11.A Attach 2 Final CCB EIR Addendum Part 1 ONLINE ONLY — Pismo Beach City Council, September 5, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

24.0 20 33.75

24.0 20 13.50

24.0 20 87.75

24.0 20 94.50
Fuel 229.50
MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)

7.4 2 9.32

7.4 2 162.16

7.4 2 24.24

7.4 2 26.11
Fuel 221.84

7.4 60 8.11

7.4 5 13.51
Fuel 21.62
Well Installation
Site Restoration
Trip Class Trip Length (miles)

HAULING AND VENDOR TRIPS
Site Preparation

8.1 Critical Drilling and Well Installation - Soil 20.0 300.0Critical Drilling

HAULING TRIPS
Well Installation
Central Coast Blue - Monit Well Construction - Modified Project Last Updated: April 27, 2023
Compression-Ignition Engine Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1]:

HP: Greater than 100
Values above are expressed in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC.

VENDOR TRIPS

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Phase Days of Operation
5 8.1

8.1 8.1
Site Preparation
Critical Drilling
14 WORKER TRIPS
Constuction Phase
13 2
Trip Length (miles)
34 6.9
Site Restoration 6.9

6.9 Critical Drilling and Well Installation -
Groundwater 1
3 4/27/2023 12:57 PM

One Well 11 Wells
229.50 2,524.50
1,751.39 19,265.26
Sources:
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b . July 2018. Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf . [2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018 .

Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-and-data/national-transportation- statistics/223001/ntsentire2018q4.pdf.

Total Gasoline Consumption (gallons)
Total Diesel Consumption (gallons)
4 4/27/2023 12:57 PM

HP: 0 to 100 0.0588 0.0529
Construction Equipment #
Hours per
Day Horsepower
Load
Factor Construction Phase
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Forklifts 1 8 82 0.20 Site Preparation 254.43 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 Site Preparation 846.78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Site Preparation 482.17 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 Grading 1,719.21
Plate Compactors 1 8 8 0.43 Grading 108.35 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 8 423 0.40 Grading 4,793.85 Scrapers 2 8 367 0.48 Grading 9,982.08
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 Grading 2,569.73 Air Compressors 3 8 37 0.48 Building Construction 9,768.59 Cranes 1 8 367 0.29 Building Construction 17,552.44 Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 Building Construction 2,508.15 Forklifts 2 7 82 0.20 Building Construction 5,261.98 Generators 3 8 14 0.74 Building Construction 5,698.34 Plate Compactors 1 8 8 0.43 Building Construction 630.70 Skid Steer Loaders 1 8 71 0.37 Building Construction 4,816.46 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 6 84 0.37 Building Construction 12,821.27 Welders 3 8 46 0.45 Building Construction 11,385.69 Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 Architectural Coating 137.76 Pavers 1 8 81 0.42 Paving 175.93
Cement/Mortar Mixer 1 8 10 0.56 Paving 28.96 Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 Paving 141.49
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Paving 160.72 Total Fuel Used 91,845.07
(Gallons)
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
Total Days
390
Central Coast Blue - ATF Construction - Modified Project Last Updated: April 27, 2023
Compression-Ignition Engine Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1]:

HP: Greater than 100
Values above are expressed in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC.

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Phase Days of Operation
33 67
11 22
523
5 4/27/2023 12:57 PM

MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)

24.0 50 556.88

24.0 50 1130.63

24.0 50 6581.25

24.0 50 185.63

24.0 50 371.25
Fuel 8,825.63
MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)

7.4 248 670.27
Groundwater 7.4 56160 7589.19
Fuel 8,259.46

7.4 2 61.54

7.4 2 124.95

7.4 6 2181.89
Fuel 2,368.38
8,825.63
102,472.91
Site Preparation 8.1
Grading 8.1

WORKER TRIPS
Constuction Phase Trip Length (miles)
Building Construction 8.1
Paving 8.1
Architectural Coating 8.1

VENDOR TRIPS
Site Preparation/Grading 20.0

HAULING AND VENDOR TRIPS
Trip Class Trip Length (miles)

HAULING TRIPS
1 Site Preparation 6.9
Sources:
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b . July 2018. Available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf . [2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018 . Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-and- data/national-transportation-statistics/223001/ntsentire2018q4.pdf.

Total Gasoline Consumption (gallons)
Total Diesel Consumption (gallons)
Grading 6.9
Building Construction 6.9
6 4/27/2023 12:57 PM

HP: 0 to 100 0.0588 0.0529
Construction Equipment #
Hours per
Day Horsepower
Load
Factor
Construction
Phase
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73 Pavement Cutting 1,100.79 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 Pavement Cutting 1,336.29 Signal Boards 1 8 6 0.82 Pavement Cutting 91.59 Excavator 1 6 158 0.38 Trenching 3,393.27
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37 Trenching 3,006.66 Signal Boards 1 8 6 0.82 Trenching 412.17 Air Compressor 1 8 78 0.48 Installation 2,091.01 Bore/Drill Rigs 1 8 700 0.50 Installation 17,583.02 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8 9 0.56 Installation 281.48 Excavators 1 8 158 0.38 Installation 3,016.24 Forklifts 1 8 89 0.20 Installation 994.12 Generator Set 1 8 84 0.74 Installation 3,471.61 Plate Compactor 1 8 8 0.43 Installation 192.12 Pumps 1 8 84 0.74 Installation 3,471.61
Rubber Tired Loader 1 8 203 0.36 Installation 3,671.33 Signal Boards 1 8 6 0.82 Installation 274.78 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 Installation 1,156.09
Pavers 1 8 130 0.42 Paving 1,371.48
Rollers 1 8 80 0.38 Paving 848.91
Off-Highway Truck 1 8 402 0.38 Paving 3,837.12 Signal Boards 1 8 6 0.82 Paving 137.39
Total Fuel Used 51,739.07
(Gallons)
Grubbing/Land Clearing
(Pavement Cutting)
Grading/Excavation (Trenching)
Draginage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
(Installation)
Paving
Total Days

59.4 Central Coast Blue - Phase I Water Distribution and Sewer Pipeline Construction - Modified Project
Last Updated: March 3, 2023
Compression-Ignition Engine Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1]:

HP: Greater than 100
Values above are expressed in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC.

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Phase Days of Operation

39.6 178.2
118.8
396
7 4/27/2023 12:57 PM

MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)

24.0 20 429.00

24.0 20 1930.50

24.0 20 1287.00

24.0 20 643.50
Fuel 4,290.00
MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)

7.4 119 321.08

7.4 3208 8669.19

7.4 2138 5779.46

7.4 238 642.16
Fuel 8,669.19

7.4 2 214.05

7.4 2 963.24

7.4 2 642.16

7.4 2 321.08
Fuel 2,140.54
4,290.00
62,548.80
Sources:
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b . July 2018. Available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf . [2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018 . Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-and- data/national-transportation-statistics/223001/ntsentire2018q4.pdf.

Paving
Trip Class
Total Gasoline Consumption (gallons)
Total Diesel Consumption (gallons)
Trip Length (miles)

HAULING AND VENDOR TRIPS
Trenching 20.0

HAULING TRIPS

WATER TRUCK TRIPS
Pavement Cutting 20.0
Paving 20.0
Pavement Cutting

13.0 13.0

WORKER TRIPS
Constuction Phase
Pavement Cutting
Trenching
Installation
Trip Length (miles)
Trenching
Installation

20.0 20.0

20.0 Paving 20.0
Installation 20.0
8 4/27/2023 12:57 PM

HP: 0 to 100 0.0588 0.0529
Construction Equipment #
Hours per
Day Horsepower
Load
Factor
Construction
Phase
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73 Pavement Cutting 366.93 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 Pavement Cutting 445.43 Signal Boards 1 8 6 0.82 Pavement Cutting 30.53 Excavator 1 6 158 0.38 Trenching 1,131.09
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37 Trenching 1,002.22 Signal Boards 1 8 6 0.82 Trenching 137.39 Air Compressor 1 8 78 0.48 Installation 697.00 Bore/Drill Rigs 1 8 700 0.50 Installation 5,861.01 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8 9 0.56 Installation 93.83 Excavators 1 8 158 0.38 Installation 1,005.41 Forklifts 1 8 89 0.20 Installation 331.37 Generator Set 1 8 84 0.74 Installation 1,157.20 Plate Compactor 1 8 8 0.43 Installation 64.04 Pumps 1 8 84 0.74 Installation 1,157.20
Rubber Tired Loader 1 8 203 0.36 Installation 1,223.78 Signal Boards 1 8 6 0.82 Installation 91.59 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 Installation 385.36
Pavers 1 8 130 0.42 Paving 457.16
Rollers 1 8 80 0.38 Paving 282.97
Off-Highway Truck 1 8 402 0.38 Paving 1,279.04 Signal Boards 1 8 6 0.82 Paving 45.80
Total Fuel Used 17,246.36
(Gallons)
Grubbing/Land Clearing
(Pavement Cutting)
Grading/Excavation (Trenching)
Draginage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
(Installation)
Paving
Total Days 132

19.8 Central Coast Blue - Phase II Water Distribution Pipeline Construction - Modified Project
Last Updated: March 3, 2023
Compression-Ignition Engine Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1]:

HP: Greater than 100
Values above are expressed in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC.

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Phase Days of Operation

13.2 59.4

39.6 9 4/27/2023 12:57 PM

MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)

24.0 20 143.00

24.0 20 643.50

24.0 20 429.00

24.0 20 214.50
Fuel 1,430.00
MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)

7.4 13 35.68

7.4 119 321.08

7.4 79 214.05

7.4 40 107.03
Fuel 321.08

7.4 2 71.35

7.4 2 321.08

7.4 2 214.05

7.4 2 107.03
Fuel 713.51
1,430.00
18,280.95
Paving 20.0
Total Gasoline Consumption (gallons)
Total Diesel Consumption (gallons)
Sources:
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b . July 2018. Available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf . [2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018 . Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-and- data/national-transportation-statistics/223001/ntsentire2018q4.pdf.

Installation 20.0
Trenching 20.0
Installation 20.0
Paving 20.0

WATER TRUCK TRIPS
Pavement Cutting 20.0
Trenching 20.0

HAULING AND VENDOR TRIPS
Trip Class Trip Length (miles)

HAULING TRIPS
Pavement Cutting 20.0
Trenching 13.0
Installation 13.0
Paving 13.0

WORKER TRIPS
Constuction Phase Trip Length (miles)
Pavement Cutting 13.0
10 4/27/2023 12:57 PM

Appendix B
2023 Biological Resources Assessment

Central Coast Blue Project
Biological Resources Assessment

prepared for
City of Pismo Beach
Planning Division
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, California 93449
Contact: Matthew Downing, AICP, Community Development Director prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite 300
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
January 2021
Revised June 2023

RINCON CONSULTANTS,INC.

Environmental Scientists |Planners |Engineers
rinconconsultants.com

Central Coast Blue Project
Biological Resources Assessment

Environmental Scientists |Planners |Engineers
rinconconsultants.com

Table of Contents

Biological Resources Assessment i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Project Location and Study Area ......................................................................................... 3

1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 6 2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Regulatory Overview ........................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Environmental Statutes ...................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance .................................................................10

2.4 Literature Review ..............................................................................................................10

2.5 Field Reconnaissance Survey ............................................................................................11 3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................12

3.1 Physical Characteristics .....................................................................................................12

3.2 Watersheds and Drainages ...............................................................................................12

3.3 Soils ...................................................................................................................................13

3.4 Vegetation and Other Land Cover ....................................................................................16

3.5 General Wildlife ................................................................................................................30 4 Regulated Biological Resources ....................................................................................................33

4.1 Special Status Species .......................................................................................................33

4.2 Sensitive Plant Communities and Critical Habitats ...........................................................40

4.3 California Coastal Zone and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas .............................42

4.4 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................42

4.5 Wildlife Movement ...........................................................................................................42

4.6 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances ....................................................49

4.7 Habitat Conservation Plans ...............................................................................................49 5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................51

5.1 Special Status Species .......................................................................................................51

5.2 Sensitive Plant Communities and Critical Habitat ............................................................59

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................61

5.4 Wildlife Movement ...........................................................................................................64

5.5 Local Policies and Ordinances ...........................................................................................65

5.6 Adopted or Approved Plans ..............................................................................................66 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance ................................................................................68 7 References ....................................................................................................................................69 8 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................74

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

ii
Tables
Table 1 Drainages and Wetlands Mapped by the NWI and/or NHD within the Study Area ......... 13 Table 2 Terrestrial Vegetation and Land Cover Types ................................................................... 17 Table 3 Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area1 ................................... 34 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map ....................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 Proposed Injection Wells, Monitoring Wells, ATF Complex, and Study Area ..................... 5 Figure 3 Soils Map Units within the Study Area..............................................................................15 Figure 4a Vegetation and Land Cover – IW-1, MW-1A/1B, MW-1A/1B (Alternate), MW-1C/1D, MW-1C/1D (Alternate), and Pipeline Alignments .............................................................18 Figure 4b Vegetation and Land Cover – IW-2A/2B (Alternate), IW-2A, IW-2B, MW-2A/2B/2C, MW-2A/2B/2C (Alternate), and Pipeline Alignments .......................................................19 Figure 4c Vegetation and Land Cover – MW-2D/2E/2F, MW-3C/3D, PB-23, Staging/Laydown Yards, Potential Jack and Bore Pits, ATF Complex, and Pipeline Alignments ..............................20 Figure 4d Vegetation and Land Cover – MW-4C/4/D, ATF Complex, and Staging/Laydown Yards ..................................................................................................................................21 Figure 4e Vegetation and Land Cover – IW-3, IW-4 (Existing), IW-4 (Alternate), MW-3A/3B (Existing), MW-4A/4B, Potential Jack and Bore Pits, and Pipeline Alignments ................22 Figure 4f Vegetation and Land Cover – IW-4 and Pipeline Alignments ...........................................23 Figure 4g Vegetation and Land Cover – Pipeline Alignments ...........................................................24 Figure 4h Vegetation and Land Cover – IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-5A/5B/5C, and Pipeline Alignments ........................................................................................................................25 Figure 4i Vegetation and Land Cover – MW-5D/5E/5F, Staging/Laydown Yards, and Pipeline Alignments ........................................................................................................................26 Figure 4j Vegetation and Land Cover – MW-NCMA North A/B/C and MW-NCMA South A/B/C ....27 Figure 5 Critical Habitat within the Study Area ..............................................................................41 Figure 6a Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Detention Basin 1 .................................................43 Figure 6b Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Wetlands 1 and 2, Roadway Drainage, and Sample Points 1-4 ..........................................................................................................................44 Figure 6c Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Intermittent Stream .............................................45 Figure 6d Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Agriculture Ditch 1 ...............................................46 Figure 6e Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Agriculture Ditch 2 ...............................................47 Figure 6f Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Detention Basin 2 .................................................48

Table of Contents

Biological Resources Assessment iii
Appendices
Appendix A Regulatory Setting
Appendix B Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Appendix C Site Photographs
Appendix D Floral and Faunal Compendium
Appendix E Jurisdictional Delineation
Appendix F Streambed Percolation Analysis

Executive Summary

Biological Resources Assessment 1
Executive Summary
Rincon Consultants, Inc. has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment to document existing conditions and provide a basis for evaluation of potential impacts to special status biological resources to assist in the environmental documentation and permitting phases of a regional advanced purified water project located in the city of Grover Beach and community of Oceano (a census-designated place in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County), California. Central Coast Blue (herein referred to as the “proposed project” or “project”) is proposed by the Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District and is intended to enhance water supply reliability by reducing the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin’s vulnerability to drought and seawater intrusion.

The proposed project consists of an advanced treatment facility (ATF) complex (including an equalization tank, monitoring well, and new production well), pipelines, injection wells, monitoring wells, and a pump station. The project would specifically involve injection of advanced purified water into the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin via a series of injection wells, installed at various locations in Grover Beach and Oceano. At this time, the locations of the injection and monitoring wells, pipelines, ATF complex (including a production well), pump station, and the existing ocean outfall pipeline are known; therefore, this assessment focuses on the impacts to biological resources from these components.

The Study Area analyzed herein is comprised of the footprints of project components as well as associated buffers around those features in order to capture potential direct and indirect impacts.

Ten terrestrial vegetation and land cover types were observed within the Study Area during the biological field survey: developed/landscaped, ruderal, eucalyptus grove, agriculture, arroyo willow thicket, wild oats and annual brome grassland, saltgrass flats, coyote brush scrub, iceplant mats, and California bulrush marshes. A roadway drainage was observed within the Study Area that is ephemeral in nature. The arroyo willow riparian habitats associated with Meadow Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek are classified under the California Coastal Act as wetlands, and the City of Grover Beach and the County of San Luis Obispo each have an adopted Local Coastal Program that identifies these riparian areas as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. California overwintering population of monarch butterfly habitat is also identified in the Local Coastal Program as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. This project is anticipated to require permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board if riparian habitat cannot be avoided and a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.1 Based on the habitats found in the Study Area, a number of special status species have the potential to be encountered during construction of the proposed injection wells. The federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) has a potential to occur at the locations of IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW-5A/5B/5C and along an approximately 0.36-mile section of the pipelines. Direct impacts to California red-legged frog from construction of the injection wells, monitoring wells, and the pipelines would be minimized and/or avoided to the greatest extent feasible with the implementation of measures described in Section 5, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures. No federally designated critical habitat is present within the Study Area.

1 The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC. Therefore, the project is not expected to be subject to the requirements of local CDP processing by the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

2 The Study Area also contains potentially suitable foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird, which is a State Species of Special Concern and a State threatened species. The Study Area also provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the white-tailed kite, a State Fully Protected species. Direct and indirect impacts to tricolored blackbird and white-tailed kite are not expected to occur with the implementation of the proposed avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 5, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures.

Based on the presence of suitable habitat, two additional special status animal species may occur on site, California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) and southwestern pond turtle (Emys marmorata), both of which are State Species of Special Concern. In addition, based on the presence of suitable habitat, two special status animal species may migrate by the existing wastewater treatment plant discharge pipeline, southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) and steelhead – south-central California coast distinct population segment (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), both of which are federally threatened species. Furthermore, vegetation within and adjacent to the project site offers potential nesting habitat for bird species that are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. Direct and indirect impacts to these species are not expected with implementation of the proposed avoidance and minimization measures.

Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 3
1 Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) to document existing conditions and provide a basis for the evaluation of potential impacts to special status biological resources from the implementation of the proposed Central Coast Blue project (herein referred to as “proposed project” or “project”) located in San Luis Obispo County, California.

This BRA has been prepared to provide technical information and impact analysis and to review the proposed project in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the proposed project may impact special status species and sensitive natural communities to support review of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This assessment focuses on the biological resources that may occur in the vicinity of and/or be impacted by construction and operation of project components with known locations (i.e., the injection wells, monitoring wells, ATF complex [including new production well], pipelines, and pump station).

1.1 Project Location and Study Area
The project components analyzed in this BRA area located within Grover Beach and portions of unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, including the community of Oceano, which is a census- designated place. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site, which is approximately seven miles south of the city of San Luis Obispo. The project area is regionally accessible from U.S.

Highway 101 and locally accessible from California State Route (SR) 1. The project components analyzed in this BRA are located within the Oceano, California United States Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5-minute topographical quadrangle within Township 32 South, Range 13 East, Sections 30 and 31, Mount Diablo baseline and meridian (USGS 2019). The majority of the project components are located within the California Coastal Zone (Figure 2). The Study Area analyzed herein is comprised of the temporary and permanent project impact footprints, which includes the actual permanent footprint of project components as well as associated staging areas for construction equipment and materials (Figure 2).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

4 Figure 1 Regional Location Map

Delano\
99 Bakersfield 58
San Luis Obispo
Santa Maria
Los Padres
National
Forest
Lompoc
01 Santa Barbara
Oxnard

Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 5
Figure 2 Proposed Injection Wells, Monitoring Wells, ATF Complex, and Study Area

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

The proposed project consists of an advanced treatment facility (ATF) complex (including an equalization basin, monitoring well, and new production well), pipelines, injection wells, monitoring wells, and a pump station. The project would also involve recharge of the SMGB with advanced purified water via injection wells installed at multiple locations in Grover Beach and Oceano. Water for the project would be sourced from two of the region’s wastewater treatment facilities, the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the SSLOCSD WWTP. The project would alter the pumping regime of existing, operational production wells in the project area and also would include construction of one new production well (PB-23) at the ATF complex to replace an existing well that is failing. Pipelines would be located within the public rights-of-way along the majority of the pipeline alignments.

Injection Wells and Monitoring Wells
Seven injection wells would be installed at five of the potential locations shown in Figure 2.2 The injection wells would be located generally within one-half mile of the coast and would each require approximately 4,000 square feet (sf) of land.3 Each injection well would be capable of injecting approximately 500 acre-feet per year. The advanced purified water would be injected at a depth of approximately 160 to 680 feet (ft) below ground surface. The injection well network would be accompanied by a network of nested monitoring wells at up to eleven locations throughout the project area. Nested monitoring wells would each include two to three well casings that would extend to varying depths up to 675 ft. Each monitoring well would have a surface footprint of approximately 5 sf and would be designed to facilitate measurements and monitoring of water level and water quality. Equipment associated with injection wells (e.g., piping and infrastructure such as electrical panels, control panels, storage facilities, and water storage tanks) would have a mix of aboveground and belowground facilities, the location of which would depend on the site, space constraints, and surrounding land uses. Maintenance of the injection wells would involve monitoring of pressures, frequent inspections, backwashing out the well casings, and removing microbial build‐up once every two years.

Monitoring well MW-3A/3B and a test injection well were constructed in 2021 in the southern portion of the County of San Luis Obispo’s Coastal Dunes RV Park as part of a preliminary hydrogeological investigation of the physical and technological constraints and opportunities in the project area.

