ederal Threatened
FC = F ederal Candidate
FPT = F ederal Proposed Threatened
SE = S tate Endangered
ST = S tate Threatened
SCE = S tate Candidate Endangered
SSC = C DFW Species of Special Concern
FP = C DFW Fully Protected
WL = C DFW Watch List
SA = C DFW Special Animal
1 CDFW 2025b
The remaining special-status wildlife species are not anticipated to occur based on a variety of factors, including the disturbance history of the site, lack of suitable habitat, inappropriate hydrologic conditions, and/or the study area location in relation to the species known elevation range. A summarized life history account, rationale for each wildlife species with moderate or high potential to occur, and where in the study area the species has potential to occur is provided within the subsections below. Species that are not federally or state-listed (e.g., CDFW Special Animal) or with low potential to occur are not included in the subsections below. Please see Appendix D for complete justification on each species’ potential to occur.

Monarch B
utterfly
The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a Federally Proposed Threatened (FPT) and CDFW Special Animal species that is known for their long-distant annual migration. The California overwintering populations overwinter in roost sites that extend along the Pacific coast from northern Mendocino County to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts are located in wind-protected tree groves (typically eucalyptus, Monterey pine, or Monterey cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. The large aggregations are typically in groves that offer wind protection, slightly warmer temperatures, and basking sites. Large aggregations are fairly predictable as monarchs typically use the same sites each year (Meade 1999). Roosting branches are commonly found over drainages, as the drainage provides an exit for cold air in extreme weather, helping to protect butterflies from freezing (Meade 2013).

Suitable habitat may be present within the eucalyptus grove, in the n ortheast portion of the study
area, outside of the Project site. Overwintering populations have been observed as recently as 2023 within eucalyptus trees of the neighboring areas, approximately 0.15 mile west of the study area.

The closest overwintering sites are approximately 0.2 mile north of the study area (Xerces Site ID:
2763) and 0.15 mile west of the study area (Xerces Site ID: 3174; Xerces 2024). An individual monarch was observed during the March 2024 survey. No overwintering sites were observed within the study area. However, the survey was conducted at the end of the overwintering season (October – March). Eucalyptus trees within the study area are limited. The groves are not dense 156
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 39
enough and lack edge barriers to provide wind protection and insulation, lack understory plants for nectar source and a good water source. Individual species are present within the study area and may transit through the study area. However, there is a low potential for the species to overwinter within the study area.

Tidewater Goby
Tidewater goby is a Federally Endangered (FE) species and a CDFW Species of Species Concern (SSC).

This is an estuarine/lagoon-adapted species that is endemic to the California coast, mainly in small lagoons and near stream mouths in the uppermost brackish portion of larger bays. Tidewater gobies inhabit discrete lagoons, estuaries, or stream mouths separated by mostly marine conditions, and are generally absent from areas where the coastline is steep and streams do not form lagoons or estuaries. Reproduction begins in spring, usually late April or May, and continues into the fall, although usually the greatest numbers of offspring are produced in the first half of this time period.

The reproductive period is generally associated with the closure and filling of the estuary (late spring to fall). Breeding occurs in slack, shallow waters of seasonally disconnected or tidally muted lagoons, estuaries, and sloughs (USFWS 2005).

Suitable habitat for this species is found in the study area within the downstream portion of San Jose Creek. The Goleta Slough, including the lower portions of the Atascadero, San Jose, and San Pedro creeks, are considered designated critical habitat for the species. The mapped critical habitat is just south/downstream (approximately 40 feet) of the Project site, overlapping with a small portion of the southern extent of the study area. Critical habitat does not extend into the work area within the concrete channel. The closest occurrence is approximately 0.65 miles south at the Goleta Slough and mouth of the Atascadero Creek, south of the SR 217 bridge (Occurrence 90, CDFW 2024a). No tidewater gobies were observed during the 2024 March field surveys or protocol tidewater goby surveys conducted in 2010 (Entrix 2010). The species has a high potential to occur in the study area, specifically in the downstream natural channel. However, if individuals were present, they would be located outside the work area. The species has moderate potential to occur in the downstream end of the work area, specifically in the last 200 feet of the concrete channel.

However, habitat is poor due to the concrete nature of the channel and its presence would be limited to when water is present in suitable depths in the concrete channel. The concrete channel may provide suitable habitat for transit and foraging but does not support breeding habitat. The species is not expected in the majority of the concrete channel nor in the upstream natural channel as there are not sufficient flows nor suitable tidally influenced habitat in these areas.

Steelhead –
Southern California DPS
So uthern California steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10) is a FE and State Endangered (SE) species. The range of the species is from the Santa Maria River along the San Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara County line in the north to the Tijuana River just north of the United States/Mexico border in the south. Southern California steelhead (steelhead) requires cool, clear, well-oxygenated water with sufficient food, but they have adapted to living under highly variable environmental conditions. Important aquatic environmental factors for steelhead include temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and water depth.

Habitat quality for steelhead within the Goleta Slough Complex, which includes San Jose, San Pedro, M
aria Ygnacio, and Atascadero creeks, varies greatly within the watershed. Within San Jose Creek, the habitat quality transitions from low quality within and downstream of the study area, to good quality habitat upstream where upstream spawning and rearing habitats exists (NOAA NMFS 2012). 157
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

40 In addition, San Jose Creek is designated critical habitat for the species (NOAA 2021). The study area lacks rearing pool habitat, and the substrate is primarily silt and sand. Surveys for the species were conducted in June and October 2013 by URS (URS 2014). There are no documented CNDDB records of this species within five miles of the study area (CDFW 2024d). However, there are multiple historical sightings of the species in San Jose Creek as documented in Stoecker et al. 2002, including a sighting of one 23-inch individual trying to swim up the concrete channel in 1975 and numerous recent sightings upstream of Cathedral Oaks Road in 2024 (iNaturalist 2025). At the time of the survey, the creek was dry, and no steelhead were observed. Steelhead have a moderate potential to occur during high flow, migration periods, and a low potential to spawn within the study area.

Southwe stern Pond Turtle
The s outhwestern pond turtle ( SWPT; Actinemys pallida) is a FPT species and SSC. The species is found in ponds, lakes, rivers, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches, with abundant vegetation (Reese 1996). It requires basking sites of logs, rocks, cattail mats, or exposed banks. Pond turtle is active from approximately February to November. It will estivate during summer droughts by burying itself in soft bottom mud. When creeks and ponds dry up in summer, some turtles will travel along the creek until they find an isolated deep pool, others stay within moist mats of algae in shallow pools, and many turtles move to woodlands above the creek or pond and bury themselves in loose soil. Pond turtle will overwinter underground until temperatures warm up and the heavy winter flows of the creek subside (Holland 1994, Bury and Germano 2008).

Suitable habitat for this species is found in the study area within San Jose Creek and its adjacent u
pland habitat. However, the study area lacks basking habitat within the creek. The species would likely be found foraging or moving through the area and is unlikely to be found nesting. The closest occurrence is approximately 0.75 mile east of the study area within Atascadero Creek from 2009 (Occurrence 106, CDFW 2024a). This species has a moderate potential to transit through the study area but has a low potential to be found breeding within the study area.

California Red- Legged Frog
CRLF, a F ederally Threatened (FT) species and SSC, occurs in lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation. Breeding for CRLF generally occurs between November and April in permanent and semi-permanent natural ponds, backwater portions of streams, and small artificial impoundments. This species requires 11- 20 weeks of permanent water for larval development and must have access to estivation habitat (USFWS 2002). The juveniles inhabit slow moving, shallow riffle habitats in creeks or margins of ponds, whereas adults can be found close to ponds or deep pools in creeks where there is emergent vegetation, undercut banks, or root wads that offer shelter from predators. Adults may also be found in a variety of upland areas near ephemeral water bodies or away from the water taking refuge in small mammal or other animal burrows. CRLF movements are variable, and dispersing individuals can travel over land between breeding sites up to 1.7 miles (Bulger et al. 2003).

Movements often occur along riparian corridors; however, drier upland sites are utilized during the rainy season.

San Jose Creek contains intermittent and perennial freshwater habitat and may provide areas for C
RLF migration during the rainy season, specifically in the natural channel portion of the study area.

Multiple observations of this species have been documented within 5 miles of the study area (CDFW 2024a). The closest observation is approximately 3.6 miles north of the study area in an unidentified location in the Santa Ynez Mountain range, but the occurrence is historical (1969, Occurrence 20). 158
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 41
CRLF movements are variable, and dispersing individuals can travel over land between breeding sites up to 1.7 miles (Bulger et al. 2003). Movements often occur along riparian corridors; however, drier upland sites are utilized during the rainy season. The study area is not considered suitable estivation habitat based on the lack of areas with deep (greater than 1.6 feet) still or slow-moving water. Adult CRLFs have a moderate potential to occur during times of migration, most specifically in the natural channel, but have a low potential to be found breeding within the study area.

Cooper’s Hawk
The Cooper’s hawk
(Accipiter cooperii) is a CDFW Watchlist (WL) species that typically inhabits woodlands and forest edges but can also be found in urban parks and neighborhoods where trees are present. Nests are constructed 25 to 50 feet high in a variety of tree species, including pines, oaks, beeches, and spruces. Nests are made of sticks and are often lined with bark flakes and green twigs. Cooper’s hawks are aerial predators that feed primarily on medium-sized birds, such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American robin (Turdus migratorius), California quail (Callipepla californica), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). In addition to preying on adult birds, Cooper’s hawks will also occasionally rob nests and hunt rabbits, rodents, and bats (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2024a).

Suitable foraging habitat for the species is present throughout the study area, and suitable nesting h
abitat for the species exists in the study area. The closest occurrence is approximately 1.4 miles east of the study area within More Mesa from 2009 (Occurrence 30, CDFW 2024a). The Cooper’s hawk has a moderate potential to forage and nest within the study area.

White Tailed Kite
White-t ailed kite (Elanus leucurus), a state Fully Protected (FP) species, breeds regularly along the Santa Barbara coastline. This species nests in trees, usually with a dense canopy, but nest trees can vary from single, isolated trees to trees within large woodlands, including (in order of frequency used) oaks, pines, Monterey cypress, eucalyptus, and willows (Holmgren 2000). Nest and roost trees are often placed in woodlands adjacent to grasslands, meadows, or marshes which are utilized as foraging habitat.

The study area provides suitable nesting and roosting habitat for the species, as large eucalyptus are p
resent within the study area. The closest occurrence is approximately 1.5 miles east of the study area within More Mesa in 2009 (Occurrence 115, CDFW 2024a). This species has a moderate potential to transient through the study area but has a low potential to be found breeding within the Study Area.

Least Bell’s Vireo
LBVI is
a FE and SE species, largely associated with early successional (5 to 10 years old) riparian scrub and woodlands with a developed canopy layer and dense shrubs at 3 to 6 feet. Preferred habitat is typically dominated by species such as willows (Salix spp.), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). The most critical structural component of nesting habitat in California is a dense shrub layer 2 to 10 feet above the ground. For foraging LBVI requires structurally diverse canopy, with a preference for heights between 10 and 20 feet (USFWS 1989, Kus 1998, USFWS 1998). LBVI primarily eat insects and spiders (Sibley 2014), often foraging on willows within riparian habitat.
159
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

42 Marginally suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present within the arroyo willow thickets at the northern portion of the study area. Riparian habitat within the study area contains relatively narrow and limited willow with high levels of ambient disturbance from the adjacent public pathways.

There are no known occurrences within five miles of the study area (CNDDB 2024a). Focused LBVI surveys were conducted for the City for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project between May and July 2021, and no LBVI were detected (Rincon 2021). Based on habitat conditions within the study area, LBVI is unlikely to utilize the area for nesting. LBVI has a moderate potential to occur as a transient, foraging, or migratory species.

Pallid Bat
The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) is a SSC that occurs over a wide variety of habitat types, including deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. While it is most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting, it can be found roosting under bridges and in some areas in old structures such as barns. They are very sensitive to disturbance of their roost sites, and these sites must protect bats from high temperatures. The pallid bat is a resident species that occurs throughout the state, commonly at elevations below 6,000 feet.

Marginally suitable woodland habitat and Hollister Avenue Bridge are p resent at the northern
portion of the study area. However, the Hollister Avenue Bridge is heavily trafficked by humans. No suitable shrubland, rocky and open dry areas, or low disturbance roosting areas are present within the study area. The closest occurrence is approximately 2.9 miles west of the Study Area near Coal Oil Point in 2017 (Occurrence 84, CDFW 2024a). The pallid bat has a low potential to roost and moderate potential to forage within the study area.

Other Protected Species
Nesting Birds
The s tudy area contains habitat that can support nesting birds, including raptors, protected under CFGC Section 3503 and the MBTA (16 United States Code Sections 703–712). Potential nesting sites for raptors within the study area are located within the woodland, eucalyptus grove, and riparian habitats. Other species of birds are also likely to utilize the shorter chaparral shrub habitat (i.e., coyote brush) within the study area. Furthermore, nests were identified in the study area during the reconnaissance survey, as described in Section 3.3.

4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat
CDFW-Sensitive Natural Communities
Vegetation communities are considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions, have high wildlife value, include special-status species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance. The CDFW ranks natural and sensitive communities using NatureServe’s Heritage Methodology, the same system used to assign global and state rarity ranks for plant and animal species in the CNDDB. Plant communities with a rating of S1, S2, or S3 are considered sensitive communities by the CDFW. One sensitive natural vegetation community within 5 miles of the study area was identified during the literature review: southern coastal salt marsh. This vegetation community is approximately 0.90 mile southwest of the study area, within the Goleta Slough State Marine Conservation Area.
160
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 43
The current Sensitive Natural Communities List (CDFW 2025a) was referenced to determine sensitivity status of the vegetation communities and landcover types within the study area. Four vegetation communities that are designated as CDFW-sensitive were identified during the field survey and are present in the study area: arroyo willow thickets, black cottonwood woodland, California sycamore coast live oak riparian woodland, and pickleweed mats. These vegetation communities are also considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), as described below in Section 4.5.

Arroyo willow thickets, black cottonwood woodland, and California sycamore coast live oak riparian w
oodlands are located at the northern (upstream) portion of the study area. These communities are mature, healthy, and varied in complexity and have the potential to support common and sensitive wildlife species as described herein. Pickleweed mats are located in a small portion on the east bank of the southern (downstream) portion of the study area. No other vegetation alliances designated sensitive or potentially rare in the hierarchical list are present in the study area.

Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for two species was identified in the study area: steelhead - southern California DPS and tidewater goby (Figure 6 ). Critical habitat for steelhead - southern California DPS has been designated within San Jose Creek, extending from the Santa Ynez Mountains to the Pacific Ocean (NOAA 2021). The entirety of the Project site is within designated critical habitat for steelhead - southern California DPS. Tidewater goby critical habitat is within the study area, but outside of the Project site, approximately 40 feet southwest (downstream) of the Project site.

No other critical habitat is designated within the study area. CRLF c ritical habitat is located
approximately 5 miles north of the study area, in the Santa Ynez mountain range. Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines) critical habitat is designated along the shoreline of the Ellwood Mesa Open Space, approximately 2.75 miles southwest of the study area.

4.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
Based upon the findings of Rincon’s jurisdictional delineation, San Jose Creek is subject to USACE, Central Coast RWQCB, CDFW, CCC, and City jurisdiction. A brief summary of the creek’s characteristics and jurisdictional waters is included herein. A detailed analysis of jurisdictional waters is included in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for the Project (Rincon 2025), which is included as Appendix E. See Figure
7 a t hrough Figure 7 e for the location and extent of jurisdiction w
ithin the study area. Table 4 b elow summarizes the total acreage of jurisdictional waters within the study area.

Table 4 Potentially Jurisdictional Waters Delineated within the Study Area USACE RWQCB CDFW CCC City City
Feature
Non-
wetland
Waters of
the U.S.
(acres/
linear feet)
Wetland
Waters of
the U.S.
(acres/
linear feet)
Non-
wetland
Waters of
the State
(acres/
linear feet)
Wetland
Waters
of the
State
(acres/
linear feet)
CDFW-
jurisdictional
Streambeds
(acres/
linear feet)
Coastal
Wetlands
(acres/
linear
feet)
Wetlands
(acres/
linear feet)
Streamside
Protection
Areas
(acres/
linear feet)
San Jose
Creek

4.73/4,741 – 6.78/4,741 – 6.78/4,765 0.28/247 1.65/580 30.60/5,022 161
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

44 Figure 6 Critical Habitat

162
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 45
Figure 7a Jurisdictional Waters – Overview

163
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

46 Figure 7b Jurisdictional Waters – Panel 1

164
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 47
Figure 7c Jurisdictional Waters – Panel 2

165
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

48 Figure 7d Jurisdictional Waters – Panel 3

166
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 49
Figure 7e Jurisdictional Waters – Panel 4

167
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

50 San Jose Creek flows north to southwest through the study area and leads to the Goleta Slough which leads to the Pacific Ocean. Within the study area, the upstream natural channel and the concrete channel of San Jose Creek is an intermittent system; the riverbed surface is dry for most of the year, except during storm events. Within the study area, the downstream natural channel of San Jose Creek is a perennial system with and estuarine influence from the Goleta Slough; water is present year-round.

San Jose C reek 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.

The findings and conclusions presented in this report regarding regulatory agency jurisdiction over S
an Jose Creek represent the professional opinion of the consultant biologists. These findings and conclusions should be considered preliminary and at final discretion of the applicable resource agency.

4.4 Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between areas of suitable habitat that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated wildlife populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein wildlife periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return. Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young wildlife. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network. The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, commissioned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and CDFW, identifies “Natural Landscape Blocks” which support native biodiversity and the “Essential Connectivity Areas” which link them (Spencer et al. 2010).

No mapped wildlife movement corridors are present within the study area.

However, the study area
includes San Jose Creek which is an important water source that wildlife may travel through.