These wells were determined by the City of Pismo Beach to be categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15306. MW-3A/3B would continue to operate as a monitoring well under the proposed project. The test injection well has the potential to be converted to an operational injection well and serve as part of the project’s injection well network. However, conversion of the test injection well to an operational injection well would require an amendment to the County of San Luis Obispo’s Local Coastal Program, which is not proposed at this time. Therefore, an alternative location for IW-4 has been identified and is considered in this report as part of the proposed project,

2 Due to ongoing siting and design efforts, several alternative injection well locations are included in the proposed project to provide flexibility in ultimate siting.
3 This is a conservative assumption of the footprint of each injection well.

Introduction

Biological Resources Assessment 7
and the test injection well is now considered a back-up alternate location for IW-4. Because the test injection well remains as an alternate location for IW-4, this report assumes this well may be utilized as an operational injection well for the purposes of CEQA, pending completion of a Local Coastal Program amendment.

Pipelines
Pipelines would be installed along the potential alignments shown in Figure 2.4 These pipelines would accomplish five purposes: 1) convey secondary treated effluent discharged by the Pismo Beach WWTP from the existing WWTP discharge pipeline to the proposed ATF; 2) convey secondary treated effluent from the SSLOCSD WWTP to the proposed ATF; 3) convey advanced purified water from the proposed ATF to the injection wells; 4) convey concentrate from the proposed ATF to the existing WWTP discharge pipeline; and 5) convey backwash water from certain injection wells to the sanitary sewer system and sanitary sewer waste streams from the ATF complex. Construction methods for the proposed pipelines would predominantly involve open trenching, with trenchless methods used as needed (e.g., to cross the Union Pacific Railroad tracks).

Advanced Treatment Facility Complex
The ATF complex would treat secondary treated wastewater flows from the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs via microfiltration/ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and UV disinfection/advanced oxidation treatment processes and discharge to the ocean through the existing WWTP discharge pipeline. The proposed ATF would produce a clean water stream (permeate) and a wastewater stream (concentrate). The reverse osmosis component of the ATF would produce a percentage of concentrate water, which contains a higher concentration of the dissolved particles than were in the source water and would be discharged to the Pacific Ocean outfall that currently receives all flows from the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs under the City of Pismo Beach’s and SSLOCSD’s existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. No physical modifications to the off-shore portion of current ocean outfall would be required.

The ATF would be accompanied by an approximately 7,500-square foot equalization basin to address fluctuations in flow from the WWTPs, outdoor chemical storage, a monitoring well, and a new production well (PB-23), all of which would be located on the same property as the ATF as part of the ATF complex.

Construction Activities
Project construction would occur in two main phases. Phase I would include construction of four injection wells (IW-1, IW-2A, IW-3, and IW-5A), up to nine monitoring wells, pipelines, and the ATF complex with its initial capacity (1.1 million gallons per day of produced water) designed to treat flows from the Pismo Beach WWTP. Phase II would include construction of the remaining three injection wells (IW-2B, IW-4, and IW-5B), the remaining two monitoring wells, installation of purified water pipelines to connect the new wells to the existing purified water distribution system, installation of the pipeline and pump station conveying SSLOCSD WWTP effluent to the AWPF, and expansion upgrades to the ATF complex to accommodate flows from the SSLOCSD WWTP (4.1 million gallons per day of produced water).

4 Due to ongoing siting and design efforts, several alternative pipeline alignments are included in the proposed project to provide flexibility in ultimate siting.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

8 Construction of the project components is anticipated to last a total of approximately 24 months for Phase I and approximately 15 months for Phase II. Construction of the project would result in the removal of all trees located on the 980 Huber Street property as well as on Assessor’s Parcel Number 060-543-007 to accommodate the ATF complex. Also, the project would include planting trees for accenting, screening, or other purposes as space allows, with a preference for native trees. As part of project design, construction activities (including staging/laydown yards) would avoid mapped California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) marsh and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) scrub habitats.

The location of the ATF complex would likely need to be graded to provide a level base for the ATF and appurtenant structures, to provide site access, and to provide appropriate stormwater drainage.

It is assumed that a moderate amount of existing soil would be excavated and exported, and a moderate amount of clean engineered fill or another suitable substrate would be imported to provide geotechnical stability for the ATF and appurtenant structures. Soil export would also be required to accommodate construction of the equalization tank and other ATF components, such as underground storage tanks required for the treatment processes. Excavation depth is not anticipated to exceed 20 ft for any of the project components other than the microfiltration feed pump cans and the injection, monitoring, and production wells, which would be drilled to depths of up to 680 ft. Pipelines under the Union Pacific Railroad tracks would be installed via jack and bore, pipe ramming, or other similar trenchless method.

Groundwater produced during well development may be disposed of via connections to the existing Pismo Beach outfall pipeline that runs below SR 1. There is also the option for produced groundwater to be disposed of via temporary storage with timed release to the sanitary or storm sewer or trucking up to one mile for percolation into a storm retention basin. Construction dewatering would also be required at the ATF complex. Minor dewatering during construction activities may also be required at other locations, such as the pump station proposed within the boundaries of the SSLOCSD WWTP.

The project includes use of two existing shallow monitoring wells located between the ATF complex and Oceano Lagoon, located approximately 700 feet to the west of the ATF complex location, to monitor groundwater levels during dewatering activities. If groundwater levels fall below what would be expected due to regular, background seasonal variation, the project includes implementation of an adaptive management plan to avoid an adverse reduction in surface water levels in Oceano Lagoon, including an evaluation program to identify whether reduced groundwater levels are related to project dewatering activities and if so, the timely implementation of the necessary management actions, which may include, but would not be limited to, temporary cessation of dewatering and/or gradual discharge of groundwater produced from dewatering into the City of Grover Beach’s stormwater detention basin at the southern terminus of Barca Street and/or the City of Grover Beach’s stormwater drainage system, which currently discharge to Meadow Creek upstream of Oceano Lagoon, to supplement surface water levels.5

5 The project would be required to comply with all applicable permitting requirements should discharge to the stormwater detention basin/stormwater drainage system become necessary.

Methodology

Biological Resources Assessment 9
2 Methodology

2.1 Regulatory Overview
Regulated resources studied and analyzed herein include special status plant and animal species, nesting birds and raptors, sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement corridors, 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 typically lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the County of San Luis Obispo and City of Grover Beach). However, because the project is seeking a consolidated coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the CCC will also have primary authority for regulation of general biological resources.

Definition of Special Status Species
For the purposes of this report, special status species include:
▪ Species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (species that are under review may be included if there is a reasonable expectation of listing within the life of the project);
▪ Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act;
▪ Plant species listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act; ▪ Wildlife species designated as Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern, or Watch List by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); and
▪ Species designated as locally important by the Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance or local policy. California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) List 1B and List 2 plant species are typically regarded as rare, threatened, or endangered under CEQA by lead agencies and were considered as such in this document. CRPR List 3 and List 4 plant species are typically not considered for analysis under CEQA except where they are part of a unique community, from the type locality, designated as rare or significant by local governments or where cumulative impacts could result in population–level effects. The CRPR 3 and 4 species reported from the region are not locally designated as rare or significant, are not part of a unique community, and the Study Area is not known to be the type locality for any CRPR 3 or 4 plant species. Therefore, CRPR 3 and 4 species were not included in this analysis.

2.2 Environmental Statutes
For the purpose of this report, potential impacts to terrestrial and marine biological resources were analyzed based on the following statutes, which are detailed in Appendix A:
▪ California Environmental Quality Act
▪ Federal Endangered Species Act
▪ California Endangered Species Act
▪ Native Plant Protection Act

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

10 ▪ Federal Clean Water Act
▪ California Fish and Game Code
▪ Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
▪ California Coastal Act (administered by the CCC and through the County of San Luis Obispo and City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Programs)
▪ Migratory Bird Treaty Act
▪ The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
▪ County of San Luis Obispo General Plan
▪ City of Grover Beach General Plan

2.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance
The following threshold criteria, as defined by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, were used to evaluate potential environmental impacts. Based on these criteria, the proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:
a) Have 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 CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service; b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
c) 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;
d) 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;
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
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.

2.4 Literature Review
Queries of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation System (IPaC; USFWS 2023a), the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2023a), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2023) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding State and federally listed species as well as other special status species considered to have potential to occur within the Oceano, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and the surrounding seven quadrangles (Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande NE, Tar Springs Ridge, Nipomo, Point Sal, Guadalupe and Santa Maria). No quadrangles occur west of the Oceano and Point Sal 7.5-minute quadrangles since

Methodology

Biological Resources Assessment 11
these areas consist entirely of the Pacific Ocean. The results of these scientific database queries were compiled into a table that is presented below in Appendix B.

In addition, the following resources were reviewed for information about the Study Area:
▪ Aerial photographs of the Study Area and vicinity (Google Earth 2023) ▪ Oceano, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle ▪ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2023a)
▪ Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California (USDA, NRCS 1984) ▪ Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2023b)
▪ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Critical Habitat (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries 2023)
▪ National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2023c)
▪ National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2023)

2.5 Field Reconnaissance Survey
A field reconnaissance survey for was conducted within the revised Study Area by Biologist Carolynn Honeycutt and Associate Biologist Frances Glaser on January 20, 2023. The field reconnaissance survey was conducted on foot where access was granted and by the use of binoculars for areas where access was limited to record all biological resources encountered in the Study Area. Additionally, a windshield survey was conducted along the pipeline alignments within existing roadways. The survey was conducted to document existing site conditions and to evaluate the potential for presence of regulated biological resources, including special status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities, and habitat for nesting birds protected by federal and State laws. During the survey, an inventory of all plant and animal species observed was compiled (Appendix D) and an evaluation of potentially jurisdictional aquatic features was conducted.

Plant species nomenclature and taxonomy followed The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). All plant species encountered were noted and identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level. The vegetation classification system used for this analysis is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009) but has been modified as needed to accurately describe the existing habitats observed on site.

Wildlife identification and nomenclature followed standard reference texts, including Sibley Birds West: Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2016), Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), and Mammals of North America (Bowers et al. 2004).

The habitat requirements for each regionally occurring special status species were assessed and compared to the type and quality of the habitats observed within the Study Area during the field survey. Several special status species were eliminated from consideration as having potential to occur on site due to lack of suitable habitat, lack of suitable soils/substrate, and/or knowledge of regional distribution.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

12 3 Existing Conditions
This section summarizes the results of the reconnaissance-level field surveys and literature review.

Discussions regarding the general environmental setting, vegetation communities present, plant and animals observed, and potential special status species issues on site are presented below.

Representative photographs of the Study Area are provided in Appendix C, and a complete list of all plant and animal species observed on site during the field survey is presented as Appendix D.

3.1 Physical Characteristics
The Study Area is located in San Luis Obispo County where the moderate climate typifies a Mediterranean climate throughout the year. The majority of rainfall occurs during the winter months.

The Study Area is also within the South Coast Ranges geographic subregion of California. The South Coast Ranges subregion is a component of the larger Central Western California Region, which occurs within the even larger California Floristic Province (Baldwin et al. 2012).

The Study Area is located at the western edges of Grover Beach and the community of Oceano, extending from West Grand Avenue in the north along SR 1 to Arroyo Grande Creek and the levee in the south. Residences occur primarily to the east of the SR 1 along with agricultural lands, the County’s Coastal Dunes RV Park, and industrial land uses. Additional residences occur west of SR 1 along with open space and park lands, including Oceano Lagoon, Meadow Creek, Pismo State Beach, and the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreational Area. The majority of the Study Area has been previously developed and disturbed due to the existing wastewater treatment facilities, recreational and RV Park facilities, roadways, and urban development. The topography within the Study Area consists generally of level topography with elevation ranging from 10 to 40 ft above mean sea level.

3.2 Watersheds and Drainages
The Study Area is located within the Meadow Creek-Frontal Pacific Ocean subwatershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 12 – 180600060705) and Lower Arroyo Grande Creek subwatershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 180600060605) (USGS 2019). The NWI depicts Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland areas associated with Meadow Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek occurring at or within 100 ft of some of the proposed injection well, monitoring well, and pipeline locations (Table 1; USFWS 2023c). The NWI also depicts Freshwater Forested Shrub/Wetland and Riverine areas occurring at or within 100 ft of monitoring well MW-NCMA South A/B/C, along Silver Spur Place. Additionally, the NHD depicts a canal ditch located in the vicinity of MW-NCMA South A/B/C and a lake/pond feature at MW-4C/4D (USGS 2023).

The drainages and wetlands mapped by the NWI and NHD are generally consistent with the observations made during the field reconnaissance survey.

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 13
Table 1 Drainages and Wetlands Mapped by the NWI and/or NHD within the Study Area
Project Component
Project Component
Located within NWI and/or NHD Feature?
IW-1 No
IW-2A No
IW-2B No
IW-3 No
IW-4 No
IW-5A No
IW-5B No
NCMA North A/B/C No
NCMA South A/B/C Yes
MW-1A/1B No
MW-1C/1D No
MW-2A/2B/2C No
MW-2D/2E/2F No
MW-3A/3B No
MW-3D/3E No
MW-4A/4B No
MW-4C/4D Yes
MW-5A/5B/5C No
MW-5D/5E/5F No
ATF No
Pipelines No
During the reconnaissance survey, in addition to those drainages and wetlands mapped by the NWI and NHD, a detention basin, wetlands, roadway drainage, intermittent stream, and agriculture ditch were also observed and documented in the Jurisdictional Delineation Report (Rincon 2023; Appendix E). More surface water was observed within the Study Area than what is typical due to a significant rain event that occurred between January 9 and January14, 2023 where more than 5 inches of rain was recorded at the Oceano County Airport property (Weather Underground 2023).

3.3 Soils
The project site is located in the San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part soil survey area. The USDA, NRCS Web Soil Survey delineates six soil map units within the Study Area: Mocho variant fine sandy loam, Mocho fine sandy loam (0 to 2 percent slopes, major land resource area [MLRA] 14), Oceano sand (0 to 9 percent slopes), Marimel sandy clay loam (occasionally flooded), Dune land, and psamments and fluvents (wet) (USDA, NRCS 2023a). Site-specific soil observations are consistent with

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

14 those mapped by the USDA, NRCS Web Soil Survey. Soil distribution within 100 ft of the locations of project components is depicted in Figure 3, and each soil map unit is described below.

Mocho Variant Fine Sandy Loam
Mocho variant fine sandy loam is a well-drained soil that occurs on alluvial fans and alluvial flats. It is formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. A typical soil profile consists of fine sandy loam to a depth of 15 inches, very fine sandy loam between 15 and 33 inches, and stratified gravelly sand from 33 to 64 inches. Available water storage is low (about 5.9 inches) and the runoff class is very low.

This soil map unit is included on the National Hydric Soils List, which lists soils that are permanently or seasonally saturated by water resulting in anaerobic conditions typically found in wetlands (USDA, NRCS 2023b).

Mocho Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, MLRA 14
Mocho fine sandy loam soils are well-drained soils that occur on alluvial fans and flats. They are formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. A typical soil profile consists of fine sandy loam to a depth of 18 inches, silty clay loam between 18 and 45 inches, and stratified sand to gravelly sand between 45 and 60 inches. For Mocho fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, available water storage is moderate (about 6.5 inches), and the runoff class is low. This soil map unit is included on the National Hydric Soils List, which lists soils that are permanently or seasonally saturated by water resulting in anaerobic conditions typically found in wetlands (USDA, NRCS 2023b).

Oceano Sand, 0 to 9 Percent Slopes
Oceano sand soils are deep, excessively-drained soils that formed in material weathered from sandy eolian deposits. They are present on rolling dune-like topography near the ocean. Available water storage is low (2.75 inches) with very slow runoff and rapid permeability. A typical soil profile consists of sandy textures up to 60 inches. This soil map unit is not included on the National Hydric Soils List (USDA, NRCS 2023b).

Marimel Sandy Clay Loam, Occasionally Flooded
Marimel sandy clay loam soils are somewhat poorly drained soils that occur in alluvial fans, flood plains, and valleys. They are formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. A typical soil profile consists of sandy clay loam to a depth of 16 inches and stratified loam to clay loam to silty clay loam from 16 to 60 inches. For Marimel sandy clay loam, occasionally flooded, available water storage is high (10.2 inches) and the runoff class is high. This soil map unit is included on the National Hydric Soils List, which lists soils that are permanently or seasonally saturated by water resulting in anaerobic conditions typically found in wetlands (USDA, NRCS 2023b).

Dune Land
Dune land is excessively drained soil that occurs on beach dunes. It consists of 90 percent dune land soils and 9 percent other minor components. A typical profile consists of fine sand to a depth of 60 inches. Available water storage is low and the runoff class is low. This soil map unit is included on the National Hydric Soils List, which lists soils that are permanently or seasonally saturated by water resulting in anaerobic conditions typically found in wetlands (USDA, NRCS 2023b).

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 15
Figure 3 Soils Map Units within the Study Area

sUssiM<r
%r
r-:~.#
__|Study AreaL_
Soil Type
134:Dune land
169:Marimel sandy clay loam,occasionally flooded
173:Mocho fine sandy loam,0 to 2 percent slopes
176:Mocho variant fine sandy loam
184:Oceano sand,0 to 9 percent slopes
193:Psamments and Fluvents,wet
1,800 N0900AL
Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023.

Additional data provided by USDA NRCS SSURGO 2022 .

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

16 Psamments and Fluvents, Wet
Psamments and fluvents are entisols, which have no diagnostic horizons. In the Study Area, they are found on floodplains that receive frequent deposits of alluvium. Fluvents are freely-drained and formed in recent water-deposited sediments along rivers and small streams. They are frequently flooded. Psamments are unconsolidated sandy deposits common in dune habitat. In the Study Area, these mixed entisols are found on and near permanently wet areas, such as ponds and vegetated wetlands. This soil map unit is included on the National Hydric Soils List, which lists soils that are permanently or seasonally saturated by water resulting in anaerobic conditions typically found in wetlands (USDA, NRCS 2023b).

3.4 Vegetation and Other Land Cover
Ten terrestrial vegetation communities or land cover types occur within the Study Area:
developed/landscaped, ruderal, eucalyptus grove, agriculture, arroyo willow thicket, wild oats and annual brome grassland, saltgrass flats, coyote brush scrub, iceplant mats, and California bulrush marshes. Vegetation was classified and mapped during the reconnaissance-level survey conducted on January 20, 2023 to characterize the Study Area. A summary of the vegetation/land cover types identified in the Study Area is presented in Table 2 and shown in Figure 4a through Figure 4g.

Habitat characterizations were based on the classification system presented in MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009) and Preliminary Description of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986) but have been modified slightly to most accurately reflect existing site conditions. The CDFW (1988) California Wildlife Habitat Relationships database was also referenced for describing the habitat types within the Study Area. Plant species nomenclature and taxonomy used for the Study Area follow treatments within Baldwin et al. (2012).

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 17
Table 2 Terrestrial Vegetation and Land Cover Types
Vegetation Community/
Land Cover
Project Component Locations
Within Vegetation Community/Land Cover
Total Acreage in Study
Area
Developed/Landscaped MW-1A/1B, MW-1A/1B (Alternate), MW-1C/1D, MW-1C/1D (Alternate), MW-2A/2B/2C, MW-2A/2B/2C
(Alternate), MW-2D/2E/2F, MW-3A/3B (Existing), MW-
3C/3D, MW-4A/4B, MW-5D/5E/5F
IW-1, IW-2A/2B (Alternate), IW-3, IW-4 (Existing), IW-4 (Alternate), IW-5A, IW-5B
PB-23
ATF Complex
Pipelines
Staging/Laydown Yards

37.75 Ruderal MW-1C/1D, MW-4C/4D, MW-5A/5B/5C
IW-2A, IW-2B
Staging/Laydown Yards

10.53 Eucalyptus Grove Pipelines 3.56
Agriculture MW-NCMA North A/B/C, MW-NCMA South A/B/C 3.31 Arroyo Willow Thicket Pipelines 2.45
Wild Oats and Annual Brome
Grassland
Pipelines 1.78
Saltgrass Flats Pipelines 0.62
Coyote Brush Scrub Pipelines 0.31
Iceplant Mats Pipelines 0.21
California Bulrush
Marshes
Construction staging/laydown area 0.06

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

18 Figure 4a Vegetation and Land Cover – IW-1, MW-1A/1B, MW-1A/1B (Alternate), MW- 1C/1D, MW-1C/1D (Alternate), and Pipeline Alignments

D (jjltemate)*
Study Area
Pipelines
Injection WellO
O Monitoring Well
Vegetation Communities
Eucalyptus Grove
Ruderal
Developed/Landscaped I
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023 .

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 19
Figure 4b Vegetation and Land Cover – IW-2A/2B (Alternate), IW-2A, IW-2B, MW- 2A/2B/2C, MW-2A/2B/2C (Alternate), and Pipeline Alignments

Imagery provided by Microsoft Bmg and its licensors (9 2023 .15-01882 EPS Fig X Vegetation Communities DDP

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

20 Figure 4c Vegetation and Land Cover – MW-2D/2E/2F, MW-3C/3D, PB-23, Staging/Laydown Yards, Potential Jack and Bore Pits, ATF Complex, and Pipeline Alignments

Agriculture||||Staging/Laydown Yard
Arroyo Willow ThicketAdvancedTreatmentEZ3FacilityComplexCaliforniaBulrushMarsh Pipelines Eucalyptus Grove
Q Potential Jack and Bore Pit Iceplant Mat
Injection WellO Ruderal
(Existing)Monitoring WellO Developed/Landscaped O
Production WellO
NA0125250
j.

Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023.

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 21
Figure 4d Vegetation and Land Cover – MW-4C/4/D, ATF Complex, and Staging/Laydown Yards

1 |Study Area Vegetation Communities
Agriculture1|Staging/Laydown Yard
Eucalyptus GroveAdvancedTreatmentV7AFacilityComplexRuderal Pipelines Developed/Landscaped
350 N0175AII
Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023.15-01882 EPS Fig X Vegetation Communities DDP

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

22 Figure 4e Vegetation and Land Cover – IW-3, IW-4 (Existing), IW-4 (Alternate), MW-3A/3B (Existing), MW-4A/4B, Potential Jack and Bore Pits, and Pipeline Alignments

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 23
Figure 4f Vegetation and Land Cover – IW-4 and Pipeline Alignments

Vegetation Communities
Iceplant Mat
Developed/Landscaped
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023 .15-01882 EPS Fig X Vegetation CommunitiesDDP

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

24 Figure 4g Vegetation and Land Cover – Pipeline Alignments

m*me
3 [L ]Study Area
Pipelines
Vegetation Communities
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Saltgrass Flats
Wild Oats and Annual
Brome Grassland
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023 .lb-01882 EPS nunities DDP

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 25
Figure 4h Vegetation and Land Cover – IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-5A/5B/5C, and Pipeline Alignments

J Study Area
Pipelines
O Injection Well
O Monitoring Well
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

26 Figure 4i Vegetation and Land Cover – MW-5D/5E/5F, Staging/Laydown Yards, and Pipeline Alignments

j]|Study Area Vegetation Communities
Arroyo Willow ThicketII||Staging/Laydown Yard
Coyote Brush ScrubPipelines
Wild Oats and AnnualOMonitoringWellBromeGrassland
Developed/LandscapedNA0105210
I Ji
Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023 .lb-01882 EPS iunitie DDP

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 27
Figure 4j Vegetation and Land Cover – MW-NCMA North A/B/C and MW-NCMA South A/B/C

15-01882 EPS
tation Communities DDPPigX

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

28 Developed/Landscaped
Developed/Landscaped land cover is the largest land cover type in the Study Area, occupying approximately 37.75 acres. This land cover consists of areas that have been previously developed or otherwise physically modified to the extent that they no longer contain native soil and habitat conditions and no longer support most vegetation. Developed land in the Study Area is characterized by the presence of permanent or semi-permanent structures, such as residential and commercial buildings, campgrounds, gravel lots, pavement including parking lots and roadways, or hardscape.

This land cover type may also contain areas that are sparsely vegetated, primarily with non-native species.

Landscaped land refers to vegetated areas associated with development, specifically planted for aesthetic beautification. Landscaped plants in the Study Area include Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), and African daisy (Dimorphotheca sinuata).

Developed areas are not classified in the MCV2 classification system (Sawyer et al. 2009) or the Holland (1986) classification system but are included in the CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships database as Urban (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

Ruderal
Ruderal vegetation is associated with and adjacent to areas of active disturbance within the Study Area, occupying approximately 10.53 acres. This vegetation community occurs where ground has previously been disturbed and is currently not in active use. The ruderal vegetation is dominated by cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora), black mustard (Brassica nigra), short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and wild radish (Raphanus sativus), with non-native grasses and forbs also present. The ruderal areas most closely correspond to the Brassica nigra - Raphanus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance in the MCV2 classification system (Sawyer et al. 2009).

Eucalyptus Grove (Eucalyptus spp. Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance) Eucalyptus grove is 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 0 to 1,900 meters (m) in elevation. Eucalyptus species consist of over 80 percent cover within the tree layer. Eucalyptus has a California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) rating of “Moderate” for its invasive tendencies (Cal-IPC 2023).

Within the Study Area, this community occupies approximately 3.56 acres and is dominated by blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) as the sole tree species. The understory was primarily ruderal vegetation and blue gum debris. This land cover provides habitat for nesting birds, including raptors.

Agriculture
The agriculture land cover type covers approximately 3.31 acres of the Study Area. This land cover type includes active agriculture operations, including heavily disturbed bare ground areas and row crops such as strawberries. Sparse vegetation is present in portions of this land cover type, including non-native cheeseweed mallow, prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), and annual stinging nettle (Urtica urens).

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 29
Arroyo Willow Thicket (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance) The arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) thicket is typically found between 0 to 9,186 ft (0 to 2,800 m) in elevation within stream banks and benches, slope seeps and along drainage with sediment depositions. Arroyo willow contributes to at least 50 percent relative cover in the tree or shrub canopy.

Within the Study Area, this community is associated with Arroyo Grande Creek, Meadow Creek, roadway drainages, and intermittent streams and occupies approximately 2.45 acres. Vegetation consists of a canopy of mature arroyo willow and red willow (Salix laevigata) trees. The understory is dense and dominated by California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum).

Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland (Avena spp. – Bromus spp.

Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance)
Wild oats and annual brome grassland is an open-to-dense naturalized vegetation community that is dominated or codominated by non-native, often invasive, annual grasses (e.g., wild oats [Avena spp.], ripgut brome [Bromus diandrus], and foxtail barley [Hordeum murinum]). This vegetation community is often interspersed with native and non-native forbs. Emergent trees and shrubs may be present but at low cover.

This vegetation community occurs within the Oceano Airport and covers approximately 1.78 acres of the Study Area. This vegetation type is dominated by ripgut brome and wild oats, with Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), cheeseweed mallow, common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), black mustard, and short-podded mustard also present. Signs of active mowing were also observed within this community on the Oceano Airport.

Iceplant Mats (Mesembryanthemum spp. – Carpobrotus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance)
Iceplant mats (Mesembryanthemum spp. – Carpobrotus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance) are typically found on bluffs, disturbed land, and sand dunes of the immediate coastline from sea level to 330 ft (100 m) in elevation. Iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis), common iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), or other iceplant provide at least 80 percent absolute cover close to the coast or provide at least 50 percent relative cover on bluffs, dunes, or disturbed lands.

Within the Study Area, this community is associated with development and occurs along existing roadways, occupying approximately 0.21 acre. Iceplant is the dominant species, with non-native cheeseweed mallow and native blue elderberry (Sambucas nigra ssp. caerulea) also present. Iceplant has a Cal-IPC rating of “High” for its invasive tendencies (Cal-IPC 2023).

Saltgrass Flats (Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Alliance) Saltgrass flats are a low growing herbaceous vegetation community that occurs in coastal salt marshes, playas, swales and terraces along washes that are intermittently flooded from 0 to 1,500 m.

It is most often associated with alkaline or saline soils that are poorly drained. Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), spiny rush (Juncus acutus) or Cooper’s rush (Juncus cooperi) are dominant species with greater than 50 percent relative cover.

Within the Study Area, this community is associated with the freshwater emergent wetland located along the southern portion of Oceano Airport and covers approximately 0.62 acre. This vegetation

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

30 community is dominated by saltgrass and fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), with non-native Bermuda grass and native beaked spikerush (Eleocharis rostellata) also present. This is a CDFW-designated sensitive vegetation community (CDFW 2023b).

Coyote Brush Scrub (Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance) Coyote brush scrub is a coastal scrub vegetation community that occurs on coastal bluffs, terraces, stabilized dunes, stream sides, and other similar areas. The soils are variable and contain sandy to relatively heavy clay. Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) is the dominant to co-dominant in the shrub canopy where it must have greater than 50 percent absolute cover in the shrub canopy. Common co- dominants and associates include California coffeeberry (Frangula californica), coast silk tassel (Garrya elliptica), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and other similar coastal scrub and riparian shrub species. Emergent trees (i.e., coast live oak) may be present at low cover. This vegetation community is typically less than three meters tall, the shrub canopy is variable, and the herbaceous layer is variable.

Within the Study Area, this community occurs along the southwestern portion of Oceano Airport and covers approximately 0.31 acre. The shrub layer of this vegetation community is dominated by coyote brush and California blackberry, with stinging nettle, ripgut brome, and short-podded mustard also present.

California Bulrush Marshes (Schoenoplectus (acutus, californicus) Herbaceous Alliance)
California bulrush marshes are an herbaceous emergent wetland vegetation community that occurs in brackish to freshwater marshes, estuaries, sloughs, ponds, and swamps as well as along stream shores. The soils have a high organic content and are poorly aerated. Hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus) and/or California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) are dominant or co- dominant where either species must have greater than 50 percent relative cover. Common associates include a variety of other freshwater wetland perennial species such as cattails (Typha spp.) and alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus). Emergent trees and shrubs may be present at low cover. This vegetation community is typically less than 15 ft tall and the cover is intermittent to continuous.

Within the Study Area, this community occurs adjacent to the pipeline alignment along Railroad Street and at the location of MW-2D/2E/2F, covering approximately 0.06 acre of the Study Area. This vegetation type is comprised of a dense herbaceous layer of California bulrush, with tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis) and saltgrass also present. This is a CDFW-designated sensitive vegetation community (CDFW 2023b).

3.5 General Wildlife
Wildlife activity was moderate during the field reconnaissance survey. Vegetation communities within and adjacent to the Study Area, including arroyo willow thicket, coyote brush scrub, and eucalyptus grove, provide suitable habitat for a variety of birds and raptors. Ornamental trees within landscaped portions of the Study Area may also serve as suitable nesting habitat for a number of bird species.

Bird species such as Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) and lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) were observed. Mammals detected within the Study Area consisted of California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) as well as sign of coyote (Canis latrans) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). For a complete list of wildlife observed, see Appendix D.

Existing Conditions

Biological Resources Assessment 31
The riparian corridor adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek function as wildlife corridors within the area. The habitat value for wildlife west and east of the corridor is limited by urban development and the Pacific Ocean.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

32 This page intentionally left blank.

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 33
4 Regulated Biological Resources
Local, state, and federal agencies regulate special status species and other biological resources. This section discusses regulated biological resources observed in the Study Area and evaluates the potential for the Study Area to support additional regulated 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 CNDDB, species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the survey area, previous reports for the SSLOCSD WWTP property, 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:
▪ No 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-site if present (e.g., oak trees). ▪ Low Potential. Few of the habitat components 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.
▪ Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components 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.
▪ High Potential. All of the habitat components 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.
▪ Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB or other reports) on the site recently (within the last five years).

4.1 Special Status Species
For the purpose of this report, special status species are defined as those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or NMFS under the federal Endangered Species Act; those listed or candidates for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act or Native Plant Protection Act; and animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW or “Fully Protected” under the California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, rookery sites for species that nest colonially, such as bat maternity roosts are also treated as special status.

Based on the database searches, literature review, and the results of the field reconnaissance survey of the Study Area, Rincon evaluated a total of 89 special status plant and animal species. Of these, 11 special status plant species and 7 special status animal species were evaluated as being present or having some potential to occur within the Study Area. Special status species with potential to occur within the Study Area are summarized in Table 3, and a complete list of special status species evaluated for the proposed project is presented in Appendix B.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

34 Table 3 Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area1 Scientific Name Common Name Status Potential to Occur
Plants
Arctostaphylos rudis sand mesa manzanita CRPR
1B.2
Low Potential
Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort FE/SE/
CRPR
1B.1
Low Potential
Cirsium scariosum var. loncholepis La Graciosa thistle FE/ST/ CRPR
1B.1
Low Potential
Dithyrea maritima beach spectaclepod ST/ CRPR
1B.1
Low Potential
Erigeron blochmaniae Blochman’s leafy daisy CRPR
1B.2
Moderate Potential
Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CRPR
1B.2
Present (Planted)
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg’s horkelia CRPR
1B.1
Low Potential
Monardella 34inuate ssp. Sinuata southern curly-leaved monardella CRPR 1B.2
Low Potential
Monardella undulata ssp. Crispa crisp monardella CRPR
1B.2
Moderate Potential
Monardella undulata ssp. Undulata San Luis Obispo monardella CRPR 1B.2
Moderate Potential
Scrophularia atrata black-flowered figwort CRPR
1B.2
Moderate Potential
Invertebrates
Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch – California overwintering population
FC Moderate Potential
Fish
Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby FE/SSC Low Potential Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9 steelhead – south central California distinct population segment
FT Low Potential
Amphibians
Rana draytonii California red-legged frog FT/SSC Low Potential Reptiles
Anniella pulchra northern California legless lizard SSC Moderate Potential Emys marmorata southwestern pond turtle SSC Low Potential Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird ST/SSC Moderate Potential Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite FP Low Potential
FC = Federal Candidate FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened FP = State Fully Protected SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank See Appendix B for additional justification on each species’ potential to occur along with all other special status species identified during the literature and database review, their listing statuses, their habitat requirements, their potential to occur designations, and their habitat suitability/observation notes

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 35
Special Status Plant Species
Based on the database and literature review of records from the Oceano, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and surrounding seven quadrangles as well as the USFWS IPaC list of federally listed species, 58 special status plant species are known to occur or have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area. Of the 58 special status plant species, 47 are not expected to occur within the Study Area because habitat within and adjacent to the Study Area is unsuitable for the species (i.e., the area does not meet minimum habitat requirements). As shown in Table 3, six special status plant species have a low potential to occur, four species have a moderate potential to occur, and one species, discussed further below, is present within the Study Area. The three non-listed special status plant species with a low potential to occur are omitted from further discussion because these species are not likely to occur within the Study Area and, even if present, population-wide impacts are not expected to occur. Listed special status plant species with a low potential to occur, and all special status plant species with a moderate potential to occur are discussed further below.

One special status plant species, Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa; CRPR 1B.2), was observed within the Study Area during the field reconnaissance survey. This species is native to the Monterey Peninsula but has been widely planted outside of its native range as a landscape tree. In the Study Area, all occurrences of this species were located along public roadways as landscape trees.

Monterey cypress trees are therefore omitted from further discussion because they are not native to the region and all occurrences within the Study Area are planted landscape trees.

Marsh Sandwort
Marsh sandwort, a federally endangered, State endangered, and CRPR 1B.1 species, is a perennial herbaceous plant in the pink family (Caryophyllaceae). This species grows in brackish or freshwater marshes and swamps in scattered populations between San Francisco County and San Bernardino County. This species occurs between 10 and 560 ft (3 to 170 m) in elevation. Only two natural occurrences are known from Black Lake Canyon and Oso Flaco Lake, both of which are located approximately three to four miles south of the Study Area. Several introduced populations are also known throughout San Luis Obispo County, none of which overlap with the Study Area. Suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area occurs in the marsh habitat located adjacent to MW- 2D/2E/2F. This species was not detected during the reconnaissance-level survey; however, the survey was not conducted during the blooming period of this species (May through August). As such, its potential to occur within the Study Area is based solely on the presence of suitable habitat and the proximity of the Study Area to occurrences documented in the CNDDB.

La Graciosa Thistle
La Graciosa thistle, a federally endangered, State threatened, and CRPR 1B.1 species, is a perennial herbaceous plant in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). This species grows in mesic or sandy areas within cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, brackish marshes and swamps, and valley and foothill grassland habitats from southwestern San Luis Obispo County to northwestern Santa Barbara County. This species occurs between 15 and 720 ft (4 to 220 m) in elevation. Marginally suitable habitat for this species occurs within the Study Area adjacent to Delta Lane, along the southern edge of the Oceano Airport, as well as in the marsh habitat located adjacent to MW- 2D/2E/2F. This species was not detected during the reconnaissance-level survey; however, the survey was not conducted during the blooming period of this species (May through August). As such, its potential to occur within the Study Area is based solely on the presence of suitable habitat and the proximity of the Study Area to occurrences documented in the CNDDB.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

36 Beach Spectaclepod
Beach spectaclepod, a State threatened and CRPR 1B.1 species, is a perennial herbaceous plant in the mustard family (Brassicaceae). This species grows in coastal dunes or sandy coastal scrub from San Luis Obispo County to Los Angeles County. This species occurs between 10 and 165 ft (3 to 50 m) in elevation. Marginally suitable habitat for this species occurs within the Study Area adjacent to Delta Lane, along the southern edge of the Oceano Airport. This species was not detected during the reconnaissance-level survey; however, the survey was not conducted during the blooming period of this species (March through May). As such, its potential to occur within the Study Area is based solely on the presence of suitable habitat and the proximity of the Study Area to occurrences documented in the CNDDB.

Blochman’s Leafy Daisy
Blochman’s leafy daisy, a CRPR 1B.2 species, is a perennial herbaceous plant in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). This species occurs in coastal dune and coastal scrub habitats from northwestern Santa Barbara County to southwestern San Luis Obispo County. This species occurs between 10 and 150 ft (3 to 45 m). Potentially suitable habitat for this species occurs adjacent to Delta Lane, along the southern edge of the Oceano Airport. This species was not detected during the reconnaissance-level survey; however, the survey was not conducted during the blooming period of this species (June through August). As such, its potential to occur within the Study Area is based solely on the presence of suitable habitat and the proximity of the Study Area to occurrences documented in the CNDDB.

Crisp Monardella
Crisp monardella, a CRPR 1B.2 species, is a perennial herbaceous plant in the mint family (Lamiaceae).

This species occurs in coastal dune and coastal scrub habitats within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. This species occurs between 35 and 395 ft (10 to 120 m) in elevation. Potentially suitable habitat for this species occurs within the Study Area adjacent to Delta Lane, along the southern edge of the Oceano Airport. This species was not detected during the reconnaissance-level survey; however, the survey was not conducted during the blooming period of this species (April through August). As such, its potential to occur within the Study Area is based solely on the presence of suitable habitat and the proximity of the Study Area to occurrences documented in the CNDDB.

San Luis Obispo Monardella
San Luis Obispo monardella, a CRPR 1B.2 species, is a perennial herbaceous plant in the mint family (Lamiaceae). This species occurs in sandy coastal scrub and coastal dune habitats within San Luis Obispo County. This species occurs between 25 and 655 ft (10 to 200 m) in elevation. Potentially suitable habitat for this species occurs within the Study Area adjacent to Delta Lane, along the southern edge of the Oceano Airport. This species was not detected during the reconnaissance-level survey; however, the survey was not conducted during the blooming period of this species (May- September) and as such, its potential to occur within the Study Area is based solely on the presence of suitable habitat and the proximity of the Study Area to occurrences documented in the CNDDB.

Black-flowered Figwort
Black-flowered figwort, a CRPR 1B.2 species, is a perennial herbaceous plant in the figwort family (Scropulariaceae). This species occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and riparian scrub habitats within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. This species occurs between 35 and 1,640 ft (10 to 500 m) in elevation. Potentially suitable coastal scrub

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 37
and riparian scrub habitats for this species occur within the Study Area adjacent to Delta Lane and the SSLOCSD WWTP, along the southern edge of the Oceano Airport. Potentially suitable riparian scrub habitat for this species occurs within 100 ft of MW-5A/5B/5C, IW-5A, IW-5B, and pipelines elsewhere in the Study Area. This species was not observed in these areas during the field reconnaissance survey; however, a focused rare plant survey was not conducted.

Special Status Animal Species
Based on the database and literature review of records from the Oceano, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and surrounding seven quadrangles as well as the USFWS IPaC list of federally listed species, 31 special status animal species are known to occur or have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area. Of the 31 special status animal species, 24 are not expected to occur because habitat within and adjacent to the Study Area is unsuitable for the species (i.e., the area does not meet minimum habitat requirements). As shown in Table 3, four special status animal species have a low potential to occur, and three species have a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area.

Although definitive surveys for special status animal species were not conducted, no individual or sign indicating the presence of these special status animal species were observed during the reconnaissance-level survey. As such, the following analysis of potential for occurrences is based on the habitat suitability and CNDDB occurrences of these species in the vicinity.

Tidewater Goby
Tidewater goby, a federally endangered and SSC, inhabits lagoons, estuaries, marshes, and freshwater tributaries along the coast of California, from Del Norte County south to San Diego County (USFWS 2023d). Potentially suitable habitat for tidewater goby in the form of Arroyo Grande Creek and its associated lagoon occurs approximately 50 ft south of the Study Area; however, an earthen levee separates the Study Area from Arroyo Grande Creek and its associated lagoon. Additionally, Meadow Creek and its lagoon, located more than 100 ft west and south of the Study Area, are also isolated from the Study Area due to existing roadways and development. Therefore, this species has a low potential to occur within the Study Area.

Steelhead – South-Central California Coast DPS
The south-central California coast distinct population segment (DPS) of steelhead, a federally threatened species, is an anadromous fish that spends the majority of its lifespan within the ocean and migrates to freshwater coastal streams for spawning (NMFS 2013). This DPS ranges from the Pajaro River, primarily along the border between Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, to Arroyo Grande Creek in southern San Luis Obispo County. Steelhead require freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites and freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction for reproduction.

Steelhead spend up to three years in freshwater before migrating to the ocean where they spend up to four years maturing in a marine environment before returning to the freshwater environments (NMFS 2013).

Steelhead are known to occur within Arroyo Grande Creek and at the mouth of its lagoon; however, an earthen levee separates the Study Area from Arroyo Grande Creek and its lagoon. In addition, a surface connection between Arroyo Grande Lagoon and Meadow Creek Lagoon through the Sand Canyon structure (i.e., the flap gates) is only present during high flows in Meadow Creek and/or Arroyo Grande Creek and/or in conjunction with high tides. As a result, there is an infrequent possibility for steelhead to enter the Meadow Creek Lagoon. Furthermore, Meadow Creek and

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

38 Meadow Creek Lagoon are located more than 100 ft west of the Study Area and are separated from the Study Area by existing roadways and development. The species has a low potential to migrate near the discharge point of the existing ocean outfall pipeline in the Pacific Ocean during migration towards Arroyo Grande Creek.

Monarch Butterfly – California Overwintering Population The monarch butterfly – California overwintering population, a federal candidate species, roosts in eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress groves along the California coast from Mendocino County to Baja California, Mexico. This species must have water and nectar sources located near their roosting sites (CDFW 2023a). The monarch overwintering period in California typically spans from October through March (Monarch Joint Venture 2020).

Potentially suitable habitat for this species in the form of eucalyptus groves occurs throughout the Study Area. Several known overwintering sites, including Xerces Sites #2031, #3082, and #3061, occur within one mile of the Study Area (Xerces Society 2023). Additionally, Xerces Site #3063 overlaps with the Study Area at the ATF complex location; however, the last record of overwintering monarchs at this site is from 1989. No overwintering monarchs were observed at this site during the field reconnaissance survey; as such, this site is not currently an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). This species has a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area as transient individuals traveling between overwintering and nectar sites or within landscaped areas.