Surrounding vegetated areas at the northern and southern end of the Study Area provide suitable small-scale wildlife movement corridors for wildlife to travel locally and are important in linking non-contiguous or fragmented wildlife habitats. The Project site itself, is surrounded by urban development, including SR 217, Hollister Avenue Bridge, and Johnny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park, which make it less ideal as a wildlife movement route.
168
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 51

4.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances
The study area occurs within the city of Goleta and is subject to the City of Goleta General Plan and City of Goleta Creek and Watershed Management Plan policies. Chapter 4 of the City of Goleta General Plan (City of Goleta 2006) includes policies to protect biological resources, mature trees, water quality and wildlife nurseries, and movement corridors. San Jose Creek and associated riparian areas (i.e., arroyo willow thickets, California sycamore-coast live oak riparian woodland, black cottonwood woodland, and pickleweed mat vegetation communities) are considered to be EHSAs under the City of Goleta General Plan. The policies which specifically address issues of environmental protection are provided in Appendix A.

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
The City defines ESHA as areas in which plant or animal life or their habitats are rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem, and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities. ESHAs include habitats such as riparian or marsh areas, wetlands, open water, oak woodlands, and habitats for special-status species (e.g., raptor roosting habitat) (City 2009).

Within the study area, the City designates San
Jose Creek as Riparian/Marsh/Vernal Pool ESHA. Field
verification indicates that Riparian and Marsh ESHA is present in the study area; however, vernal pools were not identified within the study area. Additionally, field verification indicates that Raptor Roosting ESHA and Open Water ESHA are present.

Four v
egetation communities and one land cover type qualify as ESHA and are present in the study area as follows:
 R iparian ESHA and Raptor Roosting ESHA : black cottonwood woodland, California sycamore- coast live oak riparian woodland
 R iparian ESHA : arroyo willow thickets
 Ma rsh ESHA : pickleweed mats
 O pen Water ESHA : open water
Arroyo willow thickets, black cottonwood woodland, and California sycamore-c oast live oak riparian woodlands are located at the northern (upstream) portion of the study area. These communities are mature, healthy, and varied in complexity and have the potential to support common and sensitive wildlife species. Pickleweed mats are located in a small portion on the east bank of the southern (downstream) portion of the study area. Open water includes the portion of San Jose Creek within the natural channel at the southernmost end of the study area. These communities, except for the open water land cover type, are also designated as CDFW-sensitive natural communities as described in Section 4.2. N o other vegetation communities or land cover types designated as ESHA are present in the study area.

Protected Trees
The City does not currently have a tree protection ordinance in place, but the General Plan Conservation Element (CE; City 2009) Policy CE-9 states that removal of mature native trees shall be mitigated. The General Plan CE-9 does not define mature native trees. As such, to err on the 169
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

52 conservative side, mature/protected trees were defined in this report as any native tree measuring 4 inches or greater in DBH of the largest trunk. This value is based on the County Deciduous Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration Ordinance (County of Santa Barbara 2003), which protects deciduous oak trees measuring 4 inches DBH, although the Project is not required to meet the standards of this ordinance. The same definition was used on the adjacent Hollister Avenue Bridge Project.

A total of 47 protected trees of 8 species were documented during the native tree survey, primarily in the northern portion of the study area (Figure 8 a through Figure 8 c). O f the 47 trees, 45 have at least one trunk that is 4 inches in DBH or greater, including the Sister Witness Tree, and therefore are considered City protected trees. The Sister Witness Tree is a historic sycamore tree known for its significance in local heritage and environmental conservation. The Sister Witness Tree is located on the west bank of San Jose Creek at the northern portion of the study area, within the California sycamore-coast live oak riparian woodlands, outside the Project site. The native trees are primarily within the black cottonwood woodlands, California sycamore-coast live oak riparian woodlands, and arroyo willow thick vegetation communities. Three unidentified native trees were observed at the northern portion of the study area, two which are outside of the Project site and one within the Project site. Table
5 b elow shows the number of protected trees with DBH range in the study area.

Table 5 Summary of Protected Native Trees in Study Area Common Name Scientific Name
Number of Trees
in Study Area
Diameter at Breast Height
(DBH) Range
Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis 15 3 – 12
Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 6 5 – 25
Blue elderberry Sambucus mexicana 3 6 – 16
California bay Umbellularia californica 1 >4
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 4 >4 – 30
Other native tree Unknown 3 >4 – 11
Southern California black walnut Juglans californica 3 11 – 16 Western sycamore Platanus racemosa 10 8 – 199*
White alder Alnus rhombifolia 2 12 – 14
Total Number of Trees 47
*Sister Witness Tree (City of Goleta 2012)

4.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
The Project is not subject to an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, habitat conservation plans are not mentioned further.
170
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 53
Figure 8a Native Tree Locations – Overview

171
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

54 Figure 8b Protected Native Tree Locations – Panel 1

172
Sensitive Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 55
Figure 8c Protected Native Tree Locations – Panel 2

173
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

56 This page intentionally left blank.
174
Mitigation Measures and Impact Analysis

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 57
5 Mitigation Measures and Impact Analysis
The Project will incorporate design measures to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts to special-status species and sensitive biological resources. Additionally, the Project will adhere to all special conditions outlined in resource agency permits. The following provides a summary of special- status species and sensitive biological resources that may occur within the Project site and the associated Project design measures to avoid or minimize possible adverse impacts to such resources.

Prior to impacts occurring to USACE, Central Coast RWQCB, CDFW, and/or CCC jurisdictional aquatic resources, 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, Restoration Management Permit per CFGC Section 1672e&f (equivalent to a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement), and CCC Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Additionally, the City is seeking to receive a concurrence letter from the NMFS waiving the need for a separate or new FESA Section 7 consultation and associated BO/Incidental Take Statement for steelhead, as was issued in 2011 for the original iteration of the Project. Similarly, the City is seeking to waive a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for steelhead under CFGC Section 1672b (equivalent to Section 2081) under the Restoration Management Permit Act. The City is seeking to use the 2025 USFWS Programmatic Biological and Conference Opinion, California Statewide Restoration Programmatic Consultation (2022-0005149-S7) (USFWS 2025), or 1997 USFWS Programmatic Consultation and Conference for Listed Coastal Species (1-8-96-F-11) (USFWS 1997), or to receive a project-specific Biological Opinion for tidewater goby from USFWS. Lastly, although no impacts to CRLF are anticipated, to be conservative, the City is seeking to use the 2025 USFWS Programmatic Biological and Conference Opinion, California Statewide Restoration Programmatic Consultation (2022-0005149-S7) (USFWS 2025) or 2020 USFWS Programmatic BO for CRLF (USFWS 2020).

The City will implement measures required by the resource agencies. Existing mitigation measures from the IS-MND (City 2007, SAIC 2008) for this Project are described below. Please note language has been added to the mitigation measures below to help clarify the intent of each measure.

Although the language has been slightly altered herein, the intent of the mitigation measures remain the same. Impacts to sensitive biological resources will be less than significant, as it was during the original San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project, and no new mitigation measures are being proposed. However, BIO-1 has been modified to include measures for the protection of tidewater goby. BIO-3 has been modified to include a 1:1 replacement ratio for removal of native riparian, which is a reduction from the previous 2:1 replacement measure. This change has been made to reflect the long-term beneficial nature of the Project and that impacts to native riparian vegetation would be solely temporary. Although the language has been slightly altered herein, the intent of the mitigation measures remains the same, such that these mitigation measures are not considerably different from those analyzed in the Final IS-MND. All substantive changes related to the aforementioned changes related to tidewater goby and native vegetation have been indicated in underline. Lastly, portions of the measures that applied to the capacity improvement portion of the original project but do not apply to the current fish passage portion of the project have been designated as such with footnotes. Per the SRGO (SWRCB 2022), GPMs are incorporated into the Project and will be carried out as part of Project implementation, as described 175
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

58 IS-MND BIO-1 California Red-Legged Frog and Tidewater Goby A qualified monitor shall be present during installation of any water diversions, initial vegetation clearing, and excavation/rock placement work upstream of Hollister Avenue for CRLF. The monitor will check the area for CRLF prior to the work. If any are found, work would be halted until the frogs leave the work area or until consultation with the USFWS has been completed and authorization for take has been authorized so that they can be relocated upstream to suitable habitat by the monitor.

Prior to the start of dewatering in the downstream portion of the concrete channel, qualified b
iologists shall conduct a survey for tidewater goby. If tidewater goby is found, they will be relocated downstream of the cofferdam. Similarly, other native aquatic species will be relocated. A qualified monitor shall be present during installation of any water diversions installed at the lower portion of the concrete channel for tidewater goby.

Plan Requirements & Ti
ming: The requirement for a CRLF monitor shall be included on all Project plans prior to final approval, and a qualified monitor shall be on site prior to new ground disturbing activities and when any activities that could affect the species take place.

The requirement for a tidewater goby monitor shall be included on all Project plans prior to final ap
proval, and a qualified monitor shall be on-site during dewatering activities.

Monitoring: A qualified biological monitor shall be present during work and will prepare daily monitoring logs of all observations. These logs shall be summarized into a weekly memo-style report.

IS-MND BIO-2 Native Trees
A Native Tree Protection and Replacement Plan (NTPRP) shall be prepared by a certified arborist or qualified expert and approved prior to vegetation clearing. All native trees to be removed3, except willows (Salix spp.), which are included in the Riparian Vegetation Protection and Replacement Plan described below (IS-MND BIO-3), will be covered. This plan can be developed as a component of the Landscape Plan.

Plan Requirements & Ti ming: The NTPRP shall be completed and approved prior to vegetation clearing and shall minimally include the following elements:
 D etails on native trees that would be removed including species, DBH, overall health, general location, and reason for removal.
 D etails on native trees that the contractor would preserve including species, DBH, overall health, general location, and what actions would be taken to preserve each tree (e.g., fencing around the drip line). The project would be designed to minimize damage to existing trees located within the fill area north of Hollister Avenue, by avoiding placement of soil around the trunks and providing adequate drainage.
 A mitigation plan will be prepared as part of the NTPRP to address protected native trees, excluding the willows which are mitigated as riparian vegetation per IS-MND BIO-3, that would be removed. The mitigation plan shall address species, size, source propagules, location, and timing of replacement tree planting. In addition, monitoring, performance criteria, and

3 Language is from existing mitigation measures from the IS-MND (City 2007, SAIC 2008). Tree removal is not anticipated in the current proposed Project design.
176
Mitigation Measures and Impact Analysis

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 59
reporting shall be addressed. All protected native trees removed will be replaced at a 10:14 ratio with the same species removed. Replacement trees will be from local stock, except as allowed in project permits. The mitigation plan will include a map of approximate planting locations.

Monitoring: Bi ological monitors shall be present during vegetation clearing to ensure that tree removal is consistent with the NTPRP. Weekly memo-style reports shall be completed with the results of monitoring as recorded on daily monitoring logs.

IS-MND BIO-3 Riparian Vegetation
A Riparian Vegetation Protection and Replacement Plan (RVPRP) shall be prepared and approved prior to vegetation clearing. This plan can be developed as a component of the Landscape Plan.

Plan Requirements & Ti ming: The RVPRP shall be completed and approved prior to vegetation clearing and shall minimally include the following elements:
 M easures to minimize damage to riparian vegetation including avoidance and cutting riparian vegetation that must be removed, but not excavated, at ground level and covering cut stems with approximately 3-6 inches of native topsoil. Wooden mats will be placed over the fill prior to access by heavy equipment to avoid damage to the cut stems. This technique will increase the likelihood that willows and other riparian vegetation will resprout following construction.  E ucalyptus 5 trees to be removed within the riparian woodland upstream of the work area shall be clearly marked and checked by a biologist to verify that the trees are not used by monarch butterflies or roosting/nesting raptors. Removal will be performed in a manner that minimizes disturbance to adjacent native riparian vegetation, and native trees will be planted to replace them.
 A mitigation plan will be prepared as part of the RVPRP to address native vegetation to be removed. The mitigation plan shall address species, size, source, and timing of replacement planting. In addition, monitoring, performance criteria, and reporting shall be addressed. It is anticipated that replacement planting will be conducted on-site were vegetation was removed.

The boulder slope at the upstream end of the new channel walls would provide an excellent location for establishing willows, blackberry, and other riparian vegetation. All native riparian vegetation removed shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio6, as required by the Goleta General Plan, with the same species removed, if feasible. Eucalyptus trees removed will be replaced with native trees appropriate for the sites where the trees are removed5. Replacement plants will be from local stock, except as allowed in project permits. The mitigation plan will include a map of planting locations.

4 Language is from existing mitigation measures from the IS-MND (City 2007, SAIC 2008). The 10:1 replacement ratio was meant for impacts due to removal of trees for development in the previous San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage project (Entrix 2010, City 2007, SAIC 2008). This replacement ratio does not apply to the fish passage portion of the original project nor the repairs in the current proposed Project design.
5 Language is from existing mitigation measures from the IS-MND (City 2007, SAIC 2008). Eucalyptus removal is not anticipated in the current proposed Project design.
6 Language is from existing mitigation measures from the IS-MND (City 2007, SAIC 2008). The 2:1 replacement ratio was meant for impacts due to removal from development in the previous San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage project (Entrix 2010, City 2007, SAIC 2008). This replacement ratio does not apply to the fish passage portion of the original project nor repairs in the current proposed Project design. It has been changed to 1:1 to reflect the long-term beneficial nature of the Project and that impacts to native riparian vegetation would be solely temporary.
177
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

60  Include seasonal constraints on vegetation removal and nesting bird survey specifications to reduce impacts to nesting birds within the work area per IS-MND BIO-4.

Monitoring: Bi ological monitors shall be present during vegetation clearing to ensure that riparian vegetation removal is consistent with the RVPRP. Weekly memo-style reports shall be completed with the results of monitoring as recorded on daily monitoring logs.

IS-MND BIO-4 Breeding Birds
The pre-approved RVPRP (IS-MND BIO-3) shall include seasonal constraints on vegetation removal and nesting bird survey specifications to reduce impacts to nesting birds within the work area.

Plan Requirements & Ti ming: The vegetation clearing timing restrictions and bird survey requirements shall be included on all project plans prior to final approval. The RVPRP shall be completed and approved prior to vegetation clearing and shall minimally include the following elements:
 T
iming of vegetation removal. On the north side of Hollister Avenue, vegetation removal (including eucalyptus trees for biological and flood control mitigation) is recommended to occur during the non-nesting season from August 15 to February 1 to minimize disturbance to nesting birds within the riparian corridor. If vegetation is to be removed within the breeding season, nesting bird surveys will be conducted as described below, and in compliance with permit conditions.
 N esting bird surveys. If construction activities are scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 through August 15), a qualified biologist shall inspect the area to confirm the absence of nesting birds in the area of direct disturbance and to determine appropriate buffer areas from any nest sites found near the work area. Efforts shall be made to reduce impacts to riparian vegetation wherever feasible. A minimum of a 300-foot buffer shall be applied to raptor nest sites during nesting and fledging. The buffer for other species protected under the MBTA shall be established by a qualified biologist and will take into account the species, location of the nest, and potential for disturbance by construction activities.

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 61

M
itigation Measures and Impact Analysis

5.1 Special-Status Species Impact Analysis
T
he proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Special-Status Plant Species
No special-status plant species were observed or detected during the reconnaissance survey. One special-status plant species, Santa Barbara honeysuckle (CRPR List 1B.2), was determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the study area. Direct impacts to individuals are anticipated to occur if those species are present during vegetation removal activities in suitable habitat where these plant species have potential to occur, specifically in the upstream natural channel. Potential indirect impacts may occur from project activities, such as dust and other material from excavation and grading activities or the introduction of noxious weeds into previously un-infested areas which could degrade the habitat and prevent establishment of individuals. No other special-status species are expected to occur due to the lack of habitat and developed/disturbed landcover within the study area.

The project will incorporate IS-MND BIO-3 and the pre-construction special-status surveys and general GPMs as outlined in Section 1.3 Project Description to avoid direct and indirect impacts to special-status plant individuals. Therefore, potential impacts to special-status plants will be less than significant. Specifically, the RVPRP aims to minimize damage to riparian vegetation including avoidance and cutting riparian vegetation that must be removed, but not excavated, at ground level and covering cut stems with approximately 3-6 inches of native topsoil, including mitigation to address removed native vegetation.

Sp
ecial-Status Wildlife Species
Thirteen special-status wildlife species have a low potential to occur within the study area, 11 have a moderate potential, one has a high potential to occur (tidewater goby), and one is present (monarch butterfly individual), as described in T
able 3. Nesting special-status bird species and/or
nesting birds protected under the MBTA and CFGC have potential to occur in the study area during the nesting season.

Special-Status Fish
Very limited tidewater goby habitat was present in the downstream end of the concrete channel during the 2024 March field surveys due to the limited creek flows, and generally the concrete substrate does not provide good habitat if water depths are sufficient. No tidewater gobies were observed during protocol tidewater goby surveys conducted in 2010 (Entrix 2010). However, given the proximity to the species’ critical habitat at the southern extent of the study area and known occurrences within the Goleta slough, the species has a high potential to occur in the study area; specifically, in the downstream natural channel. However, if individuals were present, they would likely be located outside the work area and no direct impacts would be anticipated. The species has moderate potential to occur in the downstream end of the work area, specifically in the last 200 feet of the concrete channel. However, habitat is poor due to the concrete nature of the channel 179
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

62 and its presence would be limited to when water is present in suitable depths in the concrete channel. The concrete channel may provide suitable habitat for transit and foraging but does not support breeding habitat, therefore no direct impacts to breeding habitat are expected. Indirect impacts to special-status fish could occur from Project activities, such as changes in water quality from use of heavy equipment and/or vehicles that result in altered behavior and other species- specific patterns of activity. The species is not expected in the majority of the concrete channel nor in the upstream natural channel as there are not sufficient flows nor suitable tidally influenced habitat in these areas. Furthermore, Water Quality and Hazardous Materials Measures as described in Appendix I will be implemented during construction, including but not limited to staging areas outside of waters of the state, erosion and sediment control measures, and spill response plan.

No steelhead were observed during the 2024 field surveys as flows were not sufficient to support th
e species. Steelhead have a moderate potential to occur within the Project site, depending on the rainfall and associated flows. The former San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project was reviewed by the USACE and NMFS in 2011. The USACE determined that the project would not adversely affect southern steelhead and its designated critical habitat in San Jose Creek (NOAA NMFS 2011). NMFS concluded that the project is expected to be beneficial to steelhead as its implementation is expected to significantly improve fish passage conditions at this location (NOAA NMFS 2011).

Work in the stream will be conducted during the dry season, between May 15 and October 15, wh
en there is no water in the creek in most years. Therefore, special-status fish species are not expected to be directly impacted due to the restriction of in-stream work to the dry season. As described in the Project Description in Section 1.3, the Project will not introduce new barriers to m
ovement of any resident or migratory fish species, as the Project is designed to improve the existing passage condition for steelhead at this location. If water is present within the Project site, direct impacts to tidewater goby and steelhead could occur in the form of injury or mortality through dewatering activities, if required by the Project.

Potential direct impacts to special-s tatus fish are not expected since Project activities would occur during the dry season. Indirect impacts to tidewater goby and other special-status fish would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of GPMs as described in Section 1.3 Project Description. Furthermore, the Project is designed to improve fish passage for steelhead and other fish species by reducing sediment and debris accumulations.

Special-St atus Invertebrates
The monarch butterfly is present within the study area. However, t here is a low potential for the species to overwinter in the study area due to lack of wind protection and insulation, lack of understory plants for nectar sources and lack of a good water source within the eucalyptus grove.

Direct impacts to the monarch butterfly could occur in the form of injury or mortality through initial ground disturbance activities and/or removal of suitable foraging and roosting habitat, if required by the Project. Direct impacts to the species, including injury or mortality, could also result from heavy equipment, vegetation clearing, and vehicular transport. Since individual monarchs are relatively mobile and would be able to avoid contact with construction equipment, the species is likely to move away from construction activities and are not anticipated to be directly impacted through injury or mortality. Overwintering monarch roosts are not mobile and direct impacts, including injury or mortality, may occur. Marginally suitable habitat for overwintering roosts is present in the northern portion of the study area, outside of the Project site. Indirect impacts to 180

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 63

M
itigation Measures and Impact Analysis
monarchs could occur in the form of noise from use of heavy equipment and/or vehicles that result in altered behavior and other species-specific patterns of activity.

Pre-construction special-status species surveys as outlined in Section 1.3 Project Description would ensure that any potential impacts would be less than significant by requiring a pre-construction survey and subsequent preparation of an enhancement, relocation, or exclusion plan if special- status wildlife are found. In addition, GPMs as outlined in Section 1.3 Project Description would ensure that any potential impacts would be less than significant by requiring general housekeeping, erosion and sediment controls, staging placement, and hazardous materials control aimed at

protecting wildlife.

Special-Status Reptiles and Amphibians
Special-status reptile and amphibian species are not anticipated to be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, since they are mobile and can escape noise, dust, and vibrations. Construction may temporarily impact sensitive wildlife by increasing predation as a result of trash and food being left in the construction area, although substantial changes from existing conditions are not anticipated. Indirect impacts resulting from runoff from the Project site and/or immediate vicinity during or following construction activities would be addressed through adherence to existing County and state stormwater regulations. Specifically, CRLF has moderate potential to occur and may transiently occur in these areas; specifically, in the natural channel portion of the study area.

P
otential direct and indirect temporary impacts to CRLF and other special-status reptiles and amphibians would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of IS-MND BIO-1, which requires a biological monitor present during installation of initial vegetation clearing and excavation/rock placement work upstream of Hollister Avenue, and pre-construction special-status species surveys and GPMs, as described in Section 1.3 Project Description.

S
pecial-Status Mammals
Direct impacts to pallid bat could occur in the form of injury or mortality through initial ground- disturbance activities and/or disturbance of roosting sites. No individuals or roosts were found within the study area during surveys. Because bats are relatively mobile and would be able to avoid contact with construction equipment, the adults of the species are likely to move away from construction activities and are not anticipated to be directly impacted through injury or mortality.

Indirect impacts to these species could occur in the form of noise from use of heavy equipment

and/or vehicles that result in altered behavior and other species-specific patterns of activity.

Construction may also temporarily impact sensitive wildlife by increasing predation as a result of trash and food being left in the construction area, although substantial changes from existing conditions are not anticipated.

Potential direct and indirect temporary impacts to special-status mammals would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of pre-construction special-status species surveys and GPMs, as described in Section 1.3 Project Description.

S
pecial-Status and Nesting Birds
There is a moderate potential for Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and LBVI to occur within the study area. In addition, migratory or other common nesting birds, while not designated as special- status species, are protected by the CFGC and MBTA and have the potential to occur in the study
area. Take of these species is prohibited by federal and state law and must be avoided. Since birds 181
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

64 are highly mobile and would be able to avoid contact with construction equipment, the adults are likely to move away from construction activities and are not anticipated to be directly impacted through injury or mortality; however, impacts to eggs and nestlings could occur during the nesting season. Indirect impacts to special-status bird species could occur in the form of noise, dust, and vibrations from the use of heavy equipment and/or vehicles that result in altered behavior and other species-specific patterns of activity. Indirect impacts could also result from loss of potential nesting or foraging habitat from vegetation removal or disturbance of nests within the study area.

Implementation of IS
-MND BIO-4 would reduce the potential for adverse effects to special-status birds and nesting birds, including raptors, to a less than significant level.

5.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
b) H ave a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The s
tudy area contains four CDFW-sensitive natural communities: arroyo willow thickets, black cottonwood woodland, California sycamore - coast live oak riparian woodland, and pickleweed mats. The Project will permanently and temporarily impact three of these sensitive natural communities, pickleweed mats excluded, as shown in Table 6 a nd displayed in Figure 9 .

Table 6 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers Project-wide Within CDFW-jurisdictional streambed
Vegetation Community/
Land Cover Type
Permanent
Impacts (acres)
Temporary
Impacts (acres)
Permanent
Impacts (acres)
Temporary
Impacts (acres)
Native Vegetation Community
Arroyo willow thickets*+ 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09
Black cottonwood woodland*+ 0 0.02 0 0.02
California sycamore - coast live
oak riparian woodland*+
0 0.05 0 0.05
Subtotal 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.16
Non-native Vegetation Community
Annual brome grassland 0 0.07 0 0
Developed Land Cover Types
Urban development 0 0.72 0 0.60
Urban stream channel 0 4.39 0 4.39
Total 0.08 5.34 0.08 5.15
*CDFW-sensitive natural community
+ City-de signated ESHA
Implementation of the proposed Project would require the removal of existing vegetation in areas where Project activities are proposed, solely in the upstream natural channel. Existing vegetation will be permanently removed from the placement of un-grouted riprap for the Hollister Avenue 182
Mitigation Measures and Impact Analysis

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 65
Bridge ‘hydraulic transition feature’ and temporarily impacted during the re-grading of the natural channel upstream of the Hollister Avenue Bridge ‘hydraulic transition feature.’ Impacts will be mitigated, as appropriate, according to implementation of IS-MND BIO-2 and BIO-3. Only minor trimming of individual trees may occur. Indirect impacts from dust and other construction equipment may occur but due to the temporary nature of these activities and implementation of standard BMPs, the potential for substantial impacts to sensitive natural communities is relatively low.

The s
tudy area occurs within NOAA-designated critical habitat for steelhead; however, the habitat is considered low-quality due to the lack of spawning habitat, fish passage barriers in the concrete channel, and sediment and debris accumulations in the concrete channel. The critical habitat will benefit from this project by providing steelhead passage to the upper watershed for migration and spawning. The channel downstream of Hollister Avenue is lived with concrete and a complete barrier to upstream movement of steelhead (Stoecker et al. 2002). The Project is designed to increase flood conveyance capacity and improve the existing passage conditions for steelhead.

Therefore, impacts to critical habitat for steelhead are not expected and no further actions are recommended.

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Impact Analysis
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
c) H ave a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

As discussed above, San Jose Creek an d its associated riparian areas occur within the Project area.

Permanent impacts associated with Project activities will occur in the upstream natural channel as a result of re-grading the natural channel and placing riprap on the banks and channel bottom to extend the Hollister Avenue Bridge ‘hydraulic transition feature’ to the north to form an expanded bridge approach. No permanent impacts associated with Project activities will occur within the downstream portion of the channel nor within the concrete channel. Temporary impacts associated with Project activities in the upstream natural channel will include accessing the natural channel from the western bank via a temporary access ramp that will be built partially within the Project footprint (eastern and downhill portion), which will be situated in the same location as where the riprap will be placed for the ‘hydraulic transition feature’. The remainder of the temporary access ramp (western and uphill portion) will be located within the construction footprint of the Hollister Avenue Bridge project area, an area that has already been impacted and therefore no impacts will occur as a result of the Project. Temporary impacts will also occur from re-grading the natural channel over a distance of about 320 feet by excavating the unconsolidated channel bottom bed materials between the left and right channel bank toes to form a new natural channel bed gradient and channel profile commensurate with the approximate original channel profile. No temporary impacts will occur in the downstream natural channel. Temporary impacts associated with Project activities in the concrete channel will include accessing the concrete channel from the western bank via the existing concrete ramp into the channel; operation of equipment along the channel bottom to construct the project; and removing the existing weirs and building the new weirs. Temporary impacts in the concrete channel may also include the use of a temporary diversion if water is present where weirs need to be removed or built. Upon project completion, the diversion will be removed. Equipment will not be operated in, or traverse through, ponded or flowing water. 183
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

66 Non-wetland waters of the U.S., non-wetland waters of the State, CDFW-jurisdictional streambed/riparian habitat, and City-designated wetlands and SPAs will be permanently and temporarily impacted in the upstream natural channel. Permanent impacts would occur in the natural channel from placement of riprap on the banks and channel bottom for the ‘hydraulic transition feature’. Temporary impacts would occur from activities such as removal of all timber wedge structures in the concrete channel, addition of new vortex-type weirs in the concrete channel, operation of equipment in the channel bottom, and re-grading the upstream natural channel bottom. Non-wetland waters of the U.S., non-wetland waters of the State, and CDFW- jurisdictional streambeds, and the City SPA will be temporarily impacted in the concrete channel.

Temporary impacts would occur as a result of installation of operation of equipment along the channel bottom and diversion if water is present where weirs need to be removed or built. No USACE wetland waters of the U.S., Central Coast RWQCB wetland waters of the State, nor coastal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission would be impacted. Impacts to jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table
7 a nd displayed in Figure 10.

In addition to complying with applicable regulations and permit conditions, the Project includes s
urveys, GPMs, and CEQA measures as outlined Section 0 a nd indirect impacts from construction materials that could adversely affect water quality (e.g., increase turbidity, alter pH, decrease dissolved oxygen levels) will be avoided.

Implementation of IS
-MND BIO-2 and BIO-3 would ensure that any potential impacts to jurisdictional waters that support protected native trees and riparian vegetation would be less than significant. IS-MND BIO-2 requires the preparation of a NTPRP that details protected native trees that would be removed, details protected native trees that the contractor would preserve, and outlines the required mitigation required as a result of impacts. IS-MND BIO-3 includes a RVPRP that aims to minimize damage to riparian vegetation and will outline the required mitigation required as a result of impacts from removed native vegetation. All riparian vegetation that will be temporarily impacted at the toe of the bank slopes of the upstream natural channel will be restored in place, including replacement of protected native trees that will need to be removed as a result of re- grading the natural channel to match the historic elevation and ensure fish passage.

184
Mitigation Measures and Impact Analysis

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 67
Table 7 Impacts to Potentially Jurisdictional Waters Delineated within the Study Area USACE RWQCB CDFW CCC City City
Feature
Non-wetland
Waters of the
U.S.
(acres/linear
feet)
Wetland
Waters of the
U.S.
(acres/linear
feet)
Non-wetland
Waters of the
State
(acres/linear
feet)
Wetland
Waters
of the State
(acres/linear
feet)
CDFW-
jurisdictional
Streambeds
(acres/linear
feet)
Coastal
Wetlands
(acres/linear
feet)
Wetlands
(acres/linear
feet)
Streamside
Protection
Areas
(acres/linear
feet)
San Jose Creek
Permanent Impact –
Natural Channel

0.02/57 – 0.09/57 – 0.09/57 0 0.09/57 0.11/57
Permanent Impact –
Concrete Channel
0 – 0 – 0 – – –
Temporary Impact –
Natural Channel

0.11/320 – 0.15/320 – 0.15/320 0 0.15/320 0.15/320
Temporary Impact –
Concrete Channel

4.38/4,162 – 4.99/4,162 – 4.99/4,162 – 0/0 4.99/4,162
Total Permanent
Impact

0.02/57 – 0.09/69 – 0.09/69 0 0.09/57 0.11/57
Total Temporary
Impact

4.49/4,482 – 5.14/4,482 – 5.14/4,482 0 0.15/320 5.14/4,482

185
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

68 5.4 Wildlife Movement Impact Analysis
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
d) I nterfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

No mapped wildlife movement corridors are present within the study area. However, the study area is
within San Jose Creek, which wildlife may travel through. Surrounding vegetated areas provide suitable small-scale wildlife movement corridors for wildlife to travel locally and are important in linking non-contiguous or fragmented wildlife habitats. The Project site itself is primarily surrounded by urban development, including SR 217, Hollister Avenue Bridge, and Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park, which make it less ideal as a wildlife movement route. As described in the Project Description in Section 1.3, the Project will not introduce new barriers to movement of any re
sident or migratory wildlife species (i.e., fish), as the Project is replacing existing fish weirs for steelhead migration. Therefore, the Project impacts on wildlife movement would be less than significant.

5.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances Impact Analysis
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
e) C onflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
The proposed Project would be required to comply with the goals, policies, and measures of the City’s policies and development standards regulating biological resources. Implementation of BIO-2 through BIO-4 would ensure that any potential impacts to ESHAs (e.g., Riparian/Marsh ESHA, Raptor Roosting ESHA, and Open Water ESHA) would be less than significant, as further discussed below in the Protected Trees section.

Protected Trees
Given the distance from Project activities, the Sister Witness Tree is not expected to be impacted.

Native trees were identified throughout the study area within the black cottonwood woodlands, California sycamore – coast live oak riparian woodlands, and arroyo willow thick vegetation communities. Seventeen individual protected native trees, excluding arroyo willows which are treated as habitat and not as individual trees per IS-MND BIO-2, are located at or near the toe of the creek banks and will be temporarily impacted by encroachment into the root zone only, as shown in Table
8 a nd displayed in Figure 11. T he depth of grading adjacent to where the temporarily impacted trees are located ranges from 3 feet downstream, tapering to 0 feet at the upstream limit.

For mature trees located along creek banks, structural anchor roots establish on the uphill side of the tree, up the bank; these roots will not be impacted by grading. For mature trees located along creek banks, feeder roots establish in the creek bottom and on the downhill side of the tree, down the bank; these roots will be minimally impacted by grading. Trees are not expected to be 186
Mitigation Measures and Impact Analysis

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 69
structurally destabilized. No trees will be directly removed, indirectly removed as a result of grading in the channel bottom, nor trimmed. Indirect impacts to individuals would occur as a result of increased dust in the air; however, impacts would be negligible as the work area is situated adjacent to the active mining area where dust is already generated and is unlikely to change substantially from existing conditions.

Table 8 Impacts to Protected Native Trees
Project-wide Within CDFW-jurisdictional streambed
Protected Native Tree Species
Encroachment/Temporary Impacts
(# of individuals)
Encroachment/Temporary Impacts
(# of individuals)
Arroyo willow 6 6
Black cottonwood 1 1
Blue elderberry 1 1
Coast live oak 3 3
Other native tree 2 2
Southern California black walnut 1 1
Western sycamore 3 3
Total 17 17
Note: Temporary impact to the root zone only. Actual number would be determined during construction.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with the goals, policies, and measures of the City’s policies and development standards regulating biological resources. The City does not currently have a tree protection ordinance in place, but the General Plan Conservation Element (CE; City 2009) Policy CE-9 states that removal of mature native trees shall be mitigated.

Implementation of IS
-MND BIO-2 and BIO-3 would ensure that any potential impacts would be less than significant. IS-MND BIO-2 requires the preparation of a NTPRP that details protected native trees that would be removed, details protected native trees that the contractor would preserve, and outlines the required mitigation required as a result of impacts. IS-MND BIO-3 includes a RVPRP that aims to minimize damage to riparian vegetation and will outline the required mitigation required as a result of impacts from removed native vegetation. All riparian vegetation that will be temporarily impacted at the toe of the creek banks in the upstream natural channel will be restored in place.

Native shrubs and trees will be installed, including the same protected native tree species that will be temporarily encroached upon in the root zone as a result of re-grading the natural channel to match the historic elevation and ensure fish passage.

5.6 Habitat Conservation Plans Impact Analysis
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
f) C onflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The Pro ject parcel does not occur within any HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan areas. The proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of any such plans. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact to HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans.
187
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

70 Figure 9 Impacts to Sensitive Natural Vegetation Communities

188
Mitigation Measures and Impact Analysis

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 71
Figure 10 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters

189
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

72 Figure 11 Impacts to Protected Native Trees

190
Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 73
6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use
Reliance
This Biological Resources Assessment has been performed in accordance with professionally accepted biological investigation practices conducted at this time and in this geographic area. The biological investigation is limited by the scope of work performed. Reconnaissance biological surveys for certain taxa may have been conducted as part of this assessment but were not performed during a particular blooming period, nesting period, or particular portion of the season when positive identification would be expected if present, and therefore, cannot be considered definitive. The biological surveys are limited also by the environmental conditions present at the time of the surveys. In addition, general biological (or protocol) surveys do not guarantee that the organisms are not present and will not be discovered in the future within the site. In particular, mobile wildlife species could occupy the site on a transient basis, or re-establish populations in the future. Our field studies were based on current industry practices, which change over time and may not be applicable in the future. No other guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, are provided. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on findings derived from site reconnaissance, jurisdictional areas, review of CNDDB RareFind5, and specified historical and literature sources. Standard data sources relied upon during the completion of this report, such as the CNDDB, may vary with regard to accuracy and completeness. In particular, the CNDDB is compiled from research and observations reported to CDFW that may or may not have been the result of comprehensive or site-specific field surveys. Although Rincon believes the data sources are reasonably reliable, Rincon cannot and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the data sources it has used. Additionally, pursuant to our contract, the data sources reviewed included only those that are practically reviewable without the need for extraordinary research and analysis. 191
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

74 This page intentionally left blank.
192
References

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 75
7 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.