California Red-legged Frog
The California red-legged frog (CRLF), a federally threatened species and SSC, inhabits quiet pools of streams, marshes, and ponds. All life history stages are most likely to be encountered in and around breeding sites, which include coastal lagoons, marshes, springs, permanent and semi-permanent natural ponds, and ponded and backwater portions of streams, as well as artificial impoundments such as stock ponds, irrigation ponds, and siltation ponds. Eggs are typically deposited in permanent pools, attached to emergent vegetation.

The Study Area is located within the known range of CRLF in San Luis Obispo County based upon the current range depicted in the Arroyo Grande Creek core area as presented in Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog (USFWS 2002). CRLF are known to occur within Arroyo Grande Creek from its lagoon to approximately 1.4 miles upstream (CDFW 2023a).

The majority of the Study Area is developed or heavily disturbed. No aquatic breeding habitat occurs within the Study Area. IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW-5A/5B/5C as well as portions of the pipeline alignments are adjacent to potentially suitable dispersal habitat for the CRLF, in the form of arroyo willow riparian associated with Arroyo Grande Creek (see Figure 4a through Figure 4g). The potential to encounter CRLF within the project site is anticipated to be low and could be expected during conditions suitable for amphibian terrestrial movement, such as during wet conditions during or following rain events or at night. Although no suitable aquatic habitat for CRLF exists within the project footprint, encounters with CRLF during implementation are still possible due to the close proximity to known occurrences within Arroyo Grande Creek and known breeding areas within dispersal distance.

Northern California Legless Lizard
Northern California legless lizard, an SSC, requires sandy soils with moisture and sparse vegetation.

The CNDDB documents numerous occurrences within five miles of the Study Area, the closest of which is from 2015 and is located less than one mile south of the Oceano Airport (CDFW 2023a).

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 39
Potentially suitable habitat in the form of areas with sandy soils and sparse vegetation are present in native and non-native habitat types throughout the Study Area, excluding developed areas. As a result, this species has a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area.

Southwestern Pond Turtle
Southwestern pond turtle, an SSC, is an aquatic turtle that occurs in ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches that typically support aquatic vegetation. The species requires downed logs, rocks, mats of vegetation, or exposed banks for basking. Southwestern pond turtles lay their eggs in nests that are dug along the banks of streams or other uplands in sandy, friable soils. Southwestern pond turtles, especially those that reside in creeks, are also known to over winter in upland habitats.

Upland movements can be quite extensive, and individuals have been recorded nesting or overwintering hundreds of feet from aquatic habitats. The typical nesting season is usually from April through August; however, variation exists depending upon geographic location.

No southwestern pond turtles or basking sites were observed within the Study Area during the field reconnaissance survey. Several CNDDB occurrences of this species have been recorded within five miles of the Study Area, the closest of which is from 2003 and is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the Study Area, within Arroyo Grande Creek (CDFW 2023a). Suitable upland habitat for this species is comprised of the arroyo willow riparian habitats adjacent to Meadow Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek which can be used as nesting habitat (see Table 2 and Figure 4a through Figure 4g).

Therefore, within the Study Area, the species has the highest potential to occur at the IW-5A, IW-5B and MW-5A/5B/5C locations, which are adjacent to riparian habitat.

Tri-colored Blackbird
Potentially suitable foraging habitat for tri-colored blackbird, a State threatened species and SSC, occurs throughout the Study Area. Tri-colored blackbird requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and adequate foraging area with insect prey within a few miles of the colony. Suitable nesting substrate is not within the Study Area; however, potentially suitable nesting habitat can be found in the larger vicinity outside the Study Area in areas in proximity to open water such as Oceano Lagoon (which is 150 ft west of the proposed pipelines along SR 1, Coolidge Drive, and Norswing Drive) in areas containing cattails forming protected nesting substrate. No CNDDB occurrences have been documented within five miles of the Study Area; however, the species has been documented at numerous locations within a 10-mile radius of the Study Area in areas similar in nature to Oceano Lagoon. Other resources, including eBird, have documented the species within Oceano Lagoon (observed in 2018) as well as at the confluence of Oceano/Meadow Creek Lagoon with Arroyo Grande Creek (observed in 1992; eBird 2023). Based on the habitats found within the Study Area, this species is only expected to occur incidentally as it forages or moves through the area.

White-tailed Kite
The Study Area contains potentially suitable habitat for white-tailed kite, a State Fully Protected species. Potential foraging and nesting habitat for white-tailed kite occurs throughout the Study Area.

White-tailed kite requires open grassland or marshes for foraging and dense-topped trees for nesting and perching. Eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress trees scattered throughout the Study Area may be potential nesting habitat for the species, and grassland habitats throughout the Study Area may provide potential foraging habitat for the species. No CNDDB occurrences have been documented within five miles of the Study Area; however, the species has been documented adjacent to Oceano Lagoon (observed each year from 2006 through 2023) (eBird 2023).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

40 Southern Sea Otter
Southern sea otter, a federally threatened species and SSC, inhabits the Pacific Ocean coastline from San Mateo County to Santa Barbara County and San Nicolas Island (USFWS 2015). Sea otters are found closely in association with rocky habitats and kelp forest dominated areas with an abundance of invertebrates including abalone, rock crabs, sea urchins, kelp crabs, mussels, barnacles, scallops and clams. Breeding typically occurs from June through November.

Southern sea otters are known to occur approximately five miles north along the rocky coast near the Shell Beach area of Pismo Beach. The species has a low potential to migrate near the existing discharge point of the ocean outfall pipeline in the Pacific Ocean. However, this location lacks dense kelp forest or rocky substrates and therefore does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Other Protected Species
Structures, trees, and shrubs in and surrounding the Study Area provide habitat for other bird species to nest, many of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and similar provisions under the California Fish and Game Code. Several species of birds common to the area typically nest in the habitats found within the Study Area, such as house finch, black phoebe, wrentit, and lesser goldfinch.

Although no raptor nests were detected during the survey, the eucalyptus trees within and adjacent to the Study Area could be utilized by raptors for nesting.

4.2 Sensitive Plant Communities and Critical Habitats
The CNDDB lists six sensitive natural communities in the eight quadrangles that include and surround the Study Area (Appendix B). None of these six listed sensitive natural communities occur within the Study Area. On-site vegetation types were compared with the California Sensitive Natural Communities List (CDFW 2023c). According to the CDFW’s California Sensitive Natural Communities List, two vegetation communities present within the Study Area, saltgrass flats and California bulrush marshes, are considered to be sensitive.

Figure 5 provides an overview of all federally designated critical habitat in relation to the Study Area.

Critical habitat for tidewater goby, steelhead – south-central California coast DPS, and western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) occur within five miles of the Study Area. Additionally, critical habitat for La Graciosa thistle overlaps with the Study Area at MW-NCMA South A/B/C; however, construction activities for this monitoring well would be restricted to the existing agricultural areas, outside of potentially suitable habitat for La Graciosa thistle (USFWS 2023b).

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 41
Figure 5 Critical Habitat within the Study Area

]Study Area
Critical Habitat
La Graciosa thistle
Tidewater goby
Western snowy plover
Steelhead trout
0 2,000
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023 .

Critical Habitat data provided by USFWS,2022 and NOAA,2021. 15-01882 PB,PB RGS CEQAFig5CriticalHabitat

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

42 4.3 California Coastal Zone and Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Areas
All injection and monitoring well locations except MW-1C/1D, MW-4C/4D, MW-5D/5E/5F, the majority of pipelines, and portions of the ATF complex location occur within the Coastal Zone designated by the CCC under the California Coastal Act. Additionally, several potential jack and bore pit locations occur within the Coastal Zone. Because project components fall within the jurisdictions of the City of Grover Beach and the County of San Luis Obispo as well as within the original jurisdiction of the CCC, the City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC. Therefore, the project is not expected to be subject to the requirements of local permit processing by the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo.

The CCC defines ESHAs as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either 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 and developments” (Coastal Act Section 30107.5).

Wetlands, including saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens, are often considered as ESHAs (Coastal Act Section 30121).

LCPs typically identify areas or habitats that are considered as ESHAs within specific cities or counties. Within the Study Area, the City of Grover Beach and the County of San Luis Obispo each have an adopted LCP that identifies riparian habitats associated with Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek as ESHA. See Table 2 and Figure 4a through Figure 4g for information on locations of riparian habitat that would be considered ESHA.

4.4 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
As noted in Section 3.2, Watersheds and Drainages, and Section 3.4, Vegetation and Other Land Cover, two detention basins, two wetlands, two agriculture ditches, a roadway drainage, an intermittent stream and associated riparian vegetation were observed during the reconnaissance survey (see Table 1, Table 2, and Appendix E). Figure 6a through Figure 6f provide a summary of jurisdictional waters and wetlands within the Study Area. These features are potentially under the jurisdiction(s) of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, CCC, and local agencies pursuant to the California Coastal Act and associated CCC-approved LCPs (i.e., the City of Grover Beach and San Luis Obispo County).6 These agencies make the final determination regarding limits of jurisdiction, typically at the time permits are requested for activities within these areas.

4.5 Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a habitat connection between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may

6 The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC.

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 43
Figure 6a Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Detention Basin 1

Coordinate System :NAD 1983 State Plane California IV
Projection:Lambert Conformal ConicDatum:North American 1983

35.112788
-120.627663 1inch =300 feet
Imagery Provided by ESRI,2023
Created on February 6th,2023
Map Created by:Rincon Consultants,Inc.
|l Study Area
California Coastal Zone
CCC /CDFW/RWQCB Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetlands
Riparian and
Waters of the State
(0.25 ac./917 linear ft )
CCC/RWQCB Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetland and
Waters of the State
(0.20 ac/125 linear ft)

35.106028
-120.621311
5S CEQA JD map
FieX Jurisdictional DelineatorImageryprovidedbyESRIanditslicensors©2023.Page 1 of 6

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

44 Figure 6b Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Wetlands 1 and 2, Roadway Drainage, and Sample Points 1-4

Coordinate System :NAD 1983 State Plane California IVProjection:Lambert Conformal Conic Datum:North American 1983

35.104626
-120.62765-1 1inch =300 feet
Imagery Provided by ESRI,2023
Created on February 6th,2023
Map Created by:Rincon Consultants,Inc.

Maui Cir
|l l|Study Area
#Wetland Sample Point
Culvert
Non-Jurisdictional Swale
California Coastal Zone
CCC/CDFW /RWQCB Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetlands
Riparian and
Waters of the State
(1.31 ac./l,880 linear ft)
CDFW/RWQCB Jurisdiction
Streambed and Waters of the State
(0.02 ac./175 linear ft)
CCC/RWQCB Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetlands and
Wetland Waters of the State
(0.51 ac./l,026 linear ft)
NA0150300 35.097856J-120.621326Feet
Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors ©2023.Page 2 of 6 gX Jurisdictii

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 45
Figure 6c Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Intermittent Stream

Coordinate System :NAD 1983 State Plane California IV
Projection:Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum:North American 1983

35.101787
-120.621432 1inch =200 feet
Imagery Provided by ESRI,2023
Created on February 6th,2023
Map Created by:Rincon Consultants,Inc.
|Study Area
California Coastal Zone
CCC /CDFW/RWQCB Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetlands
Riparian and
Waters of the State
(0.25 ac./742 linear ft )
USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction
Non -wetland waters of
the U.S.and State
(0.001 ac./37 linear ft)

35.097281
-120.617206
15-01882 PB,PB RGS CEQA JD map
FigX Jurisdictional DelineatioiImageryprovidedbyESRIanditslicensors©2023.Page 3 of 6

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

46 Figure 6d Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Agriculture Ditch 1

15 -01882 PB,PBRG
FigX JurisdictiiImageryprovidedbyESRIanditslicensors©2023.:EQAJD maps al DelineationPage4of6

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 47
Figure 6e Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Agriculture Ditch 2

WM Coordinate System :NAD 1983 State Plane California IV Projection:Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum:North American 1983

35.083998
-120.606988 1inch =50 feet
Imagery Provided by ESRI,2023
Created on February 6th,2023
Map Created by:Rincon Consultants,Inc.
|l Study Area
California Coastal Zone
CCC/CDFW/RWQCB/USACE Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetland
CDFW Streambed
and Non -wetland
Waters of the U.S
and State
(0.07 ac/192 linear ft)i35.082873
-120.605931
15-01882 PB,PB RGS CEQA JD maps
FigX JurisdictiImageryprovidedbyESRIanditslicensors©2023.Page 5 of 6 l Delineation

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

48 Figure 6f Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands – Detention Basin 2

maps
FigX Jurisdictional DelineationPage6of6

Regulated Biological Resources

Biological Resources Assessment 49
serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return. Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.

The habitats within the link do not necessarily need to be the same as the habitats that are being linked. Rather, the link merely needs to contain sufficient cover and forage to allow temporary inhabitation by ground-dwelling species. Typically, habitat linkages are contiguous strips of natural areas, although dense plantings of landscape vegetation can be used by certain disturbance-tolerant species. Depending on the species using a given corridor, specific physical resources (such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, or oak trees) may need to be located within the habitat link at certain intervals to allow slower-moving species to traverse the link. For highly mobile or aerial species, habitat linkages may be discontinuous patches of suitable resources spaced sufficiently close together to permit travel along a route in a short period of time.

Wildlife movement corridors can be both large and small scale. Regionally, the Study Area is not located within an Essential Connectivity Area (ECA) as mapped in the report California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California (CDFW 2010). ECAs represent principle connections between Natural Landscape Blocks. ECAs are regions in which land conservation and management actions should be prioritized to maintain and enhance ecological connectivity. ECAs are mapped based on coarse ecological condition indicators, rather than the needs of particular species and thus serve the majority of species in each region. Within the Study Area, the arroyo willow riparian habitat provides suitable small-scale corridor for wildlife to travel locally.

4.6 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances
Any native trees proposed for removal associated within the project site are subject to the permit and approval requirements included in San Luis Obispo County Code (SLOCC) Sections 23.05.060,

23.05.062, and 23.05.060. Native trees including arroyo willow and Monterey cypress can be found within the Study Area. In addition, the County of San Luis Obispo and City of Grover Beach LCPs as well as San Luis Obispo County Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance include Policies and Ordinances which regulate activities within and adjacent to ESHA (see Section 4.3, California Coastal Zone and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, for a discussion of ESHA). Currently, the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo LCPs and associated ordinances require 50-foot and 100-foot setbacks, respectively, from ESHA.7

4.7 Habitat Conservation Plans
The Study Area overlaps with a small portion of the Draft Oceano Dunes District Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) along the pipeline alignment located adjacent to Oceano Lagoon on Norswing Ave; however, this plan has not yet been adopted (California State Parks 2020). Additionally, an HCP for Arroyo Grande Creek between Lopez Dam and the flood control channel is under development; however, this plan does not include any portion of the Study Area and has not yet been adopted (Stetson Engineers, Inc. 2004). No other HCPs, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans cover the Study Area.

7 The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

50 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 51
5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses the possible impacts to biological resources that may occur from implementation of the proposed project and suggests appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that would reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels. The criteria used to evaluate potential project-related impacts to biological resources are summarized in Section 2.3, Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance.

5.1 Special Status Species
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have 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 CDFW or USFWS.

Special Status Plants
Three listed special status plant species - marsh sandwort, La Graciosa thistle, and beach spectaclepod - were determined to have a low potential to occur in the Study Area, and four non-listed special status plant species, including Blochman’s leafy daisy, crisp monardella, San Luis Obispo monardella and black-flowered figwort, were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area. The majority of project impacts would occur on developed or landscaped areas outside the limits of native habitats. However, IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-2D/2E/2F, and MW-5A/5B/5C would be located in close proximity to suitable riparian habitat for black-flowered figwort. Additionally, potentially suitable coastal scrub habitat for La Graciosa thistle, beach spectaclepod, Blochman’s leafy daisy, crisp monardella, San Luis Obispo monardella, and black-flowered figwort occurs adjacent to the pipeline alignment along Delta Lane. Potentially suitable marsh habitat for La Graciosa thistle and marsh sandwort also occurs within the Study Area adjacent to MW-2D/2E/2F. No direct impacts to these species are expected to occur during project activities because potentially suitable marsh and coastal scrub habitats for these species will be avoided during construction. Indirect impacts would occur if construction equipment inadvertently transports residual plant material from other construction sites (e.g., seeds of invasive plant species carried to the site within the undercarriage or tires of heavy equipment that has not been cleaned thoroughly between construction sites), which could lead to the spread of invasive, non-native species from construction equipment. Invasive, non-native plant species can out-compete native species and/or alter habitat towards a state that is unsuitable for the survival of special status species. For example, the spread of certain weed species can reduce the biodiversity of native habitats through displacement of vital pollinators or through competition with native plants for space, water and light.

The project footprint of the injection wells, monitoring wells and the pipelines would be relatively small, and the impacts associated with construction would be primarily temporary in nature in developed/landscaped land cover. Furthermore, injection wells would be located along edges of larger habitat blocks potentially suitable for these species. Therefore, only a relatively small number of each of these special status plant species, if any, would be impacted in comparison to the population that could inhabit the remaining regionally occurring suitable habitat. Therefore, construction of the injection wells, monitoring wells, and the pipelines would not be expected to

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

52 remove or degrade habitat for special status plant species to such an extent as to cause a downward trend in the species range-wide or regional/local populations or cause a restriction in the species range that would lead to a federal or state listing. Therefore, impacts to special status plant species from construction and operation of injection wells, monitoring wells, and pipelines would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are recommended.

Special Status Animals
Tidewater Goby
Arroyo Grande Creek, approximately 50 feet south of known locations of project components, contains suitable habitat for tidewater goby; however, an earthen levee separates the known locations of project components from the creek. Meadow Creek and Oceano Lagoon, located more than 100 feet west and south of the known locations of project components, are also isolated from the known locations of project components due to existing roadways and development. In addition, the project includes monitoring of groundwater levels during construction dewatering at the ATF complex location and implementation of management actions to be protective of surface water levels in Oceano Lagoon such that this activity would not impact this species. Therefore, given the distance and intervening topographical features, no impacts to tidewater goby would occur as a result of the construction and operation of the injection wells, monitoring wells, pipelines, and the ATF complex.

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Steelhead - South-Central California Coast DPS
Steelhead has a low potential to occur near the discharge point of the existing ocean outfall pipeline in the Pacific Ocean. No suitable freshwater migration or spawning habitat occurs within the Study Area. Arroyo Grande Creek, located approximately 50 ft south of Study Area, contains suitable habitat for the species; however, an earthen levee separates the Study Area from this creek. Meadow Creek and its lagoon, located more than 100 ft west and south of the Study Area, are also isolated from the Study Area due to existing roadways and development. The species may migrate near the discharge point of the existing ocean outfall pipeline in the ocean during migration towards Arroyo Grande Creek. The project would alter the volume and quality of water discharged through the existing ocean outfall, resulting in an incrementally higher concentration (but not volume) of salinity and other constituents in the effluent. However, the secondary effluent ocean discharge would be required to comply with the existing Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTP’s NPDES permits, which include effluent limitations for protection of marine aquatic life. As a result, the change in water salinity output is not expected to cause a disruption of migration to the spawning sites. Therefore, impacts to steelhead would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are recommended.

Overwintering Population of Monarch Butterfly
The California overwintering population of monarch butterfly has a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area as transient individuals due to the proximity of numerous overwintering sites and presence of potential nectar sources within landscaped areas. The eucalyptus grove located within the ATF complex location could serve as potential monarch overwintering habitat (Xerces Site #3063). However, as discussed in Section 4.1, Special Status Species, the last record of overwintering monarchs at this site is from 1989, and no overwintering monarchs were observed at this site during the appropriately-timed field reconnaissance survey. Additionally, the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove (Xerces Site #3060), located approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the ATF complex location, was observed to be occupied by overwintering monarchs during the field reconnaissance

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 53
survey. This indicates that overwintering monarchs were still present in the region at the time of the field reconnaissance survey but were not utilizing the eucalyptus grove within the ATF complex location (Xerces Site #3063). As such, this site would not currently be considered an ESHA in the context of the California Coastal Act, and no impacts to overwintering monarchs at this site are expected as a result of the proposed removal of this eucalyptus grove if removal occurs prior to the start of the next overwintering period in October 2023. If removal of the eucalyptus grove occurs after the start of the next overwintering period in October 2023, conditions may change, and the area may be used as overwintering habitat by monarchs, in which case removal of the eucalyptus grove could result in direct impacts to monarch butterfly, such as injury/mortality and/or removal of overwintering habitat. In addition, potential indirect impacts to overwintering monarchs due to harassment could occur if they are present within the vicinity of the project during construction, though the likelihood would be low. Given the potential for direct and indirect effects to overwintering monarchs, project impacts to overwintering monarchs would be potentially significant should removal of the eucalyptus tree grove occur after the start of the next overwintering period in October 2023. See Recommended Mitigation Measures for measures which include implementation of avoidance and minimization measures for overwintering monarchs during construction activities that would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

California Red-legged Frog
CRLF have the potential to occur in and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek and Oceano Lagoon.

However, CRLF only have potential to be present within the limits of the IW-5A, IW-5B, MW- 5A/5B/5C, pump station, and pipeline locations adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek. Encounters with CRLF would be limited to dispersing and foraging adults and sub-adults and would be dependent upon favorable weather conditions (e.g., during rain events or other times with elevated moisture levels).