Bulger, J. B., J.S. Norman, and R.B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110: 85–95.

Burt, W.H., and R.P. Grossenheider. 1980. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North American North of M
exico. The Peterson Field Guide Series.

Bury, R.B., and D.J. Germano. 2008. Actinemys marmorata ( Baird and Girard 1852) Western Pond Turtle, Pacific Pond Turtle. Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtles Specialist Group.

Chelonian Research Monographs No.5: 001.1-001.9. Available at:
h
ttp://www.elkhornsloughctp.org/uploads/files/1217635573Bury%26GermanoTurtle%20ac c.pdf. Accessed April 2024.

Calflora. 2024. Calfora Search for Plants database. Av ailable at:
https://www.calflora.org/search.html. Accessed March 2024.

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

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

Accessed April 2024.
______. 2025b. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity D
atabase. Accessed January 2024.
______. 2025c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, C
alifornia Natural Diversity Database. Accessed January 2024. ____ __.2024a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. Accessed February 28, 2024. ____ __. 2024d. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Available at:
www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS. A ccessed February 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. Available at: www.rareplants.cnps.org. A ccessed February 2024.

City of Goleta. 2 007. Initial Study/Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project. 07-MND-01. ______. 2009. General Plan Conservative Element. Available at: https://www.cityofgoleta.org/your- c
ity/planning-and-environmental-review/general-plan. A dopted October 2006, amended and republished November 2009.
193
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

76 ______. 2012. Press Release. Goleta Tree Receives Designation as National Champion Sycamore Tree. September 24, 2012. Available at:
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/Home/Components/News/News/959/3875?arch=1&npage=2

0. A ccessed April 2024.
______. 2013. The Monarch Press. Sister Witness Tree. Winter 2013 Monarch Press VIII, n.1.

Available at: https://www.goletamonarchpress.com/2013/01/sister-witness-tree/. Accessed April 2024.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2024a. Available at: https://www.birds.cornell.edu/home/. Accessed A
pril 2024.
______. 2024b. ebird. Available at: https://ebird.org/home. Accessed January 2024.

County of Santa Barbara. 2003. Deciduous Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration Ordinance.

A
vailable at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/santa_barbara_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeI d=CH35ZO_ARTIXDEOATRPRRE. Accessed April 2024.

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

Entrix, Inc. (Entrix). 2010. Biological Resources Survey Report for the San Jose Creek Capacity I
mprovement Project. October 19, 2010.

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2025. Basemap provided by ESRI and its licensors. 20 25.

Holland, D.C. 1994. The Western Pond Turtle: Habitat and History. Final Report. United States D
epartment of Energy. Portland, Oregon. [online]:
https://relicensing.pcwa.net/documents/Library/PCWA-L%20450.pdf. Accessed April 2024.

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.

Holmgren, M. A. 2000. White- Tailed Kites Near Orcutt in September 1999 and The Protection Environment for Kites in Santa Barbara County, California. iNaturalist. 2025. Observations. Available at: https://www.inaturalist.org/. Accessed March 2025.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2024. J epson eFlora. Available at: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.

Accessed on Apr 04, 2024.
______. 20 25. Jepson eFlora. Available at: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed May 2025.

Meade, D.E. 1999. “M onarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in Santa Barbara County California.” 114 pp. Paso Robles, CA. Althouse and Meade, Inc.
______. 2013. Ellwood Monarch Butterfly Habitat Assessment. Prepared for the City of Goleta.

A
lthouse and Meade, Inc. Paso Robles, California. Available at:
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showdocument?id=19726. Accessed February 2025.

Microsoft Bing. 2025. Aerial imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors. 2025.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2021. Critical Habitat. Available online:
https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=ad624229bfef426588e132d08f9fc740.

A
ccessed April 2024.
194
References

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 77
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA NMFS). 2011. Section 7 Consultation for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project (NMFS File No. SWR/2008/07997:MRM). July 7, 2011.
______. 2012. Southern 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.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC). 2025. San Jose Creek Fish Passage engineering designs.

Reese, D.A. 1996, Comparative Demography and Habitat Use of Western Pond Turtle in northern C
alifornia: The Effects of Damming and Related Alterations. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Available at: http://www.ycwa-
relicensing.com/Technical%20References/03%20-
%20Aquatic%20Resources/Amphibians%20and%20Reptiles/Reese%201996%20Western%2 0Pond%20Turtle.pdf. Accessed April 2024.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon). 2021. Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report for the Ekwill S
treet and Fowler Road Extensions Project. Prepared for the City of Goleta. August 2021. ______. 2019. San Jose Creek Multi-u se Path Project Biological Resources Assessment. Prepared for the City of Goleta. April 2019.
______. 2025 . Aquatic Resources Delineation Report f or the San Jose Creek Fish Passage Project.

Prepared for the City of Goleta. September 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 (SA IC). 2007. California Red-Legged Frog and Other Wildlife Survey Report for the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project. January 2007. ______. 2008. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment Addendum for the S
an Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project. 07-MND-01. Accessed April 2024.

Sibley, D. A. 2014. The Sibley Guide to Birds, second edition. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY, USA.

Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-R omsos, J. Strittholt, M.

Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. Order WQ 2022-00 48-DWQ. Order for Clean
Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements for Restoration Projects Statewide. Final. August 16, 2022.

Stoecker, M. W., Beedy, T. L., & Lindquist, D. S. 2
002. Steelhead Assessment and Recovery
Opportunities in Southern Santa Barbara County, California. Conception Coast Project.

Tricolored Blackbird Working Group. 2007. Conservation Plan for the Tricolored Blackbird (Age laius tricolor). Susan Kester (ed.). Sustainable Conservation. San Francisco, CA.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2022. 2022 National Wetland Plant List, Arid West R
egion, version 3.6. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Available at: http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/. Accessed April 2024. 195
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

78 ______. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (ERDC/EL TR-08-28). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

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

Accessed June 2025.

United States Department of Agricultural (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2025a. 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 Agriculture. Available at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. Accessed March 2024.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.).
______. 1997. USFWS Programmatic Consultation and Conference for Listed Coastal Species, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Santa Cruz Counties (1-8-96-F-11).

August 29, 1997.
______. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. Accessed January 2000.
______. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii). Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/amphibians/crlf/documents/020528.pdf. Accessed April 2024.
______. 2005. Recovery plan for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. Accessed April 2024. ______. 2020. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Projects that May Affect the California Red- legged Frog, Authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Sections 10 and 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. April 27, 2020. ______. 2024a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical- habitat.html. Accessed April 2024.
______. 2024b. Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed February 2024.
______. 2024c. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/program/national- wetlands-inventory. Accessed April 2024. February 2025. ______. 2025. Programmatic Biological and Conference Opinion, California Statewide Restoration Programmatic Consultation (2022-0005149-S7).

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

URS. 2014. Draft Biological Resources Summary Report for the Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project. Goleta, California. December 2014.
196
References

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 79
______. 2015. Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project. Project Case No. 14-074-MND.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Climate of California. Available at:
www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/narrative_ca.php. Accessed April 2024.

Xerces Society (Xerces). 2024. Map of Overwintering Sites. Available at:
https://westernmonarchcount.org/map-of-overwintering-sites/. Access April 2024.

Zeiner, D., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K.E. Mayer. 1988. California’s Wildlife. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, Volumes I, II, & III. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
197
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

80 This page intentionally left blank.
198
List of Preparers

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum 81
8 List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Primary Author
 K endra Bonsall, MS, Biologist
Technical Review
 Ju lie Love, MESM, Senior Biologist/Project Manager
 C olby J. Boggs , MS, Principal Ecologist
Graphics
 A nnette Tran, MESM, GIS Analyst
 P aul Rigby , GIS Analyst
Publishing
 D ebra Jane Seltzer, Formatting Specialist
 A lvin Flores, Publishing Specialist
Field Reconnaissance Survey, Jurisdictional Delineation Survey, Protected Native Tree Survey
 Ju lie Love, MESM, Senior Biologist/Project Manager
 K endra Bonsall, MS, Biologist
199
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

82 This page intentionally left blank.

200

Appendix A
Regulatory Setting
201
Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum A-1
Regulatory Setting
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 that guides the protection of biological resources. Agencies with the responsibility for protection of biological resources within the project site include the following:
 U.

S. Army Corps of Engineers (wetlands and other waters of the United States)  U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (federally listed species and migratory birds)  N ational Marine Fisheries Service (marine wildlife and anadromous fishes)  C entral Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (waters of the State)  C alifornia Department Fish and Wildlife (riparian areas, streambeds, and lakes; state -listed species; nesting birds, marine resources)
 C alifornia Coastal Commission
 C ity of Goleta
United States Army Corps of Engineers
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.” The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the law was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. “Clean Water Act” became the law’s common name with amendments in 1972.

Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material i
nto waters of the United States, including wetlands. 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 404 requires that a permit be issued before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from regulation under Section 404 (e.g., certain farming and forestry activities).

Waters of the U.S.

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. As a result of the Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA and USACE issued a final rule that amends the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” to conform key aspects of the regulatory text to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision (88 Federal Register 61964–61969, September 8, 2023). 202
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

A-2
Under the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’; Conforming” rule, the term “waters of the United States” is defined as follows (33 CFR 328.3[a]):
(1) W aters which are:
(i) C urrently 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; (ii) T he territorial seas; or
(iii) I nterstate waters;
(2) I mpoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section; (3) T ributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) W etlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) W aters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) R elatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; (5) I ntrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.

In addition, the amended regulations include eight types of excluded waters (33 CFR 328.3[b]) which are
not “waters of the United States” even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section:
(1) W aste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act;
(2) P rior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA; (3) D
itches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
(4) A rtificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; (5) A rtificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing;
(6) A
rtificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; (7) W aterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
(8) S
wales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.
203
Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum A-3
The lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal 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). Indicators of three wetland parameters (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetlands hydrology), as determined by site investigation, must be present at a site for USACE to classify the site as a wetland (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

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

In 2006, th
e United States Supreme Court decided Rapanos 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.”
204
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

A-4
According to the plurality opinion in Rapanos, “the 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, “the 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 U SACE and USEPA will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific 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,  W etlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non -navigable tributary.

Where a significant nexus analysis is required, the USACE an d USEPA will apply the significant nexus standard 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. 205
Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum A-5
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.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451 et seq.), administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), provides for the management of the nation’s coastal resources, including the Great Lakes. The goal is to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.” Each federal agency activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone must be carried out in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved state management programs. The policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) govern the types of developments and uses allowed within wetlands and other waters within the Coastal Zone, including open coastal waters. Along the Pacific coast, open coastal waters extend from the mean high-water (MHW) line to the state’s outer limit of jurisdiction, approximately 3 miles offshore.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
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. 206
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

A-6
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 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 207
Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum A-7
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.

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 Coastal Act of 1976
The Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq.) was enacted to establish policies and guidelines that provide direction for the conservation and development of the California coastline.

The Coastal Act established the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and created a state and local government partnership to ensure that public concerns regarding coastal development are addressed. Some of the basic goals of this program are to protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources; maximize public access to and public recreational opportunities along the coast; and ensure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast.

The CCC serves as the coastal management and regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the Coastal Zo
ne (Public Resources Code Section 30103). The California Coastal Zone generally extends seaward 3 miles and inland anywhere from 0.5 miles to 5 miles. The CCC is responsible for assisting in the preparation, review, and certification of Local Coastal Programs/Local Coastal Plans (LCPs), which 208
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

A-8
are developed by municipalities for that portion of their jurisdiction that falls within the Coastal Zone. Once the LCP has been certified, regulatory responsibility is delegated to the local jurisdiction, although the CCC retains jurisdiction over the immediate shoreline.

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

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implements several laws protecting the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 United States Code [USC] Sections 153 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Sections 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668).

Endangered Species Act
The USFWS and NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibility for implementing the ESA. Generally, the USFWS implements the FESA for terrestrial and freshwater species, while the NMFS implements the FESA for marine and anadromous species. Projects that would result in “take” of any threatened or endangered wildlife species, or a threatened or endangered plant species if occurring on federal land, are required to obtain permits from the USFWS or NMFS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan) of the ESA, depending on the involvement by the federal government in funding, authorizing, or carrying out the project. The permitting process is used to determine if a project would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and what measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing the species. “Take” under federal definition means to harass, harm (which includes habitat modification), pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Proposed or candidate species do not have the full protection of the ESA; however, the USFWS and NMFS advise project applicants that they could be elevated to listed status at any time.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA of 1918 implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The law has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were amended, such as with Mexico in 209
Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum A-9
1976 and Canada in 1995. The MBTA prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the USFWS.

The list of migratory bird species protected by the law, in regulations at 50 CFR Part 10.13, is primarily based on bird families and species included in the four international treaties. A migratory bird species is included on the list if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. I t occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes and is currently, or was previously listed as, a species or part of a family protected by one of the four international treaties or their amendments.

2. R
evised taxonomy results in it being newly split from a species that was previously on the list, and the new species occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.

3. N
ew evidence exists for its natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories resulting from natural distributional changes and the species occurs in a protected family.

In 2004, th e Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act limited the scope of the MBTA by stating the MBTA applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or U.S. territories, and that a native migratory bird species is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. The MBTRA requires the USFWS to publish a list of all nonnative, human- introduced bird species to which the MBTA does not apply, and an updated list was published in 2020. The 2020 update identifies species belonging to biological families referred to in treaties the MBTA implements but are not protected because their presence in the United States or U.S. territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the USFWS, from “taking” bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.” The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” “D
isturb ” means “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.”
In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human- in
duced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.
210
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

A-10
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) derives its authority from the Fish and Game Code of California and administers several State laws protecting fish and wildlife resources and the habitats upon which they depend.

California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et. seq.) prohibits take of state listed threatened or endangered. Take under CESA is defined as “Hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” (Fish and Game Code sec. 86).

This definition does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification, except where such harm is the proximate cause of death of a listed species. Where incidental take would occur during construction or other lawful activities, CESA allows the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit upon finding, among other requirements, that impacts to the species have been minimized and fully mitigated. Unlike the federal ESA, CESA’s protections extend to candidate species during the period (typically one year) while the California Fish and Game Commission decides whether the species warrants CESA listing.

Native Plant Protection Act
The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). The NPPA requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare, and prohibits the take of listed plant species. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 CCR 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA’s permitting procedures would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as “Rare.” With this change, there is little practical difference for the regulated public between plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.

Fully Protected Species Laws
The CDFW enforces Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code, which prohibit take of species designated as Fully Protected. The CDFW is not allowed to issue an Incidental Take Permit for Fully Protected species; therefore, impacts to these species must be avoided. The exception is situations where a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) is in place that authorizes take of the fully protected species.

Avian Protection Laws
California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of native birds, nests, and eggs. Section 3503.5 of the Code protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs. Section 3513 makes it a state-level offense to take any bird in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Protection of Lakes and Streambeds
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 211
Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum A- 11
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 “s
tream” for the purposes of implementing its regulatory
program 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.
 T
he 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
212
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

A-12
 Guidance 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
 Bio logic components of a stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, all aquatic wildlife 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.

Local Jurisdiction
City of Goleta General Plan
CE 2.2 Streamside Protection Areas (SPA) are established along both sides of the creeks and the purpose of the designation is to preserve the SPA in a natural state in order to protect the associated riparian habitats and ecosystems. The SPA includes the creek channel, wetlands and/or riparian vegetation related to the creek hydrology, and an adjacent upland buffer area.

CE 2.3 Allowable Uses and Activities in SPAs include land uses and activities such as:
 R esource restoration or enhancement projects.

CE 2.5 Maintenance of Creeks as Natural Drainage Systems. [GP/CP] Creek banks, creek channels, an
d associated riparian areas shall be maintained or restored to their natural condition wherever such conditions or opportunities exist. Creeks carry a significant amount of Goleta’s stormwater flows. The following standards should apply:
 T
he capacity of natural drainage courses shall not be diminished by development or other activities.
 D rainage controls and improvements shall be accomplished with the minimum vegetation removal and disruption of the creek and riparian ecosystem that is necessary to accomplish the drainage objective.
213
Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum A- 13
 Measures to stabilize creek banks, improve flow capacity, and reduce flooding are allowed but shall not include installation of new concrete channels, culverts, or pipes except at street crossings, unless it is demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative for improving capacity.  D
rainage controls in new development shall be required to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and flood impacts to creeks. On-site treatment of stormwater through retention basins, infiltration, vegetated swales, and other best management practices (BMPs) shall be required in order to protect water quality and the biological functions of creek ecosystems.  A
lteration of creeks for the purpose of road or driveway crossings shall be prohibited except where the alteration is not substantial and there is no other feasible alternative to provide access to new development on an existing legal parcel. Creek crossings shall be accomplished by bridging and shall be designed to allow the passage of fish and wildlife. Bridge abutments or piers shall be located outside creek beds and banks, unless an environmentally superior alternative exists.

Policy CE 3: Protection of Wetlands o
bjective is to preserve, protect, and enhance the functions and values of Goleta’s wetlands.

CE 3.1 Definition of Wetlands. W etlands are defined as any area that meets the definition of a wetland as defined by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The most protective of definitions shall be applied and used to determine the boundary of a wetland. The City of Goleta uses the identification of a single indicator (soil, hydrology, or plants) to determine the boundary of a wetland.

CE 3.2 Designation of Wetland ESHAs. W
etland ESHAs are included on Figure 4-1. In the Coastal Zone, wetlands are lands that may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. Goleta’s wetlands are associated with small lagoons at the mouths of Bell Canyon and Tecolote Creeks, vernal pools, and freshwater marshes and ponds or impoundments, such as Lake Los Carneros. All wetlands are defined as ESHAs. Any unmapped areas that meet the criteria identified in CE 3.1 are wetlands and shall be granted all of the protections for wetlands set forth in this plan.