No impacts to eggs or tadpoles would occur because all injection well footprints are located in upland areas. If CRLF individuals are present within the project components, potential direct impacts would occur during project construction and/or during ground disturbing maintenance activities if harassment, injury, or mortality of CRLF individuals occurs. Indirect impacts to CRLF would also result from general project-related disturbance and noise in the vicinity of these well locations that may impact normal breeding and dispersal patterns for the species in the area. The project also has potential to result in direct impacts to CRLF upland habitat at the pipelines located within the Oceano County Airport, as currently sited, through removal of riparian vegetation associated with Arroyo Grande Creek. No impacts to breeding habitat would occur because all project components with known locations are located in upland areas. In addition, the project includes monitoring of groundwater levels during construction dewatering at the ATF complex and implementation of management actions to be protective of surface water levels in Oceano Lagoon such that this activity would not impact this species. Given the potential for direct and indirect impacts to CRLF individuals as well as direct impacts to CRLF habitat, impacts to CRLF would be potentially significant. See Recommended Mitigation Measures for measures which include avoidance of CRLF habitat and implementation of avoidance and minimization measures for CRLF during construction activities that would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Northern California Legless Lizard
Northern California legless lizards have the potential to occur in native or non-native vegetation and therefore suitable habitat within the project occurs at the ATF complex, IW-2A, IW-2B, IW-4, MW- 3C/3D, MW-4A/4B, MW-4C/4D, MW-5A/5B/5C, and some pipeline alignments. Direct impacts, including mortality, to northern California legless lizard could occur during ground-disturbing

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

54 construction and maintenance activities (e.g., grading, excavation, and trenching) at pipeline locations containing native or non-native vegetation. Potential indirect impacts include general habitat disturbance or removal and disruption of foraging or breeding activities leading to increased stress and reduced fecundity. Considering the marginal quality of the habitat at the injection well, monitoring well and the pipeline locations as well as the relatively small footprint of the injection wells and monitoring wells and largely temporary nature of impacts associated with construction activities, only a small number of northern California legless lizards, if any, would be directly impacted compared to the size of the regional population in native habitats. Based on these factors, impacts resulting from the proposed project are not expected to cause a downward trend in the species range- wide or regional/local populations or cause a restriction in the species range that would lead to a federal or State listing. Therefore, impacts to northern California legless lizard would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are recommended.

Southwestern Pond Turtle
Southwestern pond turtle has the potential to occur in and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek. However, the species only has the potential to be present within the limits of IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-5A/5B/5C, and pump station locations adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek and portions of the pipeline alignments within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek. Potential direct impacts to southwestern pond turtle include destruction of nests as well as harassment, injury, and mortality of individuals if they are present during construction activities. Potential indirect impacts include general habitat disturbance or removal and disruption of foraging or breeding activities leading to increased stress and reduced fecundity. The project includes monitoring of groundwater levels during construction dewatering at the ATF complex location and implementation of management actions to be protective of surface water levels in Oceano Lagoon such that this activity would not impact this species. Due to the potential for impacts to individual turtle nest sites and disruption of breeding activities that could impact the reproductive success of the local and regional population, impacts to southwestern pond turtle from construction of the pipelines would be potentially significant. See Recommended Mitigation Measures for avoidance and minimization measures for southwestern pond turtle to be implemented during construction activities, which would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Southern Sea Otter
Southern sea otter has a low potential to occur near the discharge point of the existing ocean outfall pipeline in the Pacific Ocean. The project would alter the volume and quality of water discharged through the existing ocean outfall, resulting in an incrementally higher concentration (but not volume) of salinity and other constituents in the effluent. The reverse osmosis process at the proposed ATF complex would produce a concentrate that would contain a higher concentration of the dissolved particles than the source water flow. This concentrate will ultimately be mixed with the remaining secondary effluent and discharged to the ocean through the existing ocean outfall that currently receives all the flow from the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs. The concentrate from the reverse osmosis process would be substantially diluted by mixing with remaining effluent, and the resulting secondary effluent ocean discharge would be significantly less saline than ocean water or effluent discharge from ocean desalination facilities. The ocean discharge would continue to be regulated by the SWRCB under the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTP’s NPDES permits, which include effluent limitations for protection of marine aquatic life. Furthermore, the pipeline outfall is not located within a kelp forest, which sea otters are dependent on; therefore, no direct impacts to southern sea otter are anticipated. Southern sea otters may migrate near the discharge point to

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 55
feeding areas to the north or to the south; however, the change in water salinity output is not expected to cause an impact to the species given compliance with existing NPDES permit limitations.

Therefore, impacts to southern sea otter would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are recommended.

Nesting Birds and Special Status Birds (Including Tri-colored Blackbird and White- tailed Kite)
In addition to the special status animal species discussed above, several bird species protected by the California Fish and Game Code may also nest in trees and shrubs within or in close proximity to the injection well and monitoring well locations as well as the pipelines and the ATF complex. One State fully protected bird species (white-tailed kite) and one bird species listed as a State Threatened/SSC (tri-colored blackbird) also have the potential to occur at the injection and monitoring well locations and within the pipeline alignments based on the presence of potentially suitable habitat. Impacts to tri-color blackbird are unlikely given that the injection well, monitoring well, pump station, pipeline, and ATF complex locations and immediate surroundings only provide foraging habitat for the species.

Therefore, no direct impacts to tri-color blackbird nesting would occur. However, direct impacts to nesting birds of other species, including white-tailed kite, may occur due to removal or trimming of trees, shrubs, and other nesting substrates that may contain active nests. Indirect impacts to nesting birds may also occur during construction activities in the vicinity of an active nest resulting from distress to adults and disruption of nesting behavior due to construction noise that may lead to nest abandonment or failure. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds, including the white-tailed kite, from construction of the injection wells, monitoring wells, pipelines and the ATF complex would be potentially significant. See Recommended Mitigation Measures for avoidance and minimization measures for nesting birds to be implemented during construction activities, which would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Groundwater Extraction
The SMGB is adjudicated and, through the adjudication, was separated into three Management Areas, including the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA). The cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach along with the Oceano Community Services District overlie the urban portion of the NCMA in the SMGB. Groundwater entitlements for the three cities (3,430 AFY) account for approximately 40 percent of these agencies’ water supply. However, due to the threat of seawater intrusion during the most recent drought, the NCMA agencies have relied heavily on conservation and surface water supplies to voluntarily reduce their groundwater pumping by over 80 percent.

During Phase I of the proposed project, up to 900 AFY of advanced purified water would be injected into the SMGB, and the NCMA agencies may extract approximately 2,500 AFY (i.e., a net increase of 1,400 AFY over the 2012-2016 average). By extracting more than is injected, local alluvial groundwater levels around Arroyo Grande Creek, Arroyo Grande Creek Lagoon, Meadow Creek, and Meadow Creek Lagoon may lower, resulting in greater percolation (i.e., inflow) of surface waters from Arroyo Grande Creek into the alluvial aquifer of the SMGB. If the rate of percolation is substantially increased as a result of the proposed project, the surface water level of Arroyo Grande Creek may lower, resulting in adverse impacts to habitat for special status amphibian and fish species including CRLF, steelhead, and tidewater goby. However, an analysis prepared by Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (included in Appendix E) determined that Phase I of the proposed project would result in a negligible impact to percolation rates of Arroyo Grande Creek during normal and dry years. In especially wet years (as represented by years 1983, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998), Phase I of the proposed project would increase streambed percolation rates by approximately 0.2 to 29 AFY compared to the baseline pumping

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

56 scenario. The driving factor behind the increase in streambed percolation rates is the increase in pressure due to higher stream levels that would push more water into the groundwater basin, rather than a drawdown resulting from the proposed project. In especially wet years, stream levels would be higher than average, which would result in adequate stream flow for aquatic species and riparian habitat despite the minor increase in percolation rates. Under Phase II of the proposed project, either a similar quantity of or more advanced purified water would be injected into the SMGB than extracted; therefore, this phase of the project would not have any adverse impacts on percolation rates and corresponding surface water levels of Arroyo Grande Creek. Furthermore, the proposed project would reduce the Cities’ reliance on surface water supplies from Lopez Reservoir, which releases to Arroyo Grande creek. Under the Low Reservoir Response Plan that was recently in place, environmental flows from Lopez Reservoir were curtailed during drought conditions at a more aggressive rate than municipal diversions (San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 2014). By diversifying the Cities' reliable water sources, the proposed project has the potential to prevent reduction in flows in Arroyo Grande Creek during dry years that could otherwise result from surface water supply diversions preventing or postponing reductions in Lopez Reservoir releases for environmental flows. Therefore, groundwater extraction facilitated by the proposed project would not substantially alter the hydrology of Arroyo Grande Creek such that adverse impacts to special status aquatic species would occur. Impacts from groundwater extraction would be less than significant.

Recommended Mitigation Measures
The following measures would reduce impacts to special status animal species to a less-than- significant level. It should be noted that the majority of the Study Area is located within the Coastal Zone, where arroyo willow riparian habitat associated with Arroyo Grande Creek, Meadow Creek, and their lagoons would be considered ESHA pursuant to the California Coastal Act, County of San Luis Obispo, and City of Grover Beach LCPs (see Section 4.3, California Coastal Zone and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas). The project would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to setbacks from ESHA pursuant to the Coastal Act, thereby avoiding impacts to species status species and their habitat (see Section 5.2, Sensitive Plant Communities, and Section

5.5, Local Policies and Ordinances). 8
Overwintering Monarch Butterfly Impact Avoidance Measures The ATF complex and associated construction work areas shall be sited outside of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat. If removal of the eucalyptus tree grove occurs after the start of the next overwintering period in October 2023, a survey shall be conducted prior to removal of the grove and during the overwintering period (i.e., October through February) for monarchs in the region to determine if monarchs are utilizing the eucalyptus grove south of 980 Huber Street in Grover Beach for overwintering. A survey shall also be conducted if the eucalyptus grove is not removed and other construction activities at the ATF complex location commence after the start of the next overwintering period in October 2023. If monarch butterflies are confirmed to overwinter within the eucalyptus grove, the grove shall be considered ESHA, and design of the ATF complex shall be modified to incorporate the appropriate setbacks included in the Coastal Act. The limits of construction shall be clearly demarcated by bright orange fencing in order to avoid work within designated setback areas. Areas outside of the limits of construction shall be considered

8 The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC. Therefore, the project is not expected to be subject to the requirements of the LCPs for the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 57
environmentally sensitive, and access and construction shall be restricted. If butterflies are present, all construction adjacent to overwintering habitat shall be conducted outside the overwintering season (i.e., October to February), if feasible. However, if construction must occur during this time period, a pre-construction survey of the monarch overwintering habitat adjacent to the ATF complex location shall be conducted to confirm presence or absence of monarch butterflies. If no butterflies are observed, construction may commence. If butterflies are observed, construction may only commence if a City-approved monarch butterfly expert determines that the construction activities would not adversely impact foraging, roosting, or other behaviors of the species.

California Red-legged Frog Habitat Avoidance
Injection well, monitoring well and pipeline locations and associated construction work areas (including staging, access, and laydown) shall be sited outside of native vegetation communities, such as arroyo willow riparian. Prior to construction, the limits of construction shall be clearly demarcated by bright orange fencing. Areas outside of the limits of construction shall be considered environmentally sensitive, and access and construction shall be restricted.

California Red-legged Frog Impact Avoidance Measures
The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction and maintenance activities requiring ground disturbance at the IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW 5A/5B/5C locations and pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek:
▪ A qualified biologist shall survey the project site no more than 48 hours before the start of construction and ground-disturbing maintenance activities, including but not limited to grading, excavation, and trenching. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint, no work shall begin, and consultation with the USFWS shall be initiated. Work shall not begin until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Statement issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented. ▪ For construction activities occurring during the wet season (October 15 and April 15), daily surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction activities. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint, work shall halt, and consultation with the USFWS shall be initiated. Work shall not re-commence until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Statement issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented.
▪ Before any construction or ground-disturbing maintenance activities begin, a biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of CRLF and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to avoid dispersing CRLF, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer any questions.
▪ All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks. A spill prevention plan shall be established in the event of a leak or spill. ▪ Work shall be restricted to daylight hours to the extent feasible. If construction activities occur at night, a biological monitor shall be present. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint during active construction, all work shall stop, and the USFWS shall be notified. Work shall not recommence until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement or other authorization issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

58 ▪ Water shall not be impounded in a manner that may attract CRLF. ▪ All excavations or trenches shall be covered or shall contain earthen ramps sufficient for CRLF to escape when not actively under construction to avoid entrapment of CRLF or other wildlife species.
▪ Herbicides shall not be used on site during construction. ▪ No pets shall be permitted on site.
▪ A biological monitor shall be present during all initial ground-disturbing activities for construction and maintenance activities, including but not limited to grading, excavation, and trenching. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint during active construction, all work shall stop, and the USFWS shall be notified. Work shall not recommence until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement or other authorization issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented. ▪ All construction and ground-disturbing maintenance activities (e.g., grading, excavation, and trenching) conducted at injection well, monitoring well, and pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek shall be conducted during dry conditions (i.e., days with less than 0.1 inch of predicted rainfall), outside of the wet season (October 15 through April 30), unless authorization is provided by the USFWS or a Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Statement issued by the USFWS for the project authorizes work during such conditions.

Southwestern Pond Turtle Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction and maintenance activities requiring ground disturbance at the IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW 5A/5B/5C locations and pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek:
▪ A qualified biologist shall conduct a visual survey of work areas within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek within 48 hours of initial ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to grading, excavation, and trenching, associated with construction of injection wells. The survey area shall include the proposed disturbance area plus a 100-foot buffer. Prior to the survey, suitable receptor sites shall be identified within Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek. A biologist authorized to relocate turtles shall be present for activities that require the removal of riparian habitat to monitor for turtles. If a turtle is observed in the work area, the biologist shall relocate it out of the work area to the respective receptor site. ▪ For the duration of project construction activities at the IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW 5A/5B/5C locations and pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek, daily surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction activities. If a turtle is observed in the work area, a biologist authorized to relocate turtles shall relocate it out of the work area to the respective receptor site.
▪ All excavations or trenches shall be covered when not actively under construction or shall contain earthen ramps sufficient for southwestern pond turtle to escape to avoid entrapment of southwestern pond turtle or other wildlife species.
▪ In the event that a southwestern pond turtle egg clutch is discovered during pre-construction surveys, the location shall be surrounded with high visibility fencing under the guidance of a qualified biologist. The nest shall be avoided by construction activities until a qualified biologist determines that the clutch has hatched. The CDFW shall also be contacted to provide additional guidance in the event that a southwestern pond turtle nest is discovered. If, during construction,

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 59
a southwestern pond turtle nest is discovered, construction shall cease immediately upon the discovery, and CDFW shall be notified.
▪ To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled outside of the typical nesting season for southwestern pond turtle, which is April through August (Stebbins 2003).

Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction activities:
▪ Initial site disturbance shall occur outside the general avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), if feasible.
▪ If initial site disturbance occurs in a work area within the general avian nesting season indicated above, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to initial disturbances in the work area. The survey shall include the entire area of disturbance area plus a 50-foot buffer (relevant to non-raptor species) and 300-foot buffer (relevant to raptors) around the site. If active nests are located, all construction work should be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer should be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required and/or smaller buffers may be established depending upon the species, status of the nest, and construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) should be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist should confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer. If a white-tailed kite nest is detected during the nesting bird survey no work shall begin until the CDFW is consulted to confirm that implementation of the project and avoidance buffers are sufficient to avoid “take”.
▪ If construction activities in a given work area cease for more than 14 days, additional surveys shall be conducted for the work area. If active nests are located, the aforementioned buffer zone measures shall be implemented.

5.2 Sensitive Plant Communities and Critical Habitat
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.

The large majority of the project would not have effects to riparian habitat or other sensitive habitat types. No effects to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, including California bulrush marsh habitats, are anticipated at the injection well, monitoring well, and ATF complex locations. However, construction of the pipelines would directly impact the arroyo willow thicket vegetation community associated with Arroyo Grande Creek and saltgrass flats associated with the emergent wetland through habitat removal on the Oceano County Airport property. The arroyo willow riparian habitat is identified as ESHA under the adopted LCPs for the City of Grover Beach and the County of San Luis Obispo, while the saltgrass flats are a State-designated sensitive natural community. Direct impacts to these habitats could occur through ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and conversion of habitats to developed land uses. Indirect impacts would occur if construction equipment inadvertently transports residual plant material from other construction sites

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

60 (e.g., seeds of invasive plant species carried to the site within the undercarriage or tires of heavy equipment that has not been cleaned thoroughly between construction sites), which could lead to the spread of invasive, non-native species from construction equipment. Invasive, non-native plant species can out-compete native species and/or convert riparian habitat to non-native habitat. Direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plant communities and ESHA from construction of the pipelines in the Oceano County Airport would be potentially significant.

As discussed in Section 4.2, Sensitive Plant Communities and Critical Habitat, federally designated critical habitat for La Graciosa thistle overlaps with the Study Area at MW-NCMA South A/B/C. Project activities at this monitoring well would be restricted to the existing agricultural areas, outside of potentially suitable habitat for La Graciosa thistle. As such, no impacts to critical habitat for La Graciosa thistle would occur as a result of the project.

Recommended Mitigation Measure
The following measure would reduce impacts to sensitive plant communities to a less-than-significant level. It should be noted that the majority of the project components are located within the Coastal Zone, where arroyo willow riparian habitat associated with Arroyo Grande Creek would be considered ESHA pursuant to the California Coastal Act, County of San Luis Obispo LCP, and City of Grover Beach LCP (see Section 4.3, California Coastal Zone and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas). The project would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to setbacks from ESHA pursuant to the Coastal Act (see Section 5.2, Sensitive Plant Communities, and Section 5.5, Local Policies and Ordinances).9
Sensitive Plant Community and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction and maintenance activities requiring vegetation disturbance within arroyo willow thickets and saltgrass flats.
▪ Temporary impact areas to arroyo willow thickets and saltgrass flats habitats shall be restored at a one to one (1:1) ratio (one acre of restoration for each acre of impact) to offset temporary losses in habitat function. Permanent impacts shall be offset through creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of in-kind habitats at a minimum ratio of 2:1 to mitigate unavoidable permanent impacts to these habitats. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation techniques. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components:
 Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type);
 Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s] of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved);  Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation-site);

9 The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC. Therefore, the project is not expected to be subject to the requirements of the LCPs for the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 61
 Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan [including plant species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]);  Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule);  Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than five years of monitoring with quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports);
 Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type;
 An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative impacts to restoration efforts;
 Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation; and  Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
▪ During construction, the project shall make all reasonable efforts to limit the use of imported soils for fill. Soils currently existing on site should be used for fill material. If the use of imported fill material is necessary, the imported material shall be obtained from a source that is known to be free of invasive plant species.
▪ All equipment and vehicles must be free of weed seeds/propagules before accessing and leaving the work areas.

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
c) 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.

The majority of the injection wells, monitoring wells, and pipelines as well as the ATF complex are located within the Coastal Zone, and coastal wetlands receive protection from degradation or destruction caused by coastal development under the California Coastal Act. The detention basins, roadway drainages, intermittent stream and their associated arroyo willow riparian habitat within the Study Area would likely be under the jurisdictions of USACE, RWQCB, CCC, and CDFW and the wetlands would likely be under the jurisdictions of the CCC and RWQCB.10 No impacts to the bed or bank of any potentially jurisdictional drainage would occur. The project includes monitoring of groundwater levels during construction dewatering at the ATF complex and implementation of management actions to be protective of surface water levels in Oceano Lagoon; therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands would result from this activity. With trenching methods used for pipeline installation within the Oceano Airport property, impacts to jurisdictional wetland waters may occur. Temporary direct impacts to jurisdictional wetland waters

10 The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC. Therefore, the project is not expected to be subject to the requirements of local CDP processing by the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

62 would occur through temporary displacement of soil and vegetation to accommodate the pipelines within the Oceano Airport property. Direct impacts would include the removal of riparian habitat to accommodate the pipelines within the Oceano County Airport property. Direct impacts would also occur if spills or leaks occur within the arroyo willow riparian habitat during construction at locations within or adjacent to this habitat. Therefore, impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be potentially significant, and the project would require the issuance of permits by the RWQCB and CDFW as well as the CCC under the Coastal Act.11 See Recommended Mitigation Measures, which include implementation of impact mitigation and best management practices related to drainages and wetlands, which would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Groundwater Extraction
During Phase I of the proposed project, approximately 900 AFY of advanced purified water would be injected into the SMGB, and the NCMA agencies may extract approximately 2,500 AFY (i.e., a net increase of 1,400 AFY over the 2012-2016 average). By extracting more than is injected, local alluvial groundwater levels around Arroyo Grande Creek may lower, resulting in greater percolation (i.e., inflow) of surface waters from Arroyo Grande Creek into the alluvial aquifer of the SMGB. If the rate of percolation is substantially increased as a result of the proposed project, the surface water level of Arroyo Grande Creek may lower, resulting in hydrological interruption, which could have a substantial adverse effect on state and federally protected wetlands. However, an analysis prepared by Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (included in Appendix F) determined that Phase I of the proposed project would result in a negligible impact to percolation rates of Arroyo Grande Creek during normal and dry years. In especially wet years (as represented by years 1983, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998), Phase I of the proposed project would increase streambed percolation rates by approximately 0.2 to 29 AFY.

The driving factor behind the increase in streambed percolation rates is the increase in pressure due to higher stream levels that would push more water into the groundwater basin, rather than a drawdown resulting from the proposed project. In especially wet years, stream levels would be higher than average, which would result in adequate stream flow for wetlands and riparian habitat. Under Phase II of the proposed project, either a similar quantity of or more advanced purified water would be injected into the SMGB than extracted; therefore, this phase of the project would not have an adverse impact on percolation rates and corresponding surface water levels of Arroyo Grande Creek.

Furthermore, the proposed project would reduce the Cities’ reliance on surface water supplies from Lopez Reservoir, which releases to Arroyo Grande creek. Under the Low Reservoir Response Plan that was recently in place, environmental flows from Lopez Reservoir were curtailed during drought conditions at a more aggressive rate than municipal diversions (San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 2014). By diversifying the Cities' reliable water sources, the proposed project has the potential to prevent reduction in flows in Arroyo Grande Creek during dry years that could otherwise result from surface water supply diversions preventing or postponing reductions in Lopez Reservoir releases for environmental flows. Therefore, groundwater extraction facilitated by the proposed project would not result in hydrological interruption to state and federally protected wetlands. Impacts from groundwater extraction would be less than significant.

Recommended Mitigation Measure
The following measures would reduce impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands to a less-than- significant level. It should be noted that the majority of the project components are located within

11 The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 63
the Coastal Zone, where arroyo willow riparian habitat associated with Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek would be considered ESHA pursuant to the California Coastal Act (see Section 4.3, California Coastal Zone and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas). The project would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to setbacks from ESHA pursuant to the Coastal Act (see Section 5.2, Sensitive Plant Communities, and Section 5.5, Local Policies and Ordinances).

Drainages and Wetlands Impact Mitigation
Impacts to drainages and wetlands identified by the Jurisdictional Delineation (Mitigation Measure 3[a]) shall be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 1:1 (acre impacted to acre restored/created).

Restoration on the project site is preferable. However, the City may approve off-site restoration at a location in the same watershed as where the project impacts occur that results in equal compensatory value. An HMMP shall be prepared which identifies the approach for implementing the compensatory mitigation. The HMMP shall be prepared by a qualified biologist/restoration ecologist and shall outline the compensatory mitigation. The HMMP shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to project implementation. This HMMP can and should be combined with any HMMPs prepared to address impacts to sensitive plant communities and ESHAs. Specifically, the HMMP shall include the following:
▪ Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type);
▪ Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s] of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved);
▪ Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation site); ▪ Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan [including plant species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]); ▪ Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule); ▪ Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than five years of monitoring with quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports);
▪ Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type; ▪ An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative impacts to restoration efforts;
▪ Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation; and ▪ Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

64 Drainages and Wetlands Best Management Practices During Construction For all project components the following best management practices shall be required for permitted grading and construction within drainages or wetlands. In addition, the measures shall be required at locations where construction occurs within 100 feet from drainages or wetlands. ▪ Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize impacts to other federal and State waters, including locating access routes and ancillary construction areas outside of jurisdictional areas. ▪ To control erosion and sediment runoff during and after project implementation, appropriate erosion control materials shall be deployed, including but not limited to straw wattles, and maintained in the vicinity of the project footprint.
▪ Project activities within the drainages or wetlands shall occur during the dry season in any given year to the extent practicable. The dry season is typically between May 1 and September 30; however, this timeframe may be extended depending on year-to-year precipitation and drought conditions.
▪ All topsoil removed within riparian habitat and wetland waters shall be salvaged and replaced following completion of construction activities.
▪ During construction, no litter or construction debris shall be placed within drainages or wetlands.

All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly disposed of at an appropriate site. ▪ All project-generated debris, building materials, and rubbish shall be removed daily from jurisdictional areas and from areas where such materials could be washed into them. ▪ Raw cement, concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances which could be hazardous to aquatic species resulting from project-related activities, shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering drainages or wetlands.
▪ All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 100 ft from drainages and wetlands and in a location where a potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains away from the water source). Prior to the onset of work activities, a plan must be in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills.

All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur.

5.4 Wildlife Movement
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
d) 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.

The arroyo willow thicket and coyote brush scrub vegetation communities within the Study Area provide suitable small-scale corridors for wildlife to travel locally. However, urban development east and west of SR 1 currently limits wildlife movement throughout the majority of the Study Area, and existing fencing south of IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW-5A/5B/5C, currently prevent wildlife movement to the SSLOCSD WWTP. Although the injection wells include aboveground components, the project footprint at all injection wells will be relatively small and would not preclude wildlife movement.

Furthermore, the proposed injection wells, monitoring wells, ATF complex, and pipelines would not

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 65
create new barriers to an existing corridor since ground movement of wildlife is already constrained by development along the SR 1 corridor. While the eucalyptus grove located immediately south of the ATF complex is expected to provide suitable nesting and roosting habitat for birds and raptors, removal of eucalyptus trees within this grove is not expected to impact regional wildlife movement due to the availability of suitable nesting and roosting habitat in the vicinity of the Study Area. In addition, as discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.3, groundwater extraction facilitated by the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to surface water levels of Arroyo Grande Creek such that migration or other activities of steelhead and tidewater goby would be impaired. Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and no mitigation measures are recommended.

5.5 Local Policies and Ordinances
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
Trees may be removed to accommodate the proposed injection wells, monitoring wells, ATF complex and pipelines; however, the species and number of trees is not known at this time. Most of the trees that may be removed are landscaped/ornamental trees and are not protected trees. The removal of native trees in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County would be subject to the permit and approval requirements included in SLOCC Sections 23.05.060, 23.05.062, and 23.05.060. If removal of native trees under the proposed project does not occur in accordance with these requirements, impacts would be potentially significant. See Recommended Mitigation Measures, which includes a native tree inventory and compliance measures, which would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The Coastal Act includes development restrictions for the protection of ESHA, as discussed in Section

4.3, California Coastal Zone and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas above. The project would be required to comply with the ESHA setback requirements of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the project would not conflict with policies or ordinances protecting ESHA, and no impact would occur.

Recommended Mitigation Measure
The following measure would reduce impacts related to local policies and ordinances to a less-than- significant level.

Native Tree Inventory, Protection, and Replacement
A Tree Preservation Plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist to inventory native trees that would be trimmed or removed by construction. Native trees shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. The plan shall include, but would not be limited to, an inventory of trees within the construction site plus a 50-foot buffer zone, requirements for setbacks from trees and protective fencing, restrictions regarding grading and paving near trees, and direction regarding pruning and digging within root zone of trees. If removal of native trees is required, the trees shall be replaced consistent with the requirements of the local agency which has jurisdiction as well as the associated tree removal permit that may be issued.

Prior to the onset of construction activities, highly visible orange construction fencing shall be installed around existing stands and individuals identified in the Tree Preservation Plan to be retained

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

66 at a buffer/extent radius of six feet beyond the canopy dripline, wherever feasible, or otherwise marked in the field to protect them from harm during implementation of the proposed project.

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

The project area is not subject to an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are recommended.

Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources Assessment 67
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

68 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use
Reliance
This BRA 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 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.

References

Biological Resources Assessment 69
7 References
American Ornithologists’ Union. 2010. Check-list of North American Birds. http://www.americanornithology.org/content/checklist-north-and-middle-american-birds (accessed January 2023).

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.

Bowers, N., R. Bowers, and K. Kaufman. 2004. Mammals of North America. Kaufman Focus Guides.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Brady, R. H., and Vyverberg, K. 2013. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2013.

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

Calflora. 2023. Information on Wild California Plants for Conservation, Education, and Appreciation. http://www.calflora.org (accessed January 2023).

California Coastal Commission (CCC). 2011. Definition and Delineation of Wetlands in the Coastal Zone. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2011/10/w4-10-2011.pdf (accessed January 2023).

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. A Field Guide to Stream and Alteration Agreements. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/LSA (accessed February 2023).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Connectivity/CEHC (accessed January 2023). ____. 2023a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data (accessed January 2023). ____. 2023b. Hierarchical List of Natural Communities.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/List (accessed January 2023).

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2023. California Invasive Plant Council. https://www.cal- ipc.org/plants/inventory/ (accessed January 2023).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.7-08c- Interim 8-22-02. https://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed January 2023).

California State Parks. 2020. Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Department of Parks and Recreation Oceano Dunes District.
https://www.oceanoduneshcp.com/files/managed/Document/60/ODD%20HCP_Posted%20 Nov%202020_Redlined%20From%20February%20Draft.pdf (accessed February 2023). eBird. 2023. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance. eBird, Ithaca, New York. http://www.ebird.org (accessed January 2023).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

70 Google Earth. 2023. Imagery date 1994-2022. https://www.earth.google.com/web/ (accessed January 2023).

Grover Beach, City of. 2010. City of Grover Beach Storm Water Management Program. March 2010. http://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/View/88/Storm-Water-Management- Program?bidId= (accessed January 2023).
____. 2014. Local Coastal Program. Adopted January 12, 1981. Last amended July 7, 2014. https://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1808 (accessed January 2023).

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

Mayer, Kenneth and William F. Laudenslayer. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.

California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Wildlife-Habitats (accessed January 2023).

Monarch Joint Venture. 2023. Monarch Migration and Overwintering. https://monarchjointventure.org/ (accessed January 2023).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. 2023. West Coast Region California Species List Tool.
https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/wcr/maps_data/california_species_list_tools.html (accessed January 2023).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013. South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan. West Coast Region. California Coastal Office. Long Beach, California. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/17275 (accessed January 2023).

San Luis Obispo, County of. 2010. County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/getattachment/ba01754b-50ac-4c13-ba16- 1a9eb9d56a01/Conservation-and-Open-Space-Element.aspx (accessed January 2023). ____. 2015. San Luis Obispo County General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements – Framework for Planning (Inland). Adopted September 22, 1980. Amended April 2015. ____. 2018. San Luis Obispo County General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements – Framework for Planning – Coastal Zone. Adopted March 1, 1988. Amended September 2018. ____. 2019. Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance. Adopted March 1, 1988. Revised April 2019. https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms- Documents/Ordinances/Coastal-Land-Use-Ordinance-(Title-23).aspx (accessed January 2023).

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

Sibley, David Allen. 2016. Field Guide to Birds of Western North America.

San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 2014. Low Reservoir Response Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 3. December 16, 2014. https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public- Works/Forms-Documents/Committees-Programs/Flood-Control-Zones/Zone-3-Lopez- Water-Project/Plans-Reports/2014-Low-Reservoir-Response-Plan.pdf (accessed April 2023).

References

Biological Resources Assessment 71
State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Water Quality Control Plan: Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). Revised 2019.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/docs/oceanplan2019.pdf (accessed January 2023).

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 2nd Edition. Houghton- Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts.

Stetson Engineers, Inc. 2004. Final Draft Arroyo Grande Creek Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) for the Protection of Steelhead and California Red-Legged Frogs. February 2004.
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/getattachment/c6eac407-21b4-4fb8-88af- fd123b0d0951/DRAFT-Arroyo-Grande-Creek-Habitat-Conservation-Plan.aspx (accessed January 2023).

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. National Wetlands Plant List (Version 3.5) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, New Hampshire. Available at: http://wetland- plants.usace.army.mil/ (accessed January 2023).

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1984. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California. Coastal Part.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/sanluiscoastalCA1984/s anluiscoastalCA1984.pdf (accessed December 2023).
____. 2023a. Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ (accessed January 2023). ____. 2023b. Lists of Hydric Soils. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/ (accessed January 2023).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks. November 28, 1995. https://www.epa.gov/cwa- 404/federal-guidance-establishment-use-and-operation-mitigation-banks (accessed January 2023).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Portland, Oregon.
____. 2020. “Assessing the status of the monarch butterfly.” Last modified: January 23, 2020. https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/SSA.html (accessed April 2020). ____. 2023a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online project planning tool. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed December 2022).
____. 2023b. Critical Habitat Portal.
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe0989 3cf75b8dbfb77 (accessed January 2023).
____. 2023c. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed January 2023).
____. 2023d. “Tidewater Goby.” https://www.fws.gov/species/tidewater-goby-eucyclogobius- newberryi (accessed February 2023).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

72 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2023. The National Map. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/ (accessed January 2023).

Western Regional Climate Center. 2023. Climate of California. www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/narrative_ca.php (accessed January 2023).

Xerces Society. 2023. Western Monarch Overwintering Sites. https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/find-an-overwintering-site-near-you/ (accessed January 2023).

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.

References

Biological Resources Assessment 73

This page intentionally left blank.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

74 8 List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Primary Author
▪ Frances Glaser, Associate Biologist
▪ Carolynn Honeycutt, Associate Biologist/Regulatory Specialist Technical Review
▪ Michael Tom, Senior Biologist
▪ Colby Boggs, Principal Ecologist
Graphics
▪ Abby Robles, GIS Analyst
Field Reconnaissance Survey
▪ Frances Glaser, Associate Biologist
▪ Carolynn Honeycutt, Biologist/Regulatory Specialist

List of Preparers

Biological Resources Assessment 75

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A
Regulatory Setting

Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment 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:
▪ United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; wetlands and other waters of the United States) ▪ United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; federally listed species and migratory birds) ▪ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS; marine wildlife and anadromous fishes) ▪ Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB; waters of the State) ▪ California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; riparian areas, streambeds, and lakes; state- listed species; nesting birds, marine resources)
▪ California Coastal Commission
▪ County of San Luis Obispo
▪ City of Grover Beach
United States Army Corps of Engineers
The USACE is responsible for administering several federal programs related to ensuring the quality and navigability of the nation’s waters.

Clean Water Act Section 404
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through USACE, to issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the "navigable waters at specified disposal sites."
Section 502 of the CWA further defines "navigable waters" as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” “Waters of the United States” are broadly defined at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3 to include navigable waters, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, as well as wetlands, marshes, and wet meadows. In recent years the USACE and United States 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 that have invalidated the updated regulations. Thus, the agencies’ longstanding definition of “waters of the United States,” which dates from 1986, remains in effect albeit with supplemental guidance interpreting applicable court decisions as described below.

Waters of the U.S.

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

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

A-2

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

2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;

3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;

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

5. Tributaries of waters identified in items 1 through 4 above;

6. The territorial sea;

7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in items 1 through 6 above.

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

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

The lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters are 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 Federal Register 41217).

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

Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-3
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation dominates areas where frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation exerts a controlling influence on the plant species present. Plant species are assigned wetland indicator status according to the probability of their occurring in wetlands. More than fifty percent of the dominant plant species must have a wetland indicator status to meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The USACE published the National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2020), which separates vascular plants into the following four basic categories based on plant species frequency of occurrence in wetlands:
▪ Obligate Wetland (OBL). Almost always occur in wetlands. ▪ Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands, but occasionally found in non-wetlands. ▪ Facultative (FAC). Occur in wetlands or non-wetlands. ▪ Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands. ▪ Obligate Upland (UPL). Almost never occur in wetlands.

The USACE considers OBL, FACW and FAC species to be indicators of wetlands. An area is considered to have hydrophytic vegetation when greater than 50 percent of the dominant species in each vegetative stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) falls within these categories. Any species not appearing on the USACE’s list is assumed to be an upland species, almost never occurring in wetlands. In addition, an area needs to contain at least 5 percent vegetative cover to be considered as a vegetated wetland.

Field indicators of wetland soils include observations of ponding, inundation, saturation, dark (low chroma) soil colors, bright mottles (concentrations of oxidized minerals such as iron), gleying (indicates reducing conditions by a blue-grey color), or accumulation of organic material. Additional supporting information includes documentation of soil as hydric or reference to wet conditions in the local soils survey, both of which must be verified in the field.

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

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

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

A-4
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, the 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.”
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 Justice 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 USEPA assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
▪ Traditional navigable waters;
▪ Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters;
▪ Non-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,

Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-5
▪ Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries.

The USACE and USEPA 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:
▪ Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; ▪ Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and, ▪ Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.

Where a significant nexus analysis is required, the USACE and USEPA 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,
▪ Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors.

The USACE and USEPA generally do not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
▪ Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and,
▪ Ditches (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 USACE for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States. Structures or work outside the limits defined for navigable waters of the United States require a Section 10 permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the water body. The law applies to any dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, filling, re-channelization, or any other modification of a navigable water of the United States and applies to all structures and work. It further includes, without limitation, any wharf, dolphin, weir, boom, breakwater, jetty, groin, bank protection (e.g., riprap, revetment, bulkhead), mooring structures such as pilings, aerial or subaqueous power transmission lines, intake or outfall pipes, permanently moored floating vessel, tunnel, artificial canal, boat ramp, aids to navigation, and any other permanent, or semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction.

It is important to note that Section 10 applies only to navigable waters and thus does not apply to work in non-navigable wetlands or tributaries. In some cases, Section 10 authorization is issued by the USACE concurrently with CWA Section 404 authorization, such as when certain Nationwide Permits are used.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine 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 Section 13050[e]). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering portions of the CWA.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue 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 SWRCB for multi-region projects. The process begins when an applicant submits an application to RWQCB and informs 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 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 RWQCB has not either issued or denied the application for Section 401 Certification, 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 groundwater 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:
▪ The quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected; ▪ All activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason; and
▪ The State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation.

The Porter-Cologne Act established nine RWQCBs (based on watershed boundaries) and 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, 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-Cologne 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 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

Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-7
Certifications, incorporating most elements of the USEPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Following issuance of the Procedures, the SWRCB produced a consolidated application form for dredge/fill discharges that can be used to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, WDRs, or both.

Non-Wetland Waters of the State
The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not currently established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state, except for wetlands. 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 SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by 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 as 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) The area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both;
(ii) The duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and
(iii) The 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 Dredge 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.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The 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 to 711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668).

Endangered Species Act
The USFWS and NMFS share responsibility for implementing the ESA. Generally, the USFWS implements the ESA for terrestrial and freshwater species, while the NMFS implements the ESA 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

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

A-8
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 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 (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. It 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. Revised 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. New 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, the 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 MBTA 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." “Disturb” 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

Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-9
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-induced 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.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW derives its authority from the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) 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) (CFGC Section 2050 et. seq.) prohibits take of state listed threatened or endangered species. Take under CESA is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” (CFGC Section 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 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) (CFGC Section 1900 et seq.). The NPPA requires 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 California Code of Regulations 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing 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 CFGC Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515, 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 is in place that authorizes take of the fully protected species.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

A-10
Avian Protection Laws
CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of native birds, nests, and eggs. CFGC Section 3503.5 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
CFGC Section 1602 states 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 CDFW of that activity. Thereafter, if CDFW determines and informs the entity that the activity will not substantially adversely affect any existing fish or wildlife resources, the entity may commence the activity. If, however, CDFW determines the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource, the entity may be required to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) from CDFW, which will include reasonable measures necessary to protect the affected resource(s), before the entity may conduct the activity described in the notification. Upon receipt of a complete Notification of Lake/Streambed Alteration, CDFW has 60 days to present the entity with a Draft SAA. Upon review of the Draft SAA by the applicant, any problematic terms are negotiated with CDFW, and a final SAA is executed.

The CDFW has not defined the term “stream” for the purposes of implementing its regulatory 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.
▪ The plain language of CFGC Section 1602 establishes the following general concepts:
 References “river,” “stream,” and “lake”
 References “natural flow”
 References “bed,” “bank,” and “channel”
▪ Applicable court decisions, in particular Rutherford v. State of California (188 Cal App. 3d 1276 (1987), which interpreted CFGC Section 1602’s use of “stream” to be as defined in common law.

The Court indicated that a “stream” is commonly understood to:
 Have a source and a terminus
 Have banks and a channel
 Convey flow at least periodically, but need not flow continuously and may at times appear outwardly dry
 Represent the depression between the banks worn by the regular and usual flow of the water  Include 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  Include the land that is covered by the water in its ordinary low stage  Include lands below the OHWM

Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-11
▪ CDFW regulations defining “stream” for other purposes, including sport fishing (14 California Code of Regulations 1.72) and streambed alterations associated with cannabis production (14 California Code of Regulations 722[c][21]), which indicate that a stream:
 Flows at least periodically or intermittently
 Flows through a bed or channel having banks
 Supports fish or aquatic life
 Can be dry for a period of time
 Includes watercourses where surface or subsurface flow supports or has supported riparian vegetation
▪ Guidance documents, including A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (California Department of Fish and Game 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)  Width 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)  Features 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
 Canals, 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
 Biologic components of a stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, all aquatic animals including fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species which derive benefits from the stream system
 The 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 various environments. The importance of each factor may be weighted based on site-specific considerations and the applicability of the indicators to the streambed at hand.

City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Plan
The City of Grover Beach’s Local Coastal Plan (2014) outlines the goals in protecting biological resources under the California Coastal Act, which include the following:
▪ General Policy 3. The City shall preserve and protect wetland resources including creeks and other seasonal wetland areas in conformance with Coastal Act Sections 30233 and 30236; all adverse impacts to riparian resources from any allowable development within wetlands or streams shall be fully mitigated.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

A-12
▪ General Policy 5. ESHA shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. ▪ General Policy 6. ESHA shall be buffered by a minimum of 50 feet. Development in areas adjacent to ESHA shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.

County of San Luis Obispo Local Coastal Program
The County’s Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance was certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1986 pursuant to Section 30519.5 of the Coastal Act and was most recently revised in April 2019. The ordinance, contained in San Luis Obispo County Code (SLOCC) Title 23, outlines the identification and protection of ESHA including:
▪ SLOCC Section 23.05.034 - Grading Adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Habitats. Grading shall not occur within 100 feet of any Environmentally Sensitive Habitat except:
 Where a setback adjustment has been granted as set forth in SLOCC Sections 23.07.172d(2) (Wetlands) or 23.07.174d(2) (Streams and Riparian Vegetation); or  Within an urban service line when grading is necessary to locate a principally permitted use and where the approval body can find that the application of the 100-foot setback would render the site physically unsuitable for a principally permitted use. In such cases, the 100- foot setback shall only be reduced to a point where the principally-permitted use, as modified as much as practical from a design standpoint, can be located on the site. In no case shall grading occur closer than 50 ft. from the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat or as allowed by planning area standard, whichever is greater.