Policy CE 8: Protection of Special-S
tatus Species objective is to preserve and protect habitats for threatened, endangered, or other special-status species of plants and animals in order to maintain biodiversity.

CE 8.1 ESHA Designation includes habitats such as, but are limited to, the following:
 S pecial- status plant species such as Santa Barbara honeysuckle, southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) and black-flowered figwort (Scrophularia atrata).  H abitat capable of supporting special- status invertebrate species, such as the globose dune beetle (Coelus globosus), and roosting habitat for the monarch butterfly.  A quatic habitat capable of supporting special- status fish species such as the steelhead and tidewater goby.
 H abitat capable of supporting special- status amphibians and reptiles such as the CRLF and WPT.  N esting and roosting areas for various species of raptors such as Cooper’s hawk, red -tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), white-tailed kite, and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). 214
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

A-14
 Nesting habitat for other special-status bird species such as western snowy plover, southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), or tri-colored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor).  N esting and foraging habitat for special- status mammals such as pallid bat, western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), Yuma myotis, and American badger (Taxidea taxus).

CE 8.2 Protection of Habitat Areas. All development should be located, designed, constructed, and m
anaged to avoid disturbance of adverse impacts to special-status species and their habitats, including spawning, nesting, rearing, roosting, foraging, and other elements of the required habitats.

CE 8.4 Buffer Areas for Raptor Species. Development should be designed to provide a 100-fo ot
buffer around active and historical nest sites for protected species of raptors when feasible. In existing developed areas, the width of the buffer may be reduced to correspond to the actual width of the buffer for adjacent development. If an active raptor nest site exists on a subject property, whenever feasible no vegetation clearing, grading, construction, or other development activity shall be allowed within a 300-foot radius of the nest site during the nesting and fledging season.

215

Appendix B
Site Photographs
216
Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum B-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.
217
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

B-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.
218
Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum B-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 Sister Witness Tree and California sycamore coast live oak riparian woodland within the northern portion of the study area, facing south. March 20, 2024. 219
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

B-4

Photog raph 7. 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.

Photog raph 8. 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. 220
Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum B-5

Photog raph 9. 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.

Photog raph 10. 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.
221
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

B-6

Photog raph 11. 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.

Photog raph 12. View of raptor nest in eucalyptus grove (circled in red), facing northeast. March 20, 2024.
222
Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum B-7

Photog raph 13. View of unidentified nest under Hollister Ave Bridge (circled in red), facing east. March 21, 2024.
223
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

B-8

This page intentionally left blank.

224

Appendix C
Floral and Faunal Compendium
225
Floral and Faunal Compendium

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum C-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 black 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 
226
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

C-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
Cupressaceae cypress UPL 
Delairea odorata cape ivy FAC   
Eucalyptus globulus blue gum eucalyptus UPL  
Eriobotrya japonica loquat UPL  
Erodium cicutarium redstem filaree UPL 
Fraxinus uhdei Shamel as h UPL  
Hedera helix English ivy FACU 
Hordeum marinum/murinum foxtail FAC/FACU 
Hypochaeris glabra smooth cat’s e ar 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 En glish 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.

227
Floral and Faunal Compendium

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum C-3
Wildlife Species Observed within the Study Area on March 20 and 21, 2024 Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Native or Introduced Birds
Anas platyrhynchos ma llard ─ Native
Aphelocoma californica California scrub-jay ─ Native
Baeolophus inornatus oa k titmouse ─ Native
Buteo jamaicensis re d -tailed hawk ─ Native
Buteo lineatus re d -shouldered hawk ─ Native
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird ─ Native
Cathartes aura tur key vulture ─ Native
Chamaea fasciata wre ntit ─ Native
Colombia livia ro ck pigeon ─ Introduced
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow ─ Native
Dryobates pubescens do wny woodpecker ─ Native
Geothlypis trichas co mmon yellowthroat ─ Native
Haemorhous mexicanus ho use finch ─ Native
Junco hyemalis da rk- eyed junco ─ Native
Larus californicus California gull ─ Native
Larus occidentalis we stern gull ─ Native
Leiothylpis celata or ange- crowned warbler ─ Native
Megaceryle alcyon Be lted kingfisher ─ Native
Melanerpes formicivorus ac orn w oodpecker ─ Native
Melospiza crissalis California towhee ─ Native
Melospiza melodia so ng sparrow ─ Native
Mimus polyglottos no rthern mockingbird ─ Native
Psaltriparus mimimus bus htit ─ Native
Sayornis nigricans bl ack phoebe ─ Native
Sturnus vulgaris European starling ─ Introduced
Mammals
Microtus californicus vo le * ─ Native
Insects
Danaus plexippus mo narch (individual) FPT (overwintering monarchs only) Native Pieris rapae ca bbage butterfly ─ Introduced
Reptiles
Sceloporus occidentalis we stern fence lizard ─ Native FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened
*mortality
1 CDFW 2025b
228
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

C-4

This page intentionally left blank.

229

Appendix D
Special-Status Species Evaluation Tables
230
Special-Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum D-1
Special-Status Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Study Area Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR1 Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Arctostaphylos refugioensis
R
efugio manzanita
None/None
G
3/S3
1B.2
SBBG
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral. On sandstone. Elevations: 900-2690f t. (274-820m.) Blooms (May) Dec-Mar.

No Potential No suitable chapparal habitat is present within the s tudy area. This species does not occur within the elevation of the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 3.5 miles north of the study area. However, this occurrence is historical (1974).

Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus
M
iles' milk-vetch
None/None
G
5T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Coastal scrub. Clay soils. Elevations: 65-295f t. (20-90m.) Blooms Mar-Jun. No Potential No suitable coastal scrub present within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5- mile radius of the study area.

Atriplex coulteri
Coulter's saltbush
None/None
G
3/S1S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline (sometimes), clay (sometimes). Elevations: 10-1510ft. (3-460m.) Blooms Mar-Oct.

Low Potential No suitable coastal bluff scrub or dun
es, or foothill grassland habitat is present within the study area.

However, suitable clay soils are present at the southern section of the study area. There are four CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, with the closest occurrences in the relative area of the study area (exact location and year unknown). This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii
Davidson's saltscale
None/None
G
5T1/S1
1B.2
Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Alkaline. Elevations: 35-655f t. (10-200m.) Blooms Apr-Oct.

Low Potential Coastal s crub habitat is present within the study area. There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5- mile radius of the study area, with the closest occurrence approximately 1.6 miles from the study area.

However, this occurrence is historical (1948). This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Calochortus fimbriatus
late-flowered mariposa-lily
None/None
G
3/S3
1B.3
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland.

S
erpentinite (sometimes). Elevations: 900-6250ft. (275-1905m.) Blooms Jun-Aug.

No Potential This species does not occur within the elevation of the st udy area.

Calystegia sepium ssp. binghamiae
Santa Barbara morning-glory
None/None
G
5TXQ/SX
1A
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and swamps. Elevations: 15-15f t. (5-5m.) Blooms Aug.

No Potential No suitable marsh or swamp habitat is present within the st udy area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Centromadia parryi ssp. australis
southern tarplant
None/None
G
3T2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Often in d
isturbed sites near the coast at marsh edges; also in alkaline soils sometimes with saltgrass. Sometimes on vernal pool margins. Elevations: 0-1575ft. (0-480m.) Blooms May- Nov.

Low Potential Suitable disturbed areas near the coast and alkaline soils present within the study area. However, there are no vernal pools, marshes, or swamps habitat present within the study area. There are thirteen CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. The closest occurrence overlaps the northern portion of the study area, although this and most other occurrences are historical. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Delphinium umbraculorum
umbrella larkspur
None/None
G
3/S3
1B.3
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Mesic sites. Elevations: 1310- 5250ft. (400-1600m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

No Potential This species does not occur within the elevation of the st udy area.

Fritillaria ojaiensis
Ojai fritillary
None/None
G
3/S3
1B.2
SBBG
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Broadleaf u pland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Rocky sites. Sometimes on serpentine; sometimes along roadsides. Elevations: 740-3275ft. (225-998m.) Blooms Feb-May.

No Potential This species does not occur within the elevation of the st udy area.

Hordeum intercedens
vernal barley
None/None
G
3G4/S3S4

3.2 Annual herb. Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools.

V
ernal pools, dry, saline streambeds, alkaline flats. 5-. Elevations: 15-3280ft. (5-1000m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.

No Potential No suitable coastal dunes, coastal scrub, or foothill grassland habitat present within the study area.

There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Horkelia cuneata var. puberula
mesa horkelia
None/None
G4T1/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub. Sandy or gravelly sites.

E
levations: 230-2660ft. (70-810m.) Blooms Feb-Jul(Sep).

No Potential This species does not occur within the elevation of the st udy area.

Juncus luciensis
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, great basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows a
nd seeps, vernal pools. Vernal pools, ephemeral drainages, wet meadow habitats and streamsides. Elevations: 985-6695ft. (300-2040m.) Blooms Apr-Jul.

No Potential This species does not occur within the elevation of the st udy area.

Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
FE/None
G
1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools.

V
ernal pools, swales, low depressions, in open grassy areas. Elevations: 0-1540ft. (0- 470m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.

No Potential No suitable cismontane woodland, playas, f oothill grassland, and vernal pools present within the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 2.5 miles southwest. However, this occurrence is historical (1973). 231
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

D-2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR1 Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Lasthenia glabrata ssp. co ulteri
Coulter's goldfields
None/None
G
4T2/S2
1B.1
SBBG
Annual herb. Marshes and swamps, playas, vernal pools. Usually found on alkaline soils in p
layas, sinks, and grasslands. 1-. Elevations: 5-4005ft. (1-1220m.) Blooms Feb-Jun.

No Potential No suitable marshes, swamps, playas, or vernal pools are pr esent within the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 1.8 miles away. However, this occurrence is historical (1982).

Layia heterotricha
pale-yellow layia
None/None
G
2/S2
1B.1
SBBG
Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, valley a
nd foothill grassland. Alkaline or clay soils; open areas. Elevations: 985-5595ft. (300- 1705m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.

No Potential This species does not occur within the elevation of the s tudy area.

Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata
Santa Barbara honeysuckle
None/None
G
5T2?/S2?
1B.2
SBBG
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub. Elevations:
35-
3280ft. (10-1000m.) Blooms (Feb)May-Aug (Dec).

Moderate Potential Suitable woodland habitat and sandy loam soils a re present within the study area. There are thirteen CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. The closest occurrence is approximately 2 miles southwest (2013). This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Malacothrix saxatilis var. arachnoidea
Carmel Valley malacothrix
None/None
G
5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Chaparral, coastal scrub. Rock outcrops or steep rocky r
oadcuts. Elevations: 80-3400ft. (25-1036m.) Blooms (Mar)Jun-Dec.

No Potential This species does not occur within the elevation of the st udy area.

Monardella hypoleuca ssp. hypoleuca
white-veined monardella
None/None
G
4T3/S3
1B.3
SBBG
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Dry slopes. Elevations: 165-5005f t. (50-
1525m.) Blooms (Apr)May-Aug(Sep-Dec).

No Potential This species does not occur within the elevation of the st udy area.

Nasturtium gambelii
Gambel's water cress
FE/ST
G
1/S1
1B.1
SBBG
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and swamps. Freshwater and brackish marshes at t
he margins of lakes and along streams, in or just above the water level. Elevations: 15- 1085ft. (5-330m.) Blooms Apr-Oct.

No Potential No suitable marsh or swamp ha bitat is present within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Pelazoneuron puberulum var. sonorense
Sonoran maiden fern
None/None
G
5T3/S2
2B.2
Meadows and seeps. Along streams, seepage areas. 50-6 10m. Blooms Jan-Sep. No Potential No suitable meadows or sweeps a re present within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Pleuridium mexicanum
Mexican earthmoss
None/None
G
5/S1
2B.1
Moss. Chaparral. Sandstone. Elevations: 1445-1445f t. (440-440m.) No Potential This species does not occur within the elevation of the st udy area.

Quercus dumosa
Nuttall's scrub oak
None/None
G
3/S3
1B.1
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral, closed-c one coniferous forest, coastal scrub.

Generally on sandy soils near the coast; sometimes on clay loam. Elevations: 50-1310ft. (15-400m.) Blooms Feb-Apr(May-Aug).

No Potential Suitable sandy loam soils are present within the study area. However, no suitable closed cone coniferous forest or coastal scrub is present in the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 5 miles away. However, this occurrence is historical (1959).

Ribes amarum var. hoffmannii
Hoffmann's bitter gooseberry
None/None
G
4?T3/S3
3 Perennial deciduous shrub. Chaparral, riparian woodland. Elevations: 15-3905f t. (5- 1190m.) Blooms Mar-Apr.

Low Potential Suitable riparian woodland habitat is present within the s tudy area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Scrophularia atrata
black-flowered figwort
None/None
G
2?/S2?
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, closed-c one coniferous forest, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, riparian scrub. Sand, diatomaceous shales, and soils derived from other parent material; around swales and in sand dunes. Elevations: 35-1640ft. (10-500m.) Blooms Mar-Jul.

No Potential No suitable habitat is pr esent within the study area. There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, with the most recent occurrence approximately 3.3 miles away. However, both occurrences are historical (1958 and 1966).

Suaeda esteroa
estuary seablite
None/None
G
3/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps. Coastal salt marshes in clay, silt, and sand su
bstrates. Elevations: 0-15ft. (0-5m.) Blooms (Jan-May) Jul-Oct.

Low Potential No suitable marshes or swamps are pr esent within the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 1.15 miles southeast of the study area.

However, this occurrence is historical (1979). This species was not observed within the study area during the March 2024 survey.

Thermopsis macrophylla
Santa Ynez false lupine
None/SR
G
1/S1
1B.3
SBBG
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Chaparral. In open areas such as fuel breaks, after burns; on s
andstone. Elevations: 1395-4595ft. (425-1400m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

No Potential This species does not occur within the elevation of the st udy area. 232
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum D-3
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR1 Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Cordylanthus maritimus ssp . Maritimus
Salt Marsh Bird's-beak
FE/SE
G
4?T1/S1
1B.2
Marshes and swamps, coastal dunes. Limited to the higher zones of salt marsh habitat. 0- 10 m
.

No Potential No suitable marshes, swamps or coastal dunes are p resent within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Arenaria paludicola
marsh sandwort
FE/SE
G
1/S1
1B.1
Marshes and swamps. Growing up through dense mats of Typha, Juncus, Scirpus, etc. in f
reshwater marsh. Sandy soil. 3-170 m.

No Potential No suitable freshwater marshes or dense mats of Typha s pp., Juncus spp., or Scirpus spp. are present within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Invertebrates
Bombus caliginosus
o
bscure bumble bee
None/None
G
2G3/S1S2
Coastal areas from Santa Barbara County north to Washington state. Food plant genera i
nclude Baccharis, Cirsium, Lupinus, Lotus, Grindelia and Phacelia.

Low P otential (foraging
and nesting)
Baccharis f ood sources present within the study area, outside of the project site, along the east side of the concrete channel along SR 217. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Bombus crotchii
C
rotch’s bumble bee
None/SCE
G
2/S2
Coastal California east to the Sierra-C ascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.

Low Potential ( foraging)
No Potential (nesting)
Most preferred food sources not present within the study area. There are six CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, with the closest occurrence within the relative area of the study area, although this occurrence is historical (1959). This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey. Suitable nesting habitat is not present due to concrete channel and dense riparian vegetation in upstream end of study area. Vegetation in downstream end is also tidally influenced.

Bombus pensylvanicus
American bumble bee
None/None
G
3G4/S2
Long-t ongued; forages on a wide variety of flowers including vetches (Vicia), clovers (Trifolium), thistles (Cirsium), sunflowers (Helianthus), etc. Nests above ground under long grass or underground. Queens overwinter in rotten wood or underground.

Low P
otential (foraging
and nesting)
Suitable foraging habitat is present within the st udy area, however, no suitable nesting habitat is present. This species occurs outside of the range of the study area. No CNDDB occurrences were recorded within 5 miles of the study area.

Cicindela hirticollis gravida
sandy beach tiger beetle
None/None
G
5T2/S2
Inhabits areas adjacent to non-brackish water along the coast of California from San F
rancisco Bay to northern Mexico. Clean, dry, light-colored sand in the upper zone.

Subterranean larvae prefer moist sand not affected by wave action.

No P otential Sandy areas a djacent to water is present at the downstream portion of the study area. However, sand within the study area may not contain enough moisture for this species as it is not always adjacent to a permanent source of water. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 3.5 miles south. However, the occurrence is historical (2003).

Coelus globosus
globose dune beetle
None/None
G
1G2/S1S2
Inhabitant of coastal sand dune habitat; erratically distributed from Ten Mile Creek in Mendocino County south to Ensenada, Mexico. Inhabits foredunes and sand hummocks; it burrows beneath the sand surface and is most common beneath dune vegetation.

No Potential No suitable coastal sand dunes and sand hammocks a re present within the study area. There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. However, one occurrence is historical (1966). The closest occurrence is approximately 1 mile south along the coastline. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Danaus plexippus
monarch butterfly
FPT/ None
G4T1T2Q/S2
Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, M
exico. Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby.

Present ( individuals only)
Low Potential
(
overwintering)
Eucalyptus trees are pr esent within the study area and in the surrounding area. However, eucalyptus groves are limited in the surrounding area. This species has been observed as recently as 2023 within eucalyptus trees of the neighboring areas 0.15 miles west of the study area. The closest overwintering sites are approximately 0.2 miles north of the study area (Xerces Site ID: 2763) and 0.15 miles west of the study area (Xerces Site ID: 3174; Xerces 2024). An individual monarch was observed during the March 2024 survey. However, no overwintering sites were observed within the study area.

Eugnosta busckana
Busck's gallmoth
None/None
G
1G3/S2S3
Coastal southern California. Tiny micro-mo th (1 cm) with larva forming galls on host plant Encelia californica (California brittlebush). Adult flight period is during winter, generally from November to February, and have been reported at UV lights and porch lights.

No Potential No suitable host plants, Encelia californica, present within the study area. The closest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.3 miles northeast. However, this occurrence is historical (1999).

Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
None/None
G
2G3/S2S3
Seasonal pools in unplowed grasslands with old alluvial soils underlain by hardpan or in s
andstone depressions. Water in the pools has very low alkalinity, conductivity, and total dissolved solids.

No Potential No suitable vernal pools a nd depressions are present within the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence approximately 2.5 miles from the study area. However, this occurrence is historical (1955).

Tryonia imitator mimic tryonia
California brackishwater snail
None/None
G
2/S2
Inhabits coastal lagoons, estuaries and salt marshes, from Sonoma County south to San D
iego County. Found only in permanently submerged areas in a variety of sediment types; able to withstand a wide range of salinities.

No Potential No suitable coastal lagoons, estuaries, and salt marshes ar e present within the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 1.7 miles southwest.

However, this occurrence is historical (1966).

Fish
Eucyclogobius newberryi
t
idewater goby
FE/None
G
3/S3
Brackish water habitats along the California coast from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego C
ounty to the mouth of the Smith River. Found in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches, they need fairly still but not stagnant water and high oxygen levels.

High Potential Suitable shallow stream present within the study area. There are six CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, the closest occurrence recorded 0.65 miles south at the mouth of the Atascadero Creek. Critical habitat is found along the coast and ends where the southern end of the study area starts.
233
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

D-4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR1 Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10
st
eelhead - southern California DPS
FE/SE
G
5T1Q/S1
Federal listing refers to populations from Santa Maria River south to southern extent of r
ange (San Mateo Creek in San Diego County). Southern steelhead likely have greater physiological tolerances to warmer water and more variable conditions.

Moderate Potential No suitable breeding habitat or connectivity is present within the study area. However, this species may attempt to pass through San Jose Creek. San Jose Creek is designated critical habitat for the species.

There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Reptiles
Anniella pulchra
no
rthern California legless lizard
None/None
G
3/S2S3
SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Soil moisture is essential. They prefer s
oils with a high moisture content.

Low P otential Suitable sandy and loamy soils ar e present within the study area, however, the moisture content is not preferrable. There are eight CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, with the closest occurrence approximately 1.5 miles southeast. All occurrences are historical except for one 2012 observation approximately 4 miles east of the study area.

Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
c
oastal whiptail
None/None
G
5T5/S3
SSC
Found in deserts and semi-a rid areas with sparse vegetation and open areas. Also found in woodland and riparian areas. Ground may be firm soil, sandy, or rocky.

No Potential No suitable desert habitat is p resent within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5- mile radius of the study area.

Actinemys pallida
southwestern pond turtle
FPT/None
G
3G4/S3
SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, u
sually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying.

Moderate Potential Suitable aquatic habitat is present within the study area. However, no suitable upland habitat for b
asking and egg-laying is present within the study area. There are six CNDDB occurrences within a 5- mile radius of the study area. The closest and most recent occurrence was 0.75 miles east of the study area within Atascadero Creek (2015). This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
None/None
G
4/S4
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands along sandy washes with sc
attered low bushes. Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects.

No Potential No suitable chapparal o r coastal scrub habitat or open areas for sunning present within the study area.

There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5 mile radius of the study area, both approximately 4.9 miles north of the study area.

Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
coast patch-nosed snake
None/None
G
5T4/S3
SSC
Brushy or shrubby vegetation in coastal Southern California. Require small mammal b
urrows for refuge and overwintering sites.

No Potential No suitable brushy or shrubby vegetation within the study area. N o burrows observed within the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 4.9 miles northeast. However, this occurrence is historical (1979).

Thamnophis hammondii
two-striped gartersnake
None/None
G
4/S3S4
SSC
Coastal California from vicinity of Salinas to northwest Baja California. From sea to about 7 ,000 ft elevation. Highly aquatic, found in or near permanent fresh water. Often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth.

No Potential No suitable permanent freshwater present in the study area. No CNDDB occurrences within a 5-m ile radius of the study area.

Amphibians
Anaxyrus californicus
a
rroyo toad
FE/None
G
2G3/S2
SSC
Semi-a rid regions near washes or intermittent streams, including valley- foothill and desert riparian, desert wash, etc. Rivers with sandy banks, willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores; loose, gravelly areas of streams in drier parts of range.

No Potential Suitable riparian vegetation such as willows are present within the study area. However, this species does not occur within the range of the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Rana boylii pop. 6
f
oothill yellow-legged frog – south coast DPS
FE/SE
G
3T1/S1
Southern Coast Ranges from Monterey Bay south through San Gabriel Mountains; west of t
he Salinas River in Monterey Co, south through Transverse Ranges, and east through San Gabriel Mountains. Historically may have ranged to Baja California. Partly shaded shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. Needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying and at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis.

No Potential No suitable shaded streams with rocky substrate present within the study area.

There are no CNDDB
occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
FT/None
G
2G3/S2S3
SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby o
r emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation habitat.

Moderate P otential No suitable emergent vegetation present within the study area. However, there is some available terrestrial estivation habitat available. There are six CNDDB occurrences within the 5-mile radius of the study area, with the closest occurrence approximately 3.6 miles north. Critical habitat is located along the northern edge of the CNDDB 5-mile boundary. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Taricha torosa
coast range newt
None/None
G
4/S4
SSC
Coastal drainages from Mendocino County to San Diego County. Lives in terrestrial ha
bitats and will migrate over 1 km to breed in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams.

Low Potential Suitable terrestrial and coastal drainages ar e present within the study area. There are five CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. However, three of these occurrences are historical (1580, 1960, 1990). This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Birds
Accipiter cooperii
C
ooper's hawk
None/None
G
5/S4
WL
Woodland, chiefly of open, interrupted or marginal type. Nest sites mainly in riparian g
rowths of deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains; also, live oaks.

Moderate P otential
(nesting and foraging)
Suitable woodland and live oaks present within the study area. There are two CNDDB occurrences of nests within a 5-mile radius of the study area, both of which are approximately 1.4 miles east of the study area. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey. 234
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum D-5
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR1 Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Agelaius tricolor
t
ricolored blackbird
None/ST
G
1G2/S2
SSC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to C
alifornia. Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey within a few km of the colony.

Low P otential (nesting
and foraging)
No suitable open water, nesting substrate, and foraging habitat present within the study area. There are three CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. Three nest sites recorded within approximately a 3-mile radius of the study area. The closest recorded nest is within 0.5 miles. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Aimophila ruficeps canescens
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
None/None
G
5T3/S4
WL
Resident in Southern California coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed chaparral. Frequents r
elatively steep, often rocky hillsides with grass and forb patches.

No Potential No suitable chapparal, coastal scrub or nearby rocky hillsides present within the st udy area. There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, both approximately 4.25 miles away.

However, both occurrences are historical (1992 and 1994).

Ammodramus savannarum
grasshopper sparrow
None/None
G
5/S3
SSC
Dense grasslands on rolling hills, lowland plains, in valleys and on hillsides on lower m
ountain slopes. Favors native grasslands with a mix of grasses, forbs and scattered shrubs. Loosely colonial when nesting.

No Potential No suitable grassland habitat o n rolling hills, lowland plains, or valleys present within the study area.

There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, the closest occurrence approximately 1.3 miles from the study area. However, both occurrences were within grassland habitat.

Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
None/None
G
5/S3
FP
WL
Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-j uniper flats, and desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas.

No Potential No suitable foothills, mountain areas, sage-j uniper or desert habitat present within the study area.

There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Ardea alba
great egret
None/None
G
5/S4
Colonial nester in large trees. Rookery sites located near marshes, tide-f lats, irrigated pastures, and margins of rivers and lakes.

Moderate Potential
(
foraging only)
No suitable nesting or rookery habitat within the study area. Suitable foraging areas present within the s
tudy area. There is one CNDDB nest occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately

0.6 miles south of the study area. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey. The species may transient through the study area.

Ardea herodias
great blue heron
None/None
G
5/S4
Colonial nester in tall trees, cliffsides, and sequestered spots on marshes. Rookery sites in c
lose proximity to foraging areas: marshes, lake margins, tide-flats, rivers and streams, wet meadows.

Moderate Potential
(
foraging only)
No suitable nesting or rookery habitat within the study area. Suitable foraging areas present within the s
tudy area. There are two CNDDB nest occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 0.6 miles south of the study area. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey. The species may transient through the study area.

Artemisiospiza belli belli
Bell's sparrow
None/None
G
5T2T3/S3
WL
Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands of chamise. Found in coastal sage s
crub in south of range. Nest located on the ground beneath a shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches above ground. Territories about 50 yds apart.

No Potential No suitable chapparal or other nesting requirements present within the st udy area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the study area. However, this occurrence is historical (1994).

Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
None/None
G
4/S2
SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low- g
rowing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel.

No Potential No suitable desert, or scrubland habitat present. There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5-m ile radius of the study area, each of them within grassland habitat.

Brachyramphus marmoratus
marbled murrelet
FE/SE
G
3/S2
Feeds near-s hore; nests inland along coast from Eureka to Oregon border and from Half Moon Bay to Santa Cruz. Nests in old-growth redwood-dominated forests, up to six miles inland, often in Douglas-fir.

No Potential No suitable old-g rowth redwood forest habitat is found within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences for this species within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
None/None
G
4/S3S4
WL
Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and fringes of pinyon and j
uniper habitats. Eats mostly lagomorphs, ground squirrels, and mice. Population trends may follow lagomorph population cycles.

No Potential No suitable sagebrush flats, desert scrub, or pinyon and juniper habitats present within the study area.

T
here are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Charadrius nivosus nivosus
western snowy plover
FT/None
G
3T3/S3
SSC
Sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly or f
riable soils for nesting.

No Potential No suitable beaches, shores or gravelly soils present within the study area. Critical Habitat is present approximately 3.4 miles southwest of the study area along the coastline. There are three CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, with the most recent occurrence in 2014.

Coccyzus americanus
yellow billed cuckoo
FT/SE
G
5T2T3/S1
Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower flood-b ottoms of larger river systems. Nests in riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with cottonwoods, with lower story of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape.

Low P
otential (nesting
and foraging)
Sui table riparian habitat is present within the study area. However, there are no CNDDB occurrences for this species within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Coturnicops noveboracensis
yellow rail
None/None
G
4/S2
SSC
Summer resident in eastern Sierra Nevada in Mono County. Freshwater marshlands. No Potential No suitable freshwater marshes present within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Egretta thula
snowy egret
None/None
G
5/S4
Colonial nester, with nest sites situated in protected beds of dense tules. Rookery sites si
tuated close to foraging areas: marshes, tidal-flats, streams, wet meadows, and borders of lakes.

Moderate P otential
(foraging only)
No suitable tules for nesting present within the study area. However, there are streams in the areas s
urrounding the study area that could provide foraging habitat. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. The species may be transient through the study area. 235
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

D-6
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR1 Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Elanus leucurus
w
hite-tailed kite
None/None
G
5/S3S4
FP
Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes n
ext to deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped trees for nesting and perching.

Moderate Potential
(
foraging)
Low Potential (nesting)
Suitable deciduous woodlands present within the study area. S uitable nearby open grassland and marshes present in the areas surrounding the study area. Somewhat suitable nesting habitat present in the upstream potion of the study area (deciduous woodland). There are two CNDDB occurrences of nests within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 1.5 miles east. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Empidonax traillii extimus
southwestern willow flycatcher
FE/SE
G
5T2/S3
Riparian woodlands in Southern California. Low Potential ( foraging and nesting)
Suitable riparian habitat is present within the st udy area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5- mile radius of the study area. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
None/None
G
5T4Q/S4
WL
Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma County to San Diego County. Also main part of San Jo
aquin Valley and east to foothills. Short-grass prairie, “bald” hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats.

No Potential No suitable prairies, meadows, or plains are pr esent within the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 3 miles southwest of the study area.

Falco mexicanus
prairie falcon
None/None
G
5/S4
WL
Inhabits dry, open terrain, either level or hilly. Breeding sites located on cliffs. Forages far a
field, even to marshlands and ocean shores.

No Potential No suitable open habitat or cliffs present within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Gymnogyps californianus
California condor
FE/SE
G
1/S2
FP
Require vast expanses of open savannah, grasslands, and foothill chaparral in mountain r
anges of moderate altitude. Deep canyons containing clefts in the rocky walls provide nesting sites. Forages up to 100 miles from roost/nest.

No Potential No suitable open habitat, mountains, or rocky areas present within the study area. There are no CNDDB o
ccurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
None/ST
G
3T1/S2
FP
Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows and shallow margins of saltwater marshes bo
rdering larger bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch that do not fluctuate during the year and dense vegetation for nesting habitat.

No Potential No suitable marshes, wet meadows, or shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays p
resent within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Nannopterum auritum
double-crested cormorant
None/None
G
5/S4
WL
Colonial nester on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in the interior of t
he state. Nests along coast on sequestered islets, usually on ground with sloping surface, or in tall trees along lake margins.

Low P otential (foraging
only)
No suitable nesting habitat within the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-m ile radius of the study area, approximately 0.85 miles south. The species may transient through the study area.

Nycticorax nycticorax
black-crowned night heron
None/None
G
5/S4
Colonial nester, usually in trees, occasionally in tule patches. Rookery sites located ad
jacent to foraging areas: lake margins, mud-bordered bays, marshy spots.

Low P otential (foraging
only)
No suitable nesting or rookery habitat within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. The species may transient through the study area.

Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi
Belding's savannah sparrow
None/SE
G
5T3/S3
Inhabits coastal salt marshes, from Santa Barbara south through San Diego County. Nests i
n Salicornia on and about margins of tidal flats.

No Potential No suitable coastal salt marsh habitat within the study area. P ickleweed mats are present in the southern part of the study area, but in limited extent and located adjacent to mature willows. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 1 mile southeast.

Rallus obsoletus levipes
light-footed Ridgway's rail
FE/SE
G
3T1T2/S1
FP
Found in salt marshes traversed by tidal sloughs, where cordgrass and pickleweed are the d
ominant vegetation. Requires dense growth of either pickleweed or cordgrass for nesting or escape cover; feeds on molluscs and crustaceans.

Low P otential (foraging
only)
No suitable salt marshes for nesting are present. Small patches of pickleweed mats are present at the s
outhern portion of the study area. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 1.5 miles from the study area. However, this occurrence is historical (1969) and has not been seen in the area since.

Riparia riparia
bank swallow
None/ST
G
5/S3
Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert.

R
equires vertical banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole.

Low Potential ( nesting
and foraging)
Suitable riparian habitat with sandy soils are pr esent within the study area. There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. There are two known occurrences in CNDDB within a 5-mile radius of the study area. However, both are historical occurrences (1913 and 1927).

Sternula antillarum browni
California least tern
FE/SE
G
4T2T3Q/S2
FP
Nests along the coast from San Francisco Bay south to northern Baja California. Colonial b
reeder on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates: sand beaches, alkali flats, landfills, or paved areas.

No Potential No su itable coastline nesting habitat present within the study area . There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5 mile radius of the study area, approximately 3.2 miles away.

Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
FE/SE
G
5T2/S3
Summer resident of Southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river b
ottoms; below 2000 ft. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite.

Moderate P otential
(nesting and foraging)
Suitable riparian habitat near water or dry river bottoms and nesting habitat are pr esent within the
study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pa
llid bat
None/None
G
4/S3
SSC
Found in a variety of habitats including deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and f
orests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts in crevices of rock outcrops, caves, mine tunnels, buildings, bridges, and hollows of live and dead trees which must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

Low Potential (roosting)
Moderate P
otential
(= foraging)
No suitable shrubland, rocky and open dry areas or low disturbance roosting areas present within the s
tudy area. However, woodland habitat and Hollister Avenue Bridge is present within the study area.

The Hollister Ave Bridge could be used as roosting habitat, however, since the bridge is heavily trafficked by humans, it's unlikely it would be used by this species. There is one CNDDB occurrence within the 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 2.9 miles away. 236
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment Addendum D-7
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State ESA
CRPR1 Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur Rationale Corynorhinus townsendii
T
ownsend's big-eared bat
None/None
G
4/S2
SSC
Occurs throughout California in a wide variety of habitats. Most common in mesic sites, t
ypically coniferous or deciduous forests. Roosts in the open, hanging from walls & ceilings in caves, lava tubes, bridges, and buildings. This species is extremely sensitive to human disturbance.

Low P otential (roosting
and foraging)
No suitable mesic forests present within the study area. The Hollister Ave Bridge could be used as roosting habitat, however, since the bridge is heavily trafficked by humans, it's unlikely it would be used by this species. There is one CNDDB occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the study area. However, this occurrence is historical (1985).

Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat
None/None
G
4G5T4/S3S4
SSC
Occurs in open, semi-a rid to arid habitats, including coniferous and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, and chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces and caves, and buildings. Roosts typically occur high above ground.

Low P
otential (roosting
and foraging)
Suitable woodland habitat present. However, coastal scrub, grasslands, chapparal and high roosting ha
bitat not present within the study area. There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5 mile radius of the study area, approximately 1.3 miles east. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
None/None
G
3G4/S4
Typically roosts in trees in deciduous and coniferous forests and woodlands but o
ccasionally roosts in rocks crevices. Forages in open areas, typically along riparian corridors or over water. Diet primarily consists of moths.

Moderate Potential
(
roosting and foraging)
Suitable woodlands, riparian vegetation, and food sources present within the study area. There are two CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, approximately 1.3 miles east. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Lasiurus frantzii
western red bat
None/None
G
4/S3
SSC
Roosts primarily in trees, 2-4 0 ft above ground, from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. Prefers habitat edges and mosaics with trees that are protected from above and open below with open areas for foraging.

No Potential No suitable habitat edges, trees that are protected from above and open areas for foraging present w
ithin the study area. There are three CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area, with the closest observation approximately 1.3 miles east of the study area. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Myotis yumanensis
Yuma myotis
None/None
G
5/S4
Occurs in a variety of lowland and upland habitats including desert scrub, riparian, and w
oodlands and forests. Distribution is closely tied to bodies of water. Roosts in a variety of areas including caves, cliffs, mines, crevices in live trees, and buildings and other man- made structures.