SLOCC Section 23.07.172 includes requirements for development proposed within or adjacent to (within 100 feet of the upland extent of) a wetland area shown on the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Maps. The following provisions would be applicable to the proposed project:
▪ SLOCC Section 23.07.172 - Wetland Setbacks(d). New development in areas within the Wetlands combining designation shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from the upland extent of all wetlands, except as provided by subsection d(2). If the biological report determines that such setback will provide an insufficient buffer from the wetland area, and the applicable approval body cannot make the finding, then a greater setback may be required.  Permitted uses within wetland setbacks: Within the required setback buffer, permitted uses are limited to passive recreation, educational, existing non-structural agricultural development in accordance with best management practices, utility lines, pipelines, drainage and flood control of facilities, bridges and road approaches to bridges to cross a stream and roads when it can be demonstrated that:
− Alternative routes are infeasible or more environmentally damaging. − Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.  Wetland setback adjustment: The minimum wetland setback may be adjusted through Minor Use Permit approval (but in no case shall be less than 25 feet), provided that the following findings can be made:
− The site would be physically unusable for the principal permitted use unless the setback is reduced.

Regulatory Setting

Biological Resources Assessment A-13
− The reduction is the minimum that would enable a principal permitted use to be established on the site after all practical design modifications have been considered. − That the adjustment would not allow the proposed development to locate closer to the wetland than allowed by using the stringline setback method pursuant to SLOCC Section

23.04.118a.
 Requirements for wetland setback adjustment: Setbacks established that are less than 100 feet consistent with this section shall include mitigation measures to ensure wetland protection. Where applicable, they shall include landscaping, screening with native vegetation and drainage controls. The adjustment shall not be approved until the approval body considers the following:
− Site soil types and their susceptibility to erosion.
− A review of the topographic features of the site to determine if the project design and site location has taken full advantage of natural terrain features to minimize impacts on the wetland.
− The biologists report required by SLOCC Section 23.07.170 shall evaluate the setback reduction request and identify the types and amount of vegetation on the site and its value as wildlife habitat in maintaining the functional capacity of the wetland. − Type and intensity of proposed development.
− Lot size and configuration and location of existing development.

SLOCC Section 23.07.174 includes requirements for development proposed within or adjacent to coastal streams and adjacent riparian areas. The following provisions would be applicable to the proposed project:
▪ SLOCC Section 23.07.174(d) - Riparian Vegetation Setbacks. New development shall be setback from the upland edge of riparian vegetation the maximum amount feasible. In the urban areas (inside the urban reserve line [URL]), this setback shall be a minimum of 50 feet. In the rural areas (outside the URL) this setback shall be a minimum of 100 feet.12 A larger setback will be preferable in both the urban and rural areas depending on parcel configuration, slope, vegetation types, habitat quality, water quality, and any other environmental consideration. These setback requirements do not apply to non-structural agricultural developments that incorporate adopted nest management practices in accordance with LUP Policy 26 for Environmentally Sensitive Habitats.
 Permitted uses within the setback: Permitted uses are limited to those specified in Section

23.07.172d(1) (for wetland setbacks), provided that the findings required by that section can be made. Additional permitted uses that are not required to satisfy those findings include pedestrian and equestrian trails, and non-structural agricultural uses.

All permitted development in or adjacent to streams, wetlands, and other aquatic habitats shall be designed and/or conditioned to prevent loss or disruption of the habitat, protect water quality, and maintain or enhance (when feasible) biological productivity. Design measures to be provided include, but are not limited to:
− Flood control and other necessary instream work should be implemented in a manner than minimizes disturbance of natural drainage courses and vegetation.

12 A URL is a boundary separating urban/suburban land uses and rural land uses. URLs are delineated in the San Luis Obispo County General Plan Land Use Element Frameworks for Planning (County of San Luis Obispo 2015 and 2018).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

A-14
− Drainage control methods should be incorporated into projects in a manner that prevents erosion, sedimentation, and the discharge of harmful substances into aquatic habitats during and after construction.
 Riparian habitat setback adjustment: The minimum riparian setback may be adjusted through Minor Use Permit approval, but in no case shall structures be allowed closer than 10 feet from a stream bank, and provided the following findings can first be made:
− Alternative locations and routes are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; and − Adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; and − The adjustment is necessary to allow a principal permitted use of the property and redesign of the proposed development would not allow the use with the standard setbacks; and
− The adjustment is the minimum that would allow for the establishment of a principal permitted use.
▪ SLOCC Section 23.07.174(e) – Alteration of Riparian Vegetation. Cutting or alteration of natural riparian vegetation that functions as a portion of, or protects, a riparian habitat shall not be permitted except:
 For streambed alterations allowed by SLOCC Section 23.07.174(a) and (b);  Where an issue of public safety exists;
 Where expanding vegetation is encroaching on established agricultural uses;  Minor public works projects, including but not limited to utility lines, pipelines, driveways and roads, where the Planning Director determines no feasible alternative exists;  To increase agricultural acreage provided that such vegetation clearance will:
− Not impair the functional capacity of the habitat;
− Not cause significant streambank erosion;
− Not have a detrimental effect on water quality or quantity; − Be in accordance with applicable permits required by the Department of Fish and Game.  To locate a principally permitted use on an existing lot of record where no feasible alternative exists and the findings of SLOCC Section 23.07.174d(2) can be made.

Appendix B
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-1
Special Status Plant Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Study Area Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Agrostis hooveri
Hoover’s bent grass
–/–
1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Valley and foothill
grassland. Usually sandy. 6 to
610 meters. Perennial herb.

Blooms April through July.

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Aphanisma blitoides
aphanisma
–/–
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal scrub. Sandy or
gravelly. 1 to 305 meters.

Annual herb. Blooms February
through June.

None Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area;
however, no CNDDB
occurrences of this
species have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area (CDFW
2023a).

Arctostaphylos luciana
Santa Lucia manzanita
–/–
1B.2

Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland. Shale. 350 to 850
meters. Perennial evergreen
shrub. Blooms December to
March.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Arctostaphylos
pechoensis
Pecho manzanita
–/–
1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
Chaparral, Coastal scrub.

Siliceous shale. 125 to 850
meters. Perennial evergreen
shrub. Blooms November to
March.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Arctostaphylos pilosula
Santa Margarita
manzanita
–/–
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest,
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland. Sometimes
sandstone. 75 to 1100 meters.

Perennial evergreen shrub.

Blooms December to May.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Arctostaphylos
purissima
La Purisima manzanita
–/–
1B.1

Chaparral (sandy), Coastal
scrub. 60 to 555 meters.

Perennial evergreen shrub.

Blooms November to May.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

B-2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Arctostaphylos rudis
sand mesa manzanita
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral (maritime), Coastal
scrub. Sandy. 25 to 322
meters. Perennial evergreen
shrub. Blooms November to
February.

Low Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Seven occurrences have
been recorded within five
miles; however, no
manzanita species, which
are readily identifiable
year-round, were
observed during the
reconnaissance survey
within the Study Area.
(CDFW 2023a).

Arenaria paludicola
marsh sandwort
FE/SE
1B.1
Marshes and swamps
(freshwater or brackish).

Sandy, openings. 3 to 170
meters. Perennial
stoloniferous herb. Blooms
May to August.

Low Potentially suitable marsh
habitat for this species is
present within the Study
Area. Several CNDDB
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area;
however, several of these
populations have been
determined to be
extirpated, and none
overlap with the Study
Area (CDFW 2023a). This
species was not observed
during the 2023 field
reconnaissance survey.

Calochortus
obispoensis
San Luis mariposa lily
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland.

Often serpentinite. 50 to 730
meters. Perennial bulbiferous
herb. Blooms May to July.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Calochortus simulans
La Panza mariposa lily
–/–
1B.3
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Valley and
foothill grassland. Sandy,
often granitic, sometimes
serpentinite. 325 to 1150
meters. Perennial bulbiferous
herb. Blooms April to June.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Carex obispoensis
San Luis Obispo sedge
–/–
1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
Chaparral, Coastal prairie,
Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland. Often
serpentinite seeps, sometimes
gabbro; often on clay soils. 10
to 820 meters. Perennial herb.

Blooms April to June.

None Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area;
however, no CNDDB
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area (CDFW
2023a).

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-3
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Castilleja densiflora
var. obispoensis
San Luis Obispo owl’s-
clover
–/–
1B.2
Meadows and seeps, Valley
and foothill grassland.

Sometimes serpentine. 10 to
430 meters. Annual herb
(hemiparasitic). Blooms March
to May.

None No suitable habitat or
soils required for this
species are present within
the Study Area.

Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
FE/SE
1B.1
Chenopod scrub, Pinyon and
juniper woodland, Valley and
foothill grassland. Sandy. 61 to
1000 meters. Annual herb.

Blooms February to May.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation and
geographical ranges of
the species.

Ceanothus impressus
var. impressus
Santa Barbara
ceanothus
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral. Sandy. 40 to 470
meters. Perennial shrub.

Blooms February to April.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Ceanothus impressus
var. nipomensis
Nipomo Mesa
ceanothus
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral. Sandy. 30 to 245
meters. Perennial shrub.

Blooms February to April.

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Centromadia parryi
ssp. congdonii
Congdon’s tarplant
–/–
1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland
(alkaline). 0 to 230 meters.

Annual herb. Blooms May to
October(November)
None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Chenopodium
littoreum
coastal goosefoot
–/–
1B.2
Coastal dunes. 10 to 30
meters. Annual herb. Blooms
April to August.

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Chlorogalum
pomeridianum var.
minus
dwarf soaproot
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral (serpentinite). 305
to 1000 meters. Perennial
bulbiferous herb. Blooms May
to August.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Chorizanthe
aphanantha
Irish Hills spineflower
–/–
1B.1
Chaparral, coastal scrub.

Serpentinite, rocky to gravelly.
100 to 370 meters.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Chorizanthe breweri
Brewer’s spineflower
–/–
1B.3
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub.

Serpentinite, rocky or gravelly.
45 to 800 meters. Annual
herb. Blooms April to August.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Cirsium fontinale var.
obispoense
Chorro Creek bog
thistle
FE/SCE
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Drainages, seeps,
serpentinite. 115 to 1265 feet
(35 to 385 meters.) Blooms
February to July (August to
September).

None Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area;
however, no CNDDB
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area (CDFW
2023a).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

B-4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Cirsium occidentale
var. compactum
Compact cobwebby
thistle
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral, Coastal dunes,
Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub.
5 to 150 meters. Perennial
herb. Blooms April to June,
None Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area;
however, no CNDDB
occurrences have been
documented within five
miles of the Study Area
(CDFW 2023a).

Cirsium rhothophilum
Surf thistle
–/ST
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
dunes. 3 to 60 meters.

Perennial herb. Blooms April
to June,
None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

One historic occurrence
overlapping the Study
Area has been recorded;
however, that occurrence
is believed to have been
extirpated (CDFW 2023a).

Cirsium scariosum var.
loncholepis
La Graciosa thistle
FE/ST
1B.1
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub,
Marshes and swamps
(brackish), Valley and foothill
grassland. Mesic, sandy. 4 to
220 meters. Perennial herb.

Blooms May to August.

Low Potentially suitable
coastal scrub and marsh
habitats for this species
are present within the
Study Area. Additionally,
the Study Area at MW-
NCMA South A/B/C
overlaps with federally-
designated critical habitat
for this species. One
CNDDB occurrence from
1969 is located
approximately 100 feet
west of the Study Area
along Norswing Ave;
however, this population
has been extirpated as of
2017. This species was not
observed during the 2023
field reconnaissance
survey.

Cladium californicum
California sawgrass
–/–
2B.2
Meadows and seeps, Marshes
and swamps, Alkaline or
Freshwater. 60 to 1600
meters. Perennial
rhizomatous herb. Blooms
June to September.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Clarkia speciosa ssp.
immaculata
Pismo clarkia
FE/SR
1B.1
Chaparral (margins, openings),
Cismontane woodland, Valley
and foothill grassland. Sandy.
25 to 185 meters. Annual
herb. Blooms May to July.

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-5
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Cordylanthus
maritimum ssp.

Maritimum
Salt marsh bird’s-beak
FE/SE
1B.2
Marshes and swamps, coastal
dunes. Limited to the higher
zones of salt marsh habitat. 0
to 10 meters. Annual herb
(hemiparasitic). Blooms May
to October (November).

None Potentially suitable marsh
habitat for this species is
present within the Study
Area; however, the Study
Area is located outside of
the known geographic
range of this species.

Deinandra increscens
ssp. villosa
Gaviota tarplant
FE/CE
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
scrub, Valley and foothill
grassland. 20 to 430 meters.

Annual herb. Blooms May to
October.

None Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area;
however, the Study Area
is located outside of the
known geographic range
of this species.

Delphinium parryi ssp.
blochmaniae
dune larkspur
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral (maritime), Coastal
dunes. 0 to 200 meters.

Perennial herb. Blooms April
to June.

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Delphinium parryi ssp.
eastwoodiae
Eastwood’s larkspur
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral (openings), Valley
and foothill grassland.

Serpentinite, coastal. 75 to
500 meters. Perennial herb.

Blooms (February)March to
March.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Delphinium
umbraculorum
umbrella larkspur
–/–
1B.3
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland. 400 to 1600
meters. Perennial herb.

Blooms April to June.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Dithyrea maritima
beach spectaclepod
–/ST
1B.1
Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub
(sandy). 3 to 50 meters.

Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Blooms March to May.

Low Limited disturbed coastal
scrub habitat is present
within the Study Area
along Delta Lane, south of
the Oceano Airport.

Additionally, the only
CNDDB occurrence within
five miles of the Study
Area has been extirpated
(CNDDB 2023a). Due to
the limited amount of
marginally suitable
habitat resulting from
frequent disturbance
associated with the
adjacent road, this species
has a low potential to
occur.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

B-6
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Dudleya abramsii ssp.
bettinae
Betty’s dudleya
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland.

Serpentinite, rocky. 20 to 180
meters. Perennial herb.

Blooms May to July.

None Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area;
however, the Study Area
is located outside of the
known geographic range
of this species.

Dudleya abramsii ssp.
murina
mouse-gray dudleya
–/–
1B.3
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Valley and foothill
grassland. Serpentinite. 90 to
525 meters. Perennial leaf
succulent. Blooms May to
June.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Dudleya blochmaniae
ssp. blochmaniae
Blochman’s dudleya
–/–
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, Chaparral,
Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland. Rocky, often
clay or serpentinite. 5 to 450
meters. Perennial herb.

Blooms April to June.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Erigeron blochmaniae
Blochman’s leafy daisy
–/–
1B.2
Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub. 3
to 45 meters. Perennial
rhizomatous herb. Blooms
June to August.

Moderate Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Several CNDDB
occurrences are known
from within five miles of
the Study Area, including
two occurrences located
within one mile of the
Oceano Airport (CDFW
2023a). This species was
not observed during the
2023 field reconnaissance
survey.

Eriodictyon altissimum
Indian Knob
mountainbalm
FE/SE
1B.1
Chaparral (maritime),
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub. Sandstone. 80
to 270 meters. Perennial
evergreen shrub. Blooms
March to June.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Eryngium aristulatum
var. hooveri
Hoover’s button-celery
–/–
1B.1
Vernal pools. 3 to 45 meters.

Annual/Perennial herb.

Blooms (June) July (August).

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Erythranthe
serpentinicola
Irish Hills
monkeyflower
--/--
1B.1
Chaparral, Meadows and
seeps. Mesic, Openings,
Rocky, Serpentinite 60 to 360
meters. Blooms February to
May.

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-7
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa
Monterey cypress
--/--
1B.2
Perennial evergreen tree.

Closed-cone coniferous forest.

Granitic soils. 35 to 100 feet
(10 to 30 meters).

Present This species was detected
within the Study Area;
however, all individuals
were planted as
ornamental trees within
developed/landscaped
portions of the Study
Area.

Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia
–/–
1B.1
Chaparral (maritime),
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub. Sandy or
gravelly. 70 to 810 meters.

Perennial herb. Blooms
February to July (September).

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Horkelia cuneata var.
sericea
Kellogg’s horkelia
–/–
1B.1
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
Chaparral (maritime), Coastal
dunes, Coastal scrub. Sandy or
gravelly, openings. 10 to 200
meters. Perennial herb.

Blooms April to September.

Low Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Several CNDDB
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area, the
closest of which is from
1930 and is located
approximately 2.5 miles
east of the Study Area
(CNDDB 2023a). This
species was not observed
during the 2023 field
reconnaissance survey.

Layia jonesii
Jones’ layia
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral, Valley and foothill
grassland. Clay or serpentinite.
5 to 400 meters. Annual herb.

Blooms March to May.

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Lupinus ludovicianus
San Luis Obispo County
lupine
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland. Sandstone or
sandy. 50 to 525 meters.

Perennial herb. Blooms April
to July.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

Lupinus nipomensis
Nipomo Mesa lupine
FE/SE
1B.1
Coastal dunes. 10 to 50
meters. Annual herb. Blooms
December to May.

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Malacothamnus
gracilis
slender bush-mallow
–/–
1B.1
Chaparral. Usually rocky. 190
to 575 meters. Perennial
deciduous shrub. Blooms May
to October.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

B-8
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Monardella palmeri
Palmer’s monardella
--/--
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Chaparral, cismontane
woodland. On serpentine,
often found associated with
Sargent cypress forests.

Elevations: 655 to 2,625 feet
(200 to 800 meters) Blooms
June to August.

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Monardella sinuata
ssp. sinuata
southern curly-leaved
monardella
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal dunes,
Coastal scrub (openings).

Sandy. 0 to 300 meters.

Annual herb. Blooms April to
September.

Low Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area, and
several CNDDB
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area;
however, all CNDDB
occurrences within five
miles of the Study Area
are over 50 years old
(CNDDB 2023a). This
species was not observed
during the 2023 field
reconnaissance survey.

Monardella undulata
ssp. crispa
crisp monardella
–/–
1B.2
Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub.
10 to 120 meters. Perennial
rhizomatous herb. Blooms
April to August (December).

Moderate Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Two CNDDB occurrences
have been recorded
within five miles of the
Study Area, the closest of
which is from 2004 and is
located less than one mile
west of MW-NCMA South
A/B/C (CNDDB 2023a).

This species was not
observed during the 2023
field reconnaissance
survey.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-9
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Monardella undulata
ssp. undulata
San Luis Obispo
monardella
–/–
1B.2
Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub
(sandy). 10 to 200 meters.

Perennial rhizomatous herb.

Blooms May to September.

Moderate Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat is
present within the Study
Area. Several CNDDB
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area, the
closest of which is from
1979 and is located 0.6
mile south of the Study
Area (CNDDB 2023a). This
species was not observed
during the 2023 field
reconnaissance survey.

Muhlenbergia utilis
aparejo grass
–/–
2B.2
Meadows and seeps, marshes
and swamps, chaparral,
coastal scrub, cismontane
woodland. Sometimes
alkaline, sometimes
serpentinite. 25 to 2325
meters.

None Potentially suitable marsh
and coastal scrub habitats
are present within the
Study Area; however, no
CNDDB occurrences have
been recorded within five
miles of the Study Area
(CNDDB 2023a).

Nasturtium gambelii
Gambel’s water cress
FE/ST
1B.1
Marshes and swamps
(freshwater or brackish). 5 to
330 meters. Perennial
rhizomatous herb. Blooms
April to October.

None Potentially suitable marsh
habitat for this species is
present within the Study
Area. Several CNDDB
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area, the
closest of which is from
1949 and is located less
than one mile east of
Oceano Airport. However,
this population has since
been extirpated (CNDDB
2023a).

Navarretia fossalis
spreading navarretia
FT/–
1B.1
Vernal pools, chenopod scrub,
marshes and swamps, playas.

San Diego hardpan and San
Diego clay pan vernal pools; in
swales and vernal pools, often
surrounded by other habitat
types. 15 to 850 meters.

Annual herb. Blooms April to
June.

None Potentially suitable marsh
habitat for this species is
present within the Study
Area; however, no CNDDB
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area (CNDDB
2023a).

Nemacaulis denudata
var. denudata
coast woolly-heads
–/–
1B.2
Coastal dunes. 0 to 100
meters. Annual herb. Blooms
April to September.

None No suitable habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area.

Nemacladus
secundiflorus var.
robbinsii
Robbins’ nemacladus
–/–
1B.2
Chaparral, Valley and foothill
grassland. openings. 350 to
1700 meters. Annual herb.

Blooms April to June.

None The Study Area is outside
the elevation range of the
species.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

B-10
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Scrophularia atrata
black-flowered figwort
–/–
1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
Chaparral, Coastal dunes,
Coastal scrub, Riparian scrub.
10 to 500 meters. Perennial
herb. Blooms March to July.

Moderate Potentially suitable
coastal scrub and riparian
scrub habitats are present
within the Study Area.

Several CNDDB
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area, the
closest of which is from
2012 and is located
approximately 1.2 miles
north of the Study Area
(CDFW 2023a). This
species was not observed
during the 2023 field
reconnaissance survey.

Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort
–/–
2B.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub.
sometimes alkaline. 15 to 800
meters. Annual herb. Blooms
January to April (May).

None Potentially suitable
coastal scrub habitat for
this species is present
within the Study Area;
however, no CNDDB
occurrences have been
recorded within five miles
of the Study Area (CDFW
2023a).

Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino aster
–/–
1B.2
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Meadows
and seeps, Marshes and
swamps, Valley and foothill
grassland (vernally mesic).
near ditches, streams, springs.
2 to 2040 meters. Perennial
rhizomatous herb. Blooms July
to November (December).

None Potentially suitable
coastal scrub and marsh
habitats are present
within the Study Area.

One CNDDB occurrence
from 1993 is located less
than one mile east of MW-
NCMA South A/B/C;
however, CNDDB notes
that this identification
may have been incorrect
because it seems to be
well outside of this
species’ range.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-11
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CRPR Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Regional Vicinity refers to within an 8-quad search radius of site.