Moderate Potential
(
roosting and foraging)
Suitable woodlands, riparian, and roosting habitat is present within the study area. The Hollister Ave Bridge could be used as roosting habitat, however, since the bridge is heavily trafficked by humans, it's unlikely it would be used by this species. There are two CNDDB occurrences within 1.5 miles of the study area. This species was not observed during the March 2024 survey.

Neotoma lepida intermedia
San Diego desert woodrat
None/None
G
5T3T4/S3S4
SSC
Occurs in scrub habitats of southern California from San Luis Obispo County to San Diego C
ounty.

No Potential No suitable scrub habitats and moderate to dense canopies present within the st udy area. One CNDDB occurrence is documented approximately 4 miles north the study area, in the Santa Ynez Mountains.

Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat
None/None
G
5/S3
SSC
Low-l ying arid areas in Southern California. Need high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. Feeds principally on large moths.

No Potential No suitable cliffs and rocky outcrops present within the study area. There are no CNDDB occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the study area.

Regional Vicinity refers to within a 5-mile search radius of the study area.

Status (Federal/State)
FE = F ederal Endangered
FT = F ederal Threatened
FC = F ederal Candidate
SE = S tate Endangered
ST = S tate Threatened
SCE = S tate Candidate Endangered
SSC = C DFW Species of Special Concern
FP = C DFW Fully Protected
WL = C DFW Watch List
CRPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank)
1A = P resumed extirpated in California, and rare or extinct elsewhere 1B = R are, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2B= R are, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 = N eed more information (Review List)
CRPR Threat Code Extension
.1 = S eriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = M oderately threatened in California (20 -80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 = N ot very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat) References: CDFW 2025b, 2025c
Other Statuses
G1 or S1 C ritically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 I mperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)
G3 or S3 V ulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 A pparently secure, common and abundant
Additional notations may be provided as follows
T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority ? – Inexact numeric rank
SBBG – Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
237
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

D-8

This page intentionally left blank.

238
Appendix E
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
239
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage
Modification Project
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
prepared for
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, California 93117
Contact: Gerald Comati, PE
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
319 East Carrillo Street, Suite 105
Santa Barbara, California 93101
October 2025
240
Table of Contents

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 2 Project History ...................................................................................................................... 5 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 5 2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 8 Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 8 Field Survey ........................................................................................................................... 9 3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 12 Topography, Land Use, and Climate ................................................................................... 12 Hydrology............................................................................................................................ 12 Vegetation Communities and Other Land Covers .............................................................. 12 Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 22 4 Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands ..................................................................... 25 San Jose Creek .................................................................................................................... 31

4.1.1 Waters of the U.S. ................................................................................................... 32

4.1.2 Waters of the State ................................................................................................. 33

4.1.3 CDFW-jurisdictional Streambeds ............................................................................ 33

4.1.4 Coastal Wetlands..................................................................................................... 33

4.1.5 City-defined Wetlands ............................................................................................. 34

4.1.6 City Streamside Protection Areas ........................................................................... 34 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 35 6 References .................................................................................................................................... 36 Tables
Table 1 Summary of Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ...........................................13 Table 2 Potentially Jurisdictional Waters Delineated within the Study Area .................................25 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Project Location Map ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 Overview of Project Design .................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4a Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Overview..............................................14 Figure 4b Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 1 .................................................15 Figure 4c Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 2 .................................................16 Figure 4d Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 3 .................................................17 241
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

ii
Figure 4e Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 4 .................................................18 Figure 5 Soils ....................................................................................................................................24 Figure 6a Jurisdictional Areas – Overview .........................................................................................26 Figure 6b Jurisdictional Areas – Panel 1 .............................................................................................27 Figure 6c Jurisdictional Areas – Panel 2 .............................................................................................28 Figure 6d Jurisdictional Areas – Panel 3 .............................................................................................29 Figure 6e Jurisdictional Areas – Panel 4 .............................................................................................30 Appendices
Appendix A Engineering Project Design and Cross-Sections Appendix B E ngineering Cross-Section Detail
Appendix C E ngineering Cut and Fill
Appendix D Regulatory Framework
Appendix E Plant Species Observed in Study Area
Appendix F Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams Ordinary High Water Mark Datasheet Appendix G Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix H Site Photographs
242
Executive Summary

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 1
Executive Summary
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared this Aquatic Resources Delineation Report to determine the location and extent of waters, including wetlands, that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Coastal Commission (CCC), and the City of Goleta (City) for the City’s San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project (Project) located in Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. The proposed Project seeks to achieve improved and unimpeded passage for the 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 spawning and rearing habitat in the upper watershed. Modifications to the concrete flood control channel and a small portion of the upstream natural channel of San Jose Creek are necessary to meet these objectives. These modifications include removing the existing non- functioning wooden weirs and wedges, modifying the existing concrete weirs, adding new concrete vortex-type weirs, and re-grading a small reach of the upstream natural channel to restore the original channel gradient. Additionally, the upstream natural channel will be restored with native riparian vegetation after construction is complete. Native trees and shrubs of local genetic stock will be installed along the creek banks 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. The overall purpose of the Project is to restore ecological function and improve habitat conditions for steelhead in San Jose Creek by modifying the channel within the flood control reach and immediately upstream natural reach.

This report includes a literature review and d
ocuments existing site conditions via a desktop analysis and field surveys, including a jurisdictional delineation. The 5.85-acre work area, along with a 100- foot buffer, was assessed, for a total of 28.45 acres, hereinafter referred to as the “study area.” One jurisdictional hydrologic feature (San Jose Creek) is present within the study area. San Jose Creek is subject to the jurisdictions of the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), CDFW pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) 1600 et seq., Central Coast RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Water Code (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act), and CCC per the California Coastal Act. San Jose Creek also supports City-defined wetlands and Streamside Protection Areas (SPA) pursuant to the City’s General Plan Conservation Element.
243
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

2 1 Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) conducted a jurisdictional waters and wetlands delineation for the City of Goleta’s (City) San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project (Project), located in the city of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. The delineation was conducted to determine the location and extent of jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, within the Project site that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Coastal Commission (CCC), and the City.

The proposed Pro ject seeks to achieve improved and unimpeded passage for the 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 channel, and upstream to the natural migration corridor that leads to spawning and rearing habitat in the upper watershed. As the Project is a fish passage restoration project that is wholly located within jurisdictional waters, construction may be subject to the permit requirements of the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Central Coast RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, CDFW pursuant to Section 1600 et. seq. of the CFGC, and CCC pursuant to the California Coastal Act (CCA). As such, the City will obtain coverage under the following permits: USACE Nationwide Permit 27 (Aquatic Habitat Restoration), Central Coast 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 Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Actual jurisdictional areas are determined by the state and federal authorities at the time that permits are requested.

Project Location
The Project is located in San Jose Creek within the city of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California, along the west side of State Route (SR) 217 (Figure 1 a nd Figure 2 ). Th e Project site is approximately

5.85 acres and located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 071-190-039, 071-190-035, 071-190- 017, 071-170-086, 071-170-036, 071-140-080, 071-140-060, 071-140-040, 071-090-090, 071-090- 089, 071-090-037, and 071-090-098. The approximate center location is latitude 34.431653°N and longitude -119.821308°W (WGS-84 datum). The site is within the Goleta, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (USGS quad; USGS 2024). The Public Land Survey System depicts the Project within Township 4N, Range 28W, Section 16, and Township 4N, Range 28W, Section 9, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Earth Point 2024). The southern portion of the Project site is within the Coastal Zone. See Figure 1 f or the regional location of the
Project.
244
Introduction

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 3
Figure 1 Regional Location

245
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

4 Figure 2 Project Location Map

246
Introduction

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 5
Project History
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 a natural channel of reduced flood capacity and unnaturally low stream gradient. Due to break out flood waters from the channel, and a lack of fish-passage, it was determined that the channel should be increased in capacity to accommodate a 100-year flood event and fish=passage elements installed along the channel. This project was constructed as the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement and Fish Passage Project and the City prepared an Initial Study / Final Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment in 2007 (IS-MND/EA) (07-MND-01, City of Goleta 2007), Science Applications International Corporation, Inc. (SAIC) prepared an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Environmental Assessment (MND/EA) in 2008 (SAIC 2008), and Entrix prepared a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) in October 2010 (Entrix 2010). The City approved the project in 2011 and construction began in 2013. At that time, the project constructed fish passage and flood control capacity improvements in the concrete stream channel downstream of Hollister Avenue as an initial phase of the Project, with the replacement of the Hollister Avenue Bridge over San Jose Creek following in a subsequent phase (Caltrans 2015, URS 2014, URS 2015).

Due to timing and funding considerations, the City opted to treat replacement of the bridge as a separate project.

The fish passage component of the project proceeded as planned; however, the installed timber w
eirs did not function properly, and the overall fish passage facility retained too much sediment and debris. The end result was ineffective for fish passage and required an unreasonable and unattainable level of maintenance efforts by the City. The goal of the currently proposed Project is to create a fish passage facility that works and meets latest design protocols for fish passage. The project will remove all wooden weirs, modify the previously installed weirs, and install additional weirs. Some biological and permitting aspects of the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project remain relevant to the Project, such as previous agency coordination that addressed both projects collectively (Caltrans 2015).

Project Description
The Project seeks to achieve improved and unimpeded passage for southern California steelhead through the concrete flood control portion of the San Jose Creek channel, and upstream to the natural migration corridor that leads to 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 optimize fish passage in conjunction with reducing sediment and debris accumulations. The design team, composed of staff from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), City of Goleta, SBCFCWCD, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 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 but is not limited to, removal of timber wedge structures, modifications to existing weirs, and re-grading the natural channel, as further described in the Project’s BRA (Rincon 2025). 247
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

6 The preferred design modifies the weir layout to direct low flows to the fish passage channel, mobilize sediment, and pass woody debris more effectively, reducing maintenance needs.

These modifications to the flood control channel dimensions, the flood control channel fish passage w
eirs, 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 weir work in the channel and grading of the natural creek, the upstream natural creek will also be restored with native riparian vegetation after construction is complete.

Construction will not occur in ponded or flowing water within the channel.

Appendix A
through C includes figures that show the geometry of weir types, location of weirs, extents of the channel modifications, and sample existing versus proposed cross-section views in the channel modification area. Appendix B also provides an overview of the Project design (Figure 3 ). A full project description is provided in the Project’s BRA (Rincon 2025). 248
Introduction

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 7
Figure 3 Overview of Project Design

249
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

8 2 Methodology
For the Project, the study area was established to contain all the Project components, including construction areas (i.e., impact areas) and grading limits, plus a 100-foot buffer. The study area analyzed in this report encompasses approximately 28.45 acres. The jurisdictional delineation included a literature review of existing studies, maps, and other publications. After completion of the literature review, a field delineation was conducted to identify, describe, and map all potential jurisdictional waters within the study area. The jurisdictional delineation was conducted in accordance with USACE, CDFW, Central Coast RWQCB, and CCC procedures, as outlined below.

Appendix D presents a discussion of pertinent regulations and definitions pertaining to this jurisdictional delineation. In addition, representative site photographs were taken. A plant list was compiled. Vegetation communities and land cover types were mapped, as outlined below.

Literature Review
Prior to the field survey, Rincon reviewed aerial imagery of the study area (Earth Point 2024), the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Goleta, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (USGS quad; USGS 2025), the Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA, NRCS] 2025a), and the National Hydric Soils List by State: California (USDA, NRCS 2025b). These resources were reviewed to better characterize the site and its surroundings from a hydrologic, geologic, and topographic perspective and to determine if any soil units mapped in the study area were classified as hydric. Additionally, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2025) and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD; USGS 2025) were reviewed to determine if any wetlands or other waters were mapped in or near the study area.

Rincon also reviewed information available in the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project and o
ther adjacent projects, including Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project and San Jose Creek Multi-use Path Project, as listed below:

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 9
Field Survey
Rincon biologists Julie Love and Kendra Bonsall conducted a formal jurisdictional delineation field survey on March 20 and 21, 2024. Data from previous field surveys were used to inform the March 20 and 21, 2024 surveys (Entrix 2010, Caltrans 2015). Potentially jurisdictional features within the site were inspected to record existing conditions and determine potential wetlands and non-wetland aquatic resources that might exhibit indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and/or presence of bed and banks that might constitute jurisdictional waters. Wetland sample points were taken at representative locations to determine the presence/absence of wetland indicators, such as hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Soil test pits confirmed the soil conditions from the sample point. Soils data was collected using a shovel and Munsell color chart.

Portions of the project (i.e., Hollister Avenue Bridge) are currently under construction and were previously impacted in the study area, and in those areas data collection was limited.

The extent of potential jurisdictional waters, sample points, vegetation communities/land covers
vegetation boundaries, and photopoints were collected in the field using a Geode Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Receiver unit with sub-meter accuracy paired with Samsung tablets. All collected data was collected in the Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) ArcGIS Field Maps application and were subsequently transferred to Rincon’s Geographic Information System (GIS) software program (i.e., ArcGIS Pro) to produce all figures and to determine lengths and acreages. Width measurements were also estimated in the field.

Non-Wetland Waters of the United States
The lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction (i.e., width) for non-wetland waters were determined by the presence of physical characteristics indicative of the OHWM. The OHWM was identified in accordance with the applicable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections (33 CFR 328.3 and 33 CFR 328.4) and Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 (USACE 2005), as well as in reference to various relevant technical publications, including, but not limited to: Review of Ordinary High Water Mark Indicators for Delineating Arid Streams in the Southwestern United States (USACE 2004), Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Indicators and Their Reliability in Identifying the Limits of “Waters of the United States” in Arid Southwestern Channels (USACE 2006), and A Field Guide to Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the United States (USACE 2008b).

Additionally, Rincon evaluated sources of water, potential connections and distances to Traditional N
avigable Waters (TNWs), stream flow duration and other factors that affect whether waters may qualify as “waters of the U.S.” under current USACE regulations (33 CFR 328.3), including, but not limited to, the recent Sackett v. USEPA court ruling and the conforming Revised Definition of Waters of the United States (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2023). A more detailed regulatory definition of USACE jurisdiction can be found in Appendix D.

Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Potential wetland features were evaluated for presence of wetland indicators; specifically, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology, generally in accordance with routine delineation procedures within the Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008b). The USACE Arid West 2022 Regional Wetland Plant List was used to determine the wetland status of the examined vegetation by the following indicator status categories: Upland (UPL), 251
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

10 Facultative Upland (FACU), Facultative (FAC), Facultative Wetland (FACW), and Obligate Wetland (OBL) (USACE 2022).

Potential wetland waters of the U.S. were evaluated in accordance with the Sackett v. USEPA co urt ruling and the conforming Revised Definition of Waters of the United States (USEPA 2023). The court ruling and conforming Revised Definition of Waters of the United States decided “adjacent wetlands” are waters of the U.S. only if there is a continuous surface connection between the wetland and a navigable or relatively permanent water body, such that it is difficult to determine the boundary between the wetland and the water body. The revised definition notes “temporary interruptions to surface connection may sometimes occur because of phenomena like low tides or dry spells.” The Conforming Rule defines the term “adjacent” to mean “having a continuous surface connection.” A more detailed regulatory definition of USACE jurisdiction can be found in Appendix D.

Waters of the State
The limits of “waters of the State,” as defined under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, are any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.

The top of bank or outer edge of riparian, whichever was greater, was used to represent the limits of non-wetland waters of the State.

Potential State wetland features were evaluated pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Bo
ard’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2021), which relies on the same three parameters as the USACE definition (hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils) but allows for naturally unvegetated areas meeting the other two parameters to be considered wetlands. A more detailed regulatory definition of RWQCB jurisdiction can be found in Appendix D.

CDFW-jurisdictional Streambeds
The extent of potential streambeds, streambanks, lakes and riparian habitat subject to CDFW jurisdiction under Sections 1600 et seq. of the CFGC was delineated by reviewing the topography and morphology of potentially jurisdictional features to determine the outer limit of riparian vegetation, where present, or the tops of banks for stream features. A more detailed regulatory definition of CDFW jurisdiction can be found in Appendix D.

Coastal Wetlands
The coastal wetlands were determined in accordance with the CCA and CCC regulations, which define coastal wetlands as one- parameter wetlands located within the Coastal Zone, which is generally extends seaward to the state’s outer limit of jurisdiction (i.e., 3 nautical miles from the mean high tide line [MHTL]) and inland generally 1,000 yards from the MHTL. The one-parameter definition is as follows:
“W etland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long 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 substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats.
252
Methodology

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 11
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 the 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)
Areas potentially qualifying as Coastal Act wetlands were mapped based on the presence of any one o
f the USACE’s three wetland parameters (predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetland hydrology). The CCC is the responsible agency that issues Coastal Development Permits in Goleta as the City does not have a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). A more detailed regulatory definition of CCC jurisdiction can be found in Appendix D.

City-defined Wetlands and Streamside 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 CDFW-jurisdictional streambeds in the natural channel.

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). The SPA includes 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.

Vegetation Community and Land Cover Mapping
Plant species nomenclature and taxonomy followed The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) and the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project eds. 2024). All plant species encountered were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible given the condition of the materials during the survey. The vegetation community mapping and classification system used for this analysis is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2024), and was modified as needed to accurately describe the existing habitats observed on-site. The land cover types that are not described in the MCV2 were classified using conventional naming practices (e.g., mixed woodland). A list of dominant, abundant, and conspicuous plant species for each vegetation community within the study area was compiled during the surveys (Appendix E).
253
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

12 3 Existing Conditions
This section summarizes the general environmental setting, vegetation communities and land covers observed, soil types encountered, and local hydrology in the study area.

Topography, Land Use, and Climate
The topography of the study area is generally flat. Elevations range from 3 feet above mean sea level to 51 feet above mean sea level. The weather in Santa Barbara County is typical of a Mediterranean climate. Summers are warm and dry while winters are cool and wet. Average temperatures in Santa Barbara County include a high temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit and low of 53 degrees Fahrenheit, with average annual precipitation of 19.43 inches and most of the precipitation falling between November and March (U.S. Climate Data 2025). The study area is located within San Jose Creek, along SR 217, and consists primarily of a concrete channel. The upstream portion of the study area is a natural channel, located upstream of the existing Hollister Avenue Bridge. Adjacent land uses include SR 217 to the east, commercial buildings to the west, the upstream natural channel portion of San Jose Creek (predominantly arroyo willow thickets) and adjacent parklands to the north, and the downstream natural portion of San Jose Creek to the south. The Hollister Avenue Bridge bisects the northern portion of the study area. San Jose Creek continues downstream until its confluence with the Pacific Ocean at Goleta Beach, approximately

0.9 mile downstream from the study area. The study area ranges between approximately one and 52 feet above mean sea level.

Hydrology
The study area is located in San Jose Creek, within the San Pedro Creek Watershed (12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 180600130202; USGS 2025). San Jose Creek is mapped as an intermittent stream at the upstream portion of the study area (within the natural channel) to Hollister Avenue Bridge and then mapped as a perennial stream river from Hollister Avenue Bridge to the downstream section of the concrete channel (USGS 2025). However, site conditions indicate that the perennial section of the creek ends closer to where the natural channel bottom meets the southern end of the concrete channel and does not extend entirely throughout the concrete channel. The natural channel at the southern end of the Project site is also the limit of tidal influence within San Jose Creek. San Jose Creek flows parallel to SR 217 (north to south) and eventually converges with San Pedro Creek and Atascadero Creek and ultimately leads to the Pacific Ocean via the Goleta Slough, approximately one mile south of the study area. No other jurisdictional features were observed or mapped by NWI or NHD within the study area.

Vegetation Communities and Other Land Covers
Eight vegetation communities and four land cover types were documented within the study area during the field survey: annual brome grassland (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi- Natural Alliance), arroyo willow thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance), black cottonwood woodland (Populus trichocarpa Forest & Woodland Alliance), California sycamore coast live oak riparian woodland (Platanus racemosa – Quercus agrifolia Woodland Alliance), coyote brush scrub 254
Existing Conditions

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 13
(Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance), eucalyptus grove (Eucalyptus spp. Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance), pickleweed mats (Sarcocornia pacifica [Salicornia virginica] Herbaceous Alliance), and the disturbed vegetation, mixed woodland, open water, urban development, and urban stream channel land cover types (Figure 4 a through Figure 4 e) . Fou r vegetation communities designated as CDFW- sensitive are present in the study area, including arroyo willow thickets, black cottonwood woodland, California sycamore coast live oak riparian woodland, and pickleweed mats. Table 1 p
rovides the approximate acreage and percent area of the vegetation communities and land cover types within the study area.

Table 1 Summary of Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Type
Study Area
Approximate Acreage Approximate Percent Area
Vegetation Communities
Annual brome grassland 0.25 0.9%
Arroyo willow thickets*+ 0.80 2.8%
Black cottonwood woodland*+ 0.33 1.2%
California sycamore - coast live oak riparian woodlands*+ 0.35 1.2% Coyote brush scrub 0.82 2.9%
Eucalyptus groves 0.38 1.3%
Mixed woodland 0.33 1.2%
Pickleweed mats*+ 0.01 <0.1%
Subtotal 2.94
Land Cover Types
Disturbed vegetation – H ollister Avenue Bridge 0.31 1.1% Open water+ 0.13 0.5%
Urban development 20.20 71.0%
Urban stream channel 4.54 15.9%
Subtotal 25.51
Total 28.45 100%
*CDFW-sensitive natural community
+ City-de signated ESHA
255
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

14 Figure 4a Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Overview

256
Existing Conditions

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 15
Figure 4b Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 1

257
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

16 Figure 4c Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 2

258
Existing Conditions

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 17
Figure 4d Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 3

259
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

18 Figure 4e Vegetation Communities and Landcover Types – Panel 4

260
Existing Conditions

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 19
Brief descriptions of the vegetation communities and land cover types present in the study area are provided below. A list of plants observed within the study area during the surveys is provided in Appendix E. Representative photographs of the vegetation communities and land cover types are provided in Appendix H.

This vegetation alliance is ranked GNASNA due t
o the predominance of non-native species and is
not considered sensitive (CDFW 2025).

Annual brome grassland covers an approximately 0.25-a cre section of the study area, along the west side of the concrete channel at the southern portion of the study area and a small portion on the west side of the natural channel at the northern portion of the study area, outside of any impact areas. This vegetation community contains only non-native grasses and is dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). Other non-native species observed included redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and smilo grass (Stipa miliacea).

Arroyo Willow Thickets
Arroyo willow thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance) commonly occur along stream banks and benches, slope seeps, and alongside drainages at elevations between sea level and 7,120 feet. This native vegetation community is characterized by having arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) as dominant in the shrub canopy (>50% relative cover) (Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2024). This vegetation community (ranked G4S4) is considered a CDFW-sensitive natural community (CDFW 2025).

Arroyo willow thickets cover an approximately 0.80-a
cre section of the study area, within the
natural channel temporary impact area at the northern portion of the study area and adjacent to the pickleweed mats on the east bank at the southern portion of the study area, outside of the concrete channel temporary impact area. This vegetation community is dominated by arroyo willow. Other native species in this vegetation community include mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), creek clematis (Clematis ligusticifolia), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). A few patches of the invasive non-native giant reed (Arundo donax) are present in this vegetation community. Other non-native species observed included iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis) and cape ivy (Delairea odorata).

20 Within the study area, black cottonwood woodland covers an approximately 0.33-acre section at the northernmost section of the study area. A small portion of this vegetation community is within the natural channel temporary impact area. This vegetation community is dominated by black cottonwood. Other native species found included white alder, island cherry tree (Prunus ilicifolia ssp. lyonia), blue elderberry (Sambucus Mexicana), and arroyo willow. Non-native species observed included cape ivy, Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei), and blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus).

This vegetation community covers an approximately 0.35-a cre section of the study area at the northernmost section of the study area. A portion of this vegetation community intersects the natural channel temporary impact area. California sycamore coast live oak riparian woodlands are dominated by California western sycamore and coast live oaks. Other native species within the vegetation community included arroyo willow, California bay (Umbellularia californica), and wild c
ucumber (Marah fabacea). Non-n ative species observed included Shamel ash, English ivy (Hedera helix), and garden nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus).

Coyote brush scrub covers an approximately 0.82-ac
re section of the study area, along the east side
of the downstream end of the concrete channel, along the State Route (SR) 217, outside of any impact areas. The vegetation community is dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Non- native species observed included pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), fountain grass (Pennisetum alopecuroides), and castor bean (Ricinus communis).

Disturbed Vegetation – Hollister Avenue Bridge
The disturbed vegetation land cover type is not characterized in the MCV2 classification system.

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 21
is sparse and previously disturbed, consisting primarily of annual non-native grasses, such as wild oats and bromes.

Eucalyptus groves cover an approximately 0.38-ac
re section of the study area, in a small area in the
northeastern portion of the study area, outside of any impact areas. This vegetation community is dominated by arroyo willow. Other native species in this vegetation community include mugwort, California blackberry, and poison oak. A few patches of the invasive non-native giant reed are present in this vegetation community. Other non-native species observed included iceplant and cape ivy.

Mixed Woodland
The mixed woodland community is not characterized in the MCV2 classification system. Mixed woodland covers approximately 0.33 acre in the study area, within the natural channel at the northeastern end of the study area. Species in the mixed woodland community include southern California black walnut (Juglans californica) (some of which appear to have been planted as part of a previously existing orchard, that were cut and have resprouted from their bases), jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), and other non-native grasses. The understory is disturbed and consists primarily of annual non-native grasses dominated by cape ivy and garden nasturtium.

Additionally, native fish species, such as the federally endangered tidewater goby and top smelt (Atherinops affinis) may utilize the open water land cover type, specifically in the natural channel.

Pickleweed mats cover less than 0.01-ac
re section of the study area, in a small area on the eastern bank at the downstream portion of the study area, outside of any impact areas. This vegetation 263
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

22 community is dominated by pickleweed with alkali heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) also present. No non-native species were observed in this vegetation community.

Wallis Neighborhood Park. Native species observed included coyote brush, western sycamore, and black cottonwood saplings in the concrete channel. Non-native species observed included red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), bottlebrush (Callistemon sp.), castor bean, tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and ornamental shrubs and trees.

Urban Stream Channel
The urban stream channel land cover includes the portion of San Jose Creek in the concrete channel.

Soils
The USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey identifies three soil map units within the study area: Camarillo fine sandy loam, Elder sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 14, and Elder-Soboba complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes (USDA, NRCS 2025a, Figure
5 ). Only the Camarillo fine sandy loam soil map unit is c
onsidered a hydric soil (USDA, NRCS 2025b). Each of these soils map units are described in detail below:

Camarillo fine sandy loam (Ca) is a poorly drained soil occurring on flood plains. It is formed from alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock. A typical soil profile contains two distinct horizons; the first between 0 to 19 inches containing fine sandy loam, and the second horizon between 19 to 57 inches containing loam. The runoff class is low, and the soil is considered hydric.

This soil is mapped within the southern portion of the study area and covers approximately 17 percent of the total area.

Elder sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 14 (EaA) is a well-drained soil occurring on the flood
plains and alluvial fans. It is formed from mixed alluvium and a typical soil profile contains four distinct horizons. The first horizon occurs between 0 to 8 inches and contains sandy loam, the second horizon occurs to a depth of 23 inches and contains sandy loam, the third horizon occurs to a depth of 31 inches and contains sandy loam, and the fourth horizon occurs to a depth of 60 inches and contain sandy loam. Available water storage is moderate (about 6.6 inches), and the runoff class is low. This soil is not considered hydric. This soil is mapped within the middle portions of the study area, between the other two mapped soil units, and covers approximately 55 percent of the total area.
264
Existing Conditions

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 23
Elder-Soboba complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes (Eb) is a well-drained soil occurring on alluvial fans. It is formed from stratified alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. A typical soil profile contains two distinct horizons. The first horizon is between 0 to 30 inches and contains sandy loam, and the second horizon is between 30 to 72 inches and contains stratified loamy sand to loam. The runoff class is very medium, and the soil is not considered hydric. This soil is mapped within the natural channel at the northern portion of the study area and covers approximately 28 percent of the total area.
265
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

24 Figure 5 Soils

266
Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 25
4 Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and
Wetlands
Based upon the findings of Rincon’s jurisdictional delineation, San Jose Creek is subject to USACE, Central Coast RWQCB, CDFW, CCC, and City jurisdiction. Table 2 s ummarizes the total acreage of jurisdictional waters on-site within the study area by regulatory agency. Figure 6 a t hrough Figure 6 e d
epict the location and extent of USACE, Central Coast RWQCB, CDFW, CCC, and City jurisdiction within the study area.

Table 2 Potentially Jurisdictional Waters Delineated within the Study Area USACE RWQCB CDFW CCC City City
Feature
Non-
wetland
Waters of
the U.S.
(acres/
linear feet)
Wetland
Waters of
the U.S.
(acres/
linear feet)
Non-
wetland
Waters of
the State
(acres/
linear feet)
Wetland
Waters
of the
State
(acres/
linear feet)
CDFW-
jurisdictional
Streambeds
(acres/
linear feet)
Coastal
Wetlands
(acres/
linear
feet)
Wetlands
(acres/
linear feet)
Streamside
Protection
Areas
(acres/
linear feet)
San Jose
Creek

4.73/4,741 – 6.78/4,741 – 6.78/4,765 0.28/247 1.65/580 30.60/5,022 The findings and conclusions presented in this report regarding regulatory agency jurisdiction over San Jose Creek represent the professional opinion of the consultant biologists. These findings and conclusions should be considered preliminary and at final discretion of the applicable resource agency.
267
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

26 Figure 6a Jurisdictional Areas – Overview

268
Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 27
Figure 6b Jurisdictional Areas – Panel 1

269
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

28 Figure 6c Jurisdictional Areas – Panel 2

270
Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 29
Figure 6d Jurisdictional Areas – Panel 3

271
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

30 Figure 6e Jurisdictional Areas – Panel 4

272
Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report 31
San Jose Creek
Within the study area, the upstream natural channel and the concrete channel of San Jose Creek is an intermittent system; the riverbed surface is dry for most of the year, except during storm events.

During the survey, water was present due to recent rainfall. Within the study area, the downstream natural channel of San Jose Creek is a perennial system with and estuarine influence from the Goleta Slough; water is present year-round.

Within the study area, the creek transitions upstream to downstream from a natural channel to a c
oncrete channel and back to a natural channel. Upstream of Hollister Avenue, the creek is trapezoidal and contains moderately sloped banks (~30-45 degrees) in the natural channel. The creek is non-confined, narrow terraces are present along the creek bottom, and moderate microtopography is present along the creek bottom. In the concrete channel, the creek contains moderately sloped banks (~30-45 degrees) in the trapezoidal portions of the channel and vertical banks in the rectangular portion of the channel. Downstream of the concrete channel, the creek is once again natural-bottomed and trapezoidal with moderately sloped banks (~30-45 degrees). A small floodplain terrace is located on the east side. No terrace is present on the west bank, which is covered in riprap.

Th
e creek contains a clear OHWM, which was present at the edge of the flowing water in the upstream natural channel, at the toe of slope of the trapezoidal and rectangular concrete channel, and at the edge of the flowing water again at the downstream natural channel. The OHWM channel was approximately 15 feet wide throughout the study area and 1 to 2 feet deep in the upstream natural channel; the depth within the downstream natural channel is unknown. A TOB is observable throughout the entirety of the creek, which varies in height from 10 to 15 feet high and 30 to 40 feet wide, and was defined by an abrupt change in gradient. Riparian vegetation extends beyond the TOB in the upstream natural channel and is lacking beyond the TOB along the concrete channel and downstream natural channel, as further described below. The Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet is provided in Appendix F.

Within the upstream natural channel, the channel bottom substrate consists of m ostly sandy soils,
along with larger sized grains up to cobble, and the banks consist of sandy loam. Within the concrete channel, limited soil has accumulated upstream of the weirs and within the gaps in the interlocking articulated mat. Soil that has been built up upstream of the weirs is regularly wiped out by high flows and sometimes is removed by City staff during maintenance. Within the downstream natural channel, the channel bottom substrate is sand to boulder in size, and the banks consist of silty loam and loam.

Within the upstream n
atural channel at the northern end of the study area, riparian vegetation was primarily observed above the OHWM and along the creek banks. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation1 along the banks include black cottonwood (FAC), western sycamore (FAC), and arroyo willow (FACW) in the tree stratum. Within the concrete channel, little to no vegetation occurs within the concrete channel. A few successional tree and shrub saplings and herbaceous species are present within the sediment collected upstream of the weirs and with the soil that has settled within the gaps in the interlocking articulated mat; however, these individual plants are regularly wiped out during high flows and sometimes removed by City staff during maintenance. Within the downstream natural channel at the southern end of the study area, riparian vegetation was

1 OBL indicates obligate, FACW indicates facultative wetland, FAC indicates facultative, FACU indicates facultative upland, and UPL indicates upland in the Arid West Regional Wetland Plant List (USACE 2020). 273
City of Goleta
San Jose Creek Channel Fish Passage Modification Project

32 primarily observed above the OHWM and along the eastern creek bank. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation species along the eastern bank include western sycamore (FAC) and arroyo willow (FACW) in the tree stratum and poison oak (FACU), creek clematis (FAC), and wild cucumber (UPL) in the woody shrub and vine stratum. The western bank is entirely rip-rap, with a solitary willow located at the TOB.

Although no aquatic invertebrates or fish were observed in the upstream natural channel, suitable h
abitat would be present when water is present. Algae, leaf litter, limited small woody debris, and cobbles would provide habitat. Extremely limited habitat for fish and aquatic inverts is present in the concrete channel due to the lack of natural undisturbed habitat; however, during high flows the concrete channel may be used by inverts and fish. Although no aquatic invertebrates or fish were observed in the downstream natural channel, suitable habitat is present due to the presence of deep water; algae, leaf litter, woody debris, vegetative overhang, and cobbles provide habitat.

The main stressor to San Jose Creek in the study area is the concrete channel itself. Armoring o f the
channel bottom and banks prevents the movement of the creek and provides little to no habitat.

Other stressors include non-point source discharges from urban runoff from surrounding lands, riprap placed on the western bank in the downstream natural channel, human visitation in the form of homeless encampments in the upstream natural channel, and trash originating from surrounding lands.

4.1.1 Waters of the U.S.

San Jose Creek is likely regulated as a potential water of the U.S. San Jose Creek contains 4.73 acres of waters of the U.S. within the study area, comprised entirely of non-wetland waters of the U.S. No wetland waters of the U.S. are present, as further described below. The upstream natural channel bottom has wetland hydrology but lacks hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation. The downstream natural channel bottom has wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation, but lacks hydric soil.

The location of the wetland sampling points were determined based upon the likely presence of a w
etland due to the hydrophytic vegetation and landform. Two wetland determination data points (sample points, or SP) were evaluated to confirm if USACE wetland waters of the U.S. were present within the study area, one at the northern portion of the study area and one at the southern portion of the study area. USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms (USACE wetland forms) are provided in Appendix G. Details from the wetland determination sample points are discussed further below.

Wetland Sample Points
SP-1 was conducted within the wetted natural channel at the northern portion of the study area (Figure 6 b) . Sampling points were not conducted along the banks since the banks were too sloped to support wetlands. At SP-1, wetland hydrology was present and indicators included surface water (A1), saturation (A3), drift deposits (B3), and drainage patterns (B10), indicating wetland hydrology is present. Per the Arid West Regional Supplemental (USACE 2008b), 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. SP-1 lacked sufficient vegetation in each stratum to be considered vegetated. A formal soil pit could not be completed due to the presence of water along the entirety of the channel bottom (approximately 1 foot deep). A preliminary soil sample was dug out of the channel bottom, revealing a naturally problematic sandy bottom; however, enough fines were present that it was determined that redox would be observed if present. Notably, the City performed a formal jurisdictional delineation in this same location in October 2013 for the adjacent 274
Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Goleta City CouncilApril 7, 2026

Goleta City Council
April 7, 2026