FESA = Federal Endangered Species Act; CESA = California Endangered Species Act; CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank (as determined by the California Native Plant Society); CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; CDFW; California Department of Fish and Wildlife; ssp. = subspecies; var. = variety
FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened FC = Federal Candidate Species SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SC = State Candidate SR = State Rare CRPR
1A = Presumed Extinct in California
1B = Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere 2B = Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR Threat Code Extension
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened) .3 = Not very endangered in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened) Source: CDFW 2023a

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

B-12
Special Status Animal Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Study Area Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Invertebrates
Bombus
occidentalis
western bumble
bee
–/SC

Once common and widespread,
species has declined precipitously
from central California to southern
British Columbia, perhaps from
disease.

None Abundant floral resources are
required to provide suitable
habitat for this species. Due to a
number of threats, including
urbanization, fragmentation, and
declines due to disease,
populations are thought to be
limited to high elevations in the
Sierra Nevada since 2012 (Xerces
Society et al. 2018).

Branchinecta
lynchi
vernal pool fairy
shrimp
FT/– Endemic to the grasslands of the
Central Valley, Central Coast
mountains, and South Coast
mountains, in astatic rain-filled
pools. Inhabit small, clear-water
sandstone-depression pools and
grassed swale, earth slump, or
basalt-flow depression pools.

None Vernal pool habitat required by
the species is not present within
the Study Area. No occurrences
have been recorded in the Study
Area (CDFW 2019a). The species
is not expected to occur.

Danaus plexippus
pop. 1
Monarch –
California
overwintering
population
FC/-- Roosts in eucalyptus, Monterey
pine, and cypress groves along the
coast from Mendocino to Baja
California, Mexico. Must have water
and nectar sources nearby.

Moderat
e
Potentially suitable
overwintering habitat is present
within the Study Area. Several
known overwintering sites,
including Xerces Sites #2031,
3082, and 3061 occur within one
mile of the Study Area (Xerces
Society 2023). Xerces Site #3063
overlaps with the ATF complex
location; however, the last record
of overwintering monarchs at
this site is from 1989 (CFDW
2023a). No overwintering
monarchs were observed during
the 2022 field survey.

Overwintering monarchs have a
moderate potential to occur as
transient individuals within the
Study Area.

Fish
Eucyclogobius
newberryi
tidewater goby
FE/–
SSC
Brackish water habitats along the
California coast from Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, San Diego County 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.

Low No suitable habitat occurs within
the Study Area. Arroyo Grande
Creek, approximately 50 feet
south of Study Area, contains
suitable habitat for the species;
however, an earthen levee
separates the Study Area from
the creek. Meadow Creek and
Oceano Lagoon, located more
than 100 feet west and south of
the Study Area, are also isolated
from the Study Area due to
existing roadways and

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-13
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
development. The species is not
expected to occur in the Study
Area.

Gila orcuttii
arroyo chub
–/–
SSC
Native to streams from Malibu Creek
to San Luis Rey River basin.

Introduced into streams in Santa
Clara, Ventura, Santa Ynez, Mojave
and San Diego River basins. Slow
water stream sections with mud or
sand bottoms. Feeds heavily on
aquatic vegetation and associated
invertebrates.

None No suitable habitat occurs within
the Study Area. Arroyo Grande
Creek, located approximately 50
feet south of Study Area,
contains suitable habitat for the
species; however, an earthen
levee separates the Study Area
from the creek. The species is not
expected to occur.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 9
steelhead - south-
central California
coast DPS
FT/– Federal listing refers to runs in
coastal basins from the Pajaro River
south to, but not including, the Santa
Maria River.

Low No suitable spawning or
freshwater migration habitat
occurs within the Study Area.

Arroyo Grande Creek, located
approximately 50 feet south of
Study Area, contains suitable
habitat for the species; however,
an earthen levee separates the
Study Area from the creek.

Meadow Creek and Oceano
Lagoon, located more than 100
feet west and south of the Study
Area, are also isolated from the
Study Area due to existing
roadways and development. The
species is only expected to occur
near the discharge point of the
existing ocean outfall pipeline
during migration.

Amphibians
Ambystoma
californiense
California tiger
salamander
FT/ST The Central Valley Distinct
Population Segment is federally
listed as threatened. Santa Barbara
and Sonoma counties Distinct
Population Segment is federally
listed as endangered. Need
underground refuges, especially
ground squirrel burrows, and vernal
pools or other seasonal water
sources for breeding.

None The Study Area is located well
outside the known geographic
range of the species.

Rana boylii
foothill yellow-
legged frog
–/SC
SSC
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. Needs at least 15 weeks to
attain metamorphosis.

None No suitable habitat for this
species occurs within the Study
Area. No occurrences have been
recorded within five miles of the
Study Area (CDFW 2023a).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

B-14
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Rana draytonii
California red-
legged frog
FT/–
SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near
permanent sources of deep water
with dense, shrubby or emergent
riparian vegetation. Requires 11 to
20 weeks of permanent water for
larval development. Must have
access to estivation habitat.

Low No suitable habitat occurs within
the Study Area. However,
suitable aquatic habitat is
present within Arroyo Grande
Creek approximately 50 feet
south of the Study Area, where
there are documented
occurrences (CDFW 2023a), and
within Meadow Creek/Oceano
Lagoon located to the west and
south of the Study Area. This
species has a low potential to
occur within the Study Area as a
transient individual if migrating
between suitable aquatic sites.

Spea hammondii
western
spadefoot
–/–
SSC
Occurs primarily in grassland
habitats but can be found in valley-
foothill hardwood woodlands.

Vernal pools are essential for
breeding and egg-laying.

None No suitable habitat is present
within the Study Area. No
occurrences of the species have
been documented within five
miles of the Study Area (CDFW
2023a).

Taricha torosa
Coast Range newt
–/–
SSC
Coastal drainages from Mendocino
County to San Diego County. Lives in
terrestrial habitats and will migrate
over one kilometer to breed in
ponds, reservoirs, and slow-moving
streams.

None No suitable aquatic habitat
occurs within the Study Area. No
occurrences have been
documented within five miles of
the Study Area (CDFW 2023a).

Reptiles
Anniella pulchra
northern
California legless
lizard
–/–
SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation. Soil moisture is
essential. They prefer soils with a
high moisture content.

Moderat
e
Suitable sandy and sparsely
vegetated habitat is present
within the Study Area. Numerous
CNDDB occurrences of this
species have been recorded
within five miles of the Study
Area, the closest of which is from
2015 and is located
approximately 0.4 mile south of
the Oceano Airport (CDFW
2023a).

Emys marmorata
southwestern
pond turtle
–/–
SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, rivers, streams and
irrigation ditches, usually with
aquatic vegetation, below 6000 feet
elevation. Needs basking sites and
suitable upland habitat (sandy banks
or grassy open fields) up to 0.5
kilometer from water for egg-laying.

Low Marginally suitable aquatic
habitat in the form of agricultural
ditches and marshes occurs
within the Study Area;
additionally, suitable habitat is
present within Arroyo Grande
Creek approximately 50 feet
south of the Study Area and
Meadow Creek within 100 feet
west of the Study Area. Several
CNDDB occurrences of this
species have been recorded
within five miles of the Study
Area, the closest of which is from

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-15
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
2003 and is located
approximately 2.5 miles
northeast of the Study Area
(CDFW 2023a).

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard
–/–
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats,
most common in lowlands along
sandy washes with scattered low
bushes. Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches of loose
soil for burial, and abundant supply
of ants and other insects.

None No suitable sandy wash habitat
or scattered low bushes with
little ground cover is present
within the Study Area.

Additionally, no abundant supply
of ants was observed during the
reconnaissance survey.

Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake
–/–
SSC
Coastal California from the vicinity of
Salinas to northwest Baja California.

From sea to about 7,000 feet
elevation. Highly aquatic, found in or
near permanent fresh water. Often
along streams with rocky beds and
riparian growth.

None No suitable habitat is present
within the Study Area. No
occurrences of the species have
been documented within five
miles of the Study Area (CDFW
2023a).

Birds
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored
blackbird
–/ST
SSC
Highly colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley and
vicinity. Largely endemic to
California. Requires open water,
protected nesting substrate, and
foraging area with insect prey within
a few kilometers of the colony.

Moderat
e
The riparian habitat adjacent to
the Arroyo Grande Creek and
Meadow Creek within the Study
Area may provide suitable
nesting habitat. No occurrences
of the species have been
documented within five miles of
the Study Area in CNDDB (CDFW
2023a); however, numerous
occurrences of the species have
been documented in eBird within
one mile of the Study Area (eBird
2023).

Athene
cunicularia
burrowing owl
–/–
SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and scrublands
characterized by low-growing
vegetation. Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably, the
California ground squirrel.

None No suitable mammal burrows
required by the species are
present within the Study Area.

No occurrences of the species
have been documented within
five miles of the Study Area
(CDFW 2023a), and the species
was not observed during the
reconnaissance survey.

Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marbled murrelet
FT/SE

Feeds near-shore; 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.

None No suitable nesting habitat
occurs within the Study Area. No
occurrences of the species have
been documented within five
miles of the Study Area (CDFW
2023a).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

B-16
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk
–/ST Breeds in grasslands with scattered
trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian
areas, savannahs, and agricultural or
ranch lands with groves or lines of
trees. Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands, or
alfalfa or grain fields supporting
rodent populations.

None The Study Area is located well
outside the known geographic
range of the species.

Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
western snowy
plover
FT/–
SSC
Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and
shores of large alkali lakes. Needs
sandy, gravelly or friable soils for
nesting.

None No suitable habitat for this
species is present within the
Study Area.

Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellow-
billed cuckoo
FT/SE Riparian forest nester, along the
broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger
river systems. Nests in riparian
jungles of willow, often mixed with
cottonwoods, with lower story of
blackberry, nettles, or wild grape.

None The riparian habitat within the
Study Area lacks the structural
diversity and contiguous habitat
required by the species. The
Study Area is located outside the
current breeding range of this
species. The only documented
CNDDB occurrence in the Study
Area is from 1932 and is believed
to have been extirpated (CDFW
2023a). There have been no
documented breeding records in
the County since that date. The
species breeds further south in
Ventura County and overwinters
in Mexico. This species is not
expected to occur.

Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
–/–
FP
Rolling foothills and valley margins
with scattered oaks & river
bottomlands or marshes next to
deciduous woodland. Open
grasslands, meadows, or marshes
for foraging close to isolated, dense-
topped trees for nesting and
perching.

Low No suitable nesting habitat is
present within the Study Area.

Potential foraging habitat may
occur west of the Study Area near
Meadow Creek. No occurrences
of the species have been
documented within five miles of
the Study Area (CDFW 2023a).

Empidonax traillii
extimus
southwestern
willow flycatcher
FE/SE Riparian woodlands in Southern
California. For nesting, requires
dense riparian habitats
(cottonwood/willow and tamarisk
vegetation) with microclimatic
conditions dictated by the local
surroundings. Saturated soils,
standing water, or nearby streams
and pools is a component of nesting
habitat that also influences the
microclimate and density vegetation
component. Habitat not suitable for
nesting may be used for migration
and foraging.

None The riparian habitat within the
Study Area lacks the structural
diversity and contiguous habitat
required by the species. The
Study Area is located outside the
current breeding range of this
species No occurrence of the
species has been documented
within five miles of the Study
Area (CDFW 2023a). The species
breeds further south in Santa
Barbara County and overwinters
in Mexico. This species is not
expected to occur.

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-17
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Falco peregrinus
anatum
American
peregrine falcon
–/–
FP
Near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other
water; on cliffs, banks, dunes,
mounds; also, human-made
structures. Nest consists of a scrape
or a depression or ledge in an open
site.

None Potentially suitable habitat for
this species is present in the
vicinity of the Study Area;
however, no CNDDB occurrences
have been recorded within five
miles of the Study Area (CDFW
2023a).

Gymnogyps
californianus
California condor
FE/SE
FP
Require vast expanses of open
savannah, grasslands, and foothill
chaparral in mountain ranges of
moderate altitude. Deep canyons
containing clefts in the rocky walls
provide nesting sites. Forages up to
100 miles from roost/nest.

None No suitable habitat for this
species is present within the
Study Area. No CNDDB
occurrences have been recorded
within five miles of the Study
Area (CDFW 2023a).

Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail
–/ST
FP
Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet
meadows and shallow margins of
saltwater marshes bordering larger
bays. Needs water depths of about
one inch that do not fluctuate during
the year and dense vegetation for
nesting habitat.

None Potentially suitable marsh
habitat is present within the
Study Area; however, only one
CNDDB occurrence of this species
from 1966 has been recorded
within five miles of the Study
Area (CDFW 2023a). Additionally,
no eBird occurrences have been
documented in the vicinity of the
Study Area (eBird 2023).

Rallus obsoletus
California
Ridgway’s rail
FE/SE
FP
Salt water and brackish marshes
traversed by tidal sloughs in the
vicinity of San Francisco Bay.

Associated with abundant growths
of pickleweed but feeds away from
cover on invertebrates from mud-
bottomed sloughs.

None The Study Area is located outside
the San Francisco Bay and lacks a
pickleweed community. No
occurrences have been recorded
in the Study Area (CDFW 2023a).

This species is not expected to
occur.

Sternula
antillarum browni
California least
tern
FE/SE
FP
Nests along the coast from San
Francisco Bay south to northern Baja
California. Colonial breeder on bare
or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates
such as sand beaches, alkali flats,
landfills, or paved areas.

None No suitable nesting habitat is
present within the Study Area.

The two documented
occurrences of the species within
five miles of the Study Area are
within coastal dune habitat
(CDFW 2023a).

Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell’s vireo
FE/SE Summer resident of Southern
California in low riparian in vicinity of
water or in dry river bottoms; below
2000 feet. Nests placed along
margins of bushes or on twigs
projecting into pathways, usually
willow, Baccharis, mesquite.

None The riparian habitat within the
Study Area lacks the structural
diversity and contiguous habitat
required by the species. No
occurrences have been recorded
in the Study Area (CDFW 2023a).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

B-18
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status

FESA/CESA
CDFW Habitat Requirements
Potential
to Occur Rationale
Mammals
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend’s big-
eared bat
–/–
SSC
Throughout California in a wide
variety of habitats. Most common in
mesic sites. Roosts in the open,
hanging from walls and ceilings.

Roosting sites limiting. Extremely
sensitive to human disturbance.

None The Study Area is located within a
heavily developed area where
human disturbance is high.

Dipodomys
ingens
giant kangaroo
rat
FE/SE Annual grasslands on the western
side of the San Joaquin Valley,
marginal habitat in alkali scrub.

Need level terrain and sandy loam
soils for burrowing.

None The Study Area is located outside
the current range of the species.

Enhydra lutris
nereis
southern sea
otter
FT/–
SSC
Nearshore marine environments
from about Ano Nuevo, San Mateo
county to Point Sal, Santa Barbara
county. Needs canopies of giant kelp
and bull kelp for rafting & feeding.

Prefers rocky substrates with
abundant invertebrates.

Low No giant kelp forests or rocky
substrate occurs at the discharge
point of the existing ocean outfall
pipeline; therefore, this species is
only expected to migrate through
this area between feeding
locations.

Taxidea taxus
American badger
–/–
SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages
of most shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats, with friable
soils. Needs sufficient food, friable
soils and open, uncultivated ground.

Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs
burrows.

None No suitable friable soils with
sufficient food base, or dry open
stages of suitable habitat is
present within the Study Area.

Regional Vicinity refers to within an 8-quad search radius of site.

FESA = Federal Endangered Species Act; CESA = California Endangered Species Act; CDFW; California Department of Fish and Wildlife; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; ssp. = subspecies; var. = variety FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened FC = Federal Candidate Species SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SC = State Candidate SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern FP = State Fully Protected Source: CDFW 2019a

Special Status Species Evaluation Tables

Biological Resources Assessment B-19
Table 3 Special Status Natural Communities in the Regional Vicinity of the Study Area Plant Community Potential for Impact Rationale
Central Dune Scrub None No central dune scrub habitat present within the Study Area.

Central Foredunes None No central foredune habitat present within the Study Area.

Central Maritime Chaparral None No chaparral habitat present within the Study Area.

Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh None No coastal and valley freshwater marsh habitat present within the Study Area.

Southern Vernal Pool None No vernal pool habitat is present within the Study Area.

Valley Needlegrass Grassland None No valley needlegrass grassland habitat is present within the Study Area.

Source: CDFW 2023a

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

B-20

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix C
Site Photographs

Si
t
e

Ph
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
s

Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

C-1
Ph
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h

1 .

IW
-1:

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
/
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
.

P
h
o
t
o

t
a
k
e
n

f
a
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
.

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2 0
,

2 0
2 3
.

Pho
t
o
g
r
a
p
h

2 .

IW
-2A

a
n
d

2 B
:

Wi
l
d

o
a
t
s

a
n
d

a
n
n
u
a
l

b
r
o
m
e

g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
.

P
h
o
t
o

t
a
k
e
n

f
a
c
i
n
g

so
u
t
h
.

Ja
n
u
a
r
y

2 0
,

2 0
2 3
.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

C-2

Photograph 3. IW-3: Developed/landscaped. January 20, 2023.

Photograph 4. IW-4 (Alternate): Developed/landscaped within existing public park. Photo taken facing northwest. January 20, 2023.

Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment

Photograph 5. IW-5A: Developed area within the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant. Photo taken facing north. January 20, 2023.

Photograph 6. IW-5B: Developed area within the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant. Photo taken facing northeast. January 20, 2023.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

C-4

Photograph 7. MW-1A/1B: Developed/landscaped. Photo taken facing northeast. January 20, 2023.

Photograph 8. MW-1C/1D: Developed/landscaped. Photo taken facing south. January 20, 2023.

Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment

Photograph 9. MW-2A/2B/2C: Developed/landscaped. Photo taken facing south. January 20, 2023.

Photograph 10. MW-2D/2E/2F: Developed/landscaped with adjacent eucalyptus. Photo taken facing south. January 20, 2023.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

C-6

Photograph 11. MW-4A/4B: Landscaped public park. Photo taken facing northwest. January 20, 2023.

Photograph 12. MW-5A/5B/5C: Ruderal area within South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant. Photo taken facing southeast. January 20, 2023.

Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment

Photograph 13. MW-5D/5E/5F: Developed area with adjacent eucalyptus. Photo taken facing southeast. January 20, 2023.

Photograph 14. PB-23: Developed area. Photo taken facing southeast. January 20, 2023.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

C-8

Photograph 15. MW-NCMA North A/B/C: Agricultural staging area. Photo taken facing southeast.

January 20, 2023.

Photograph 16. Staging/Laydown Yard: Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland. Photo taken facing southeast. January 20, 2023.

Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment

Photograph 17. Staging/Laydown Yard: Developed/landscaped area. Photo taken facing northwest.

January 20, 2023.

Photograph 17. Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis) scrub along Delta Lane, south of the Oceano Airport. Photo taken facing northwest. January 20, 2023.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

C-10

Photograph 18. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) thicket outside of South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant entrance. Photo taken facing northeast. January 20, 2023.

Photograph 19. Eucalyptus spp. Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance within ATF complex location (Xerces Site #3063). Photo taken facing east. January 20, 2023.

Site Photographs

Biological Resources Assessment

Photograph 20. Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) flats along southern border of Oceano Airport. Photo taken facing southeast. January 20, 2023.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

C-12

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix D
Floral and Faunal Compendium

Floral and Faunal Compendium

Biological Resources Assessment D-1
Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area on January 20, 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Native/Introduced/
Invasive Rating
Wetland
Indicator
Status
Life Form (e.g.,
Tree, Shrub,
Herbaceous)
Coyote Brush
Scrub Developed/Landscaped Ruderal
Iceplant
Mats
Wild Oats and
Annual Brome
Grassland Eucalyptus Grove Saltgrass Flats
Arroyo Willow
Thicket
California
Bulrush
Marshes
Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed Native FACU Herb X Avena spp. Wild oats Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Native UPL Shrub X
Brassica nigra Black mustard Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X X X X Carpobrotus edulis Iceplant Introduced; High UPL Herb X X X Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Introduced; Moderate FACW Herb X X Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Introduced; Moderate FACU Herb X X X Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Native FACW Herb X Dimorphotheca sinuata African daisy Introduced UPL Herb X Distichilis spicata Saltgrass Native FAC Herb X X Eleocharis rostellata Beaked spikerush Native OBL Herb X Eschscholzia californica California poppy Native UPL Herb X Equisetum spp. Horsetail Native FAC Fern X
Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum Introduced; Limited UPL Tree X X Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red ironbark Introduced UPL Tree X Foeniculum vulgare Fennel Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X Hedera helix English ivy Introduced; High UPL Shrub X Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue Introduced; Limited FAC Herb X Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress Native UPL Tree X Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraphweed Native UPL Herb
Hirschfeldia incana Short-podded mustard Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X X Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley Introduced; Moderate FACU Herb X Jaumea carnosa Fleshy jaumea Native OBL Herb X
Datura stramonium Jimson weed Introduced UPL Herb X
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Introduced FACU Herb X X Malva parviflora Cheeseweed mallow Introduced UPL Herb X X Melilotus indicus Annual yellow sweetclover Introduced FACU Herb X X Oxalis pes-caprae Sourgrass Introduced; Moderate Herb X Pinus radiata Monterey pine Introduced; Limited UPL Tree X Plantago coronopus Buckhorn plantain Introduced FAC Herb X X Plantago lanceolata English plantain Introduced; Limited FAC Herb X X Plantago major Common plantain Introduced FAC Herb X X Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed Introduced FAC Herb X Raphanus sativus Wild radish Introduced; Limited UPL Herb X X Rubus ursinus California blackberry Native FAC Shrub X X Salix laevigata Red willow Native FACW Tree X
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Native FACW Tree X Sambucus nigra ssp.
caerulea
Blue elderberry Native FACU Tree X
Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush Native OBL Herb X Silybum marianum Milk thistle Introduced; Limited UPL Herb X X Sonchus oleraceus Common sow thistle Introduced UPL Herb X Stipa miliacea Smilo grass Introduced UPL Herb X X Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak Native FACU Shrub X X

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

D-2
Scientific Name Common Name
Native/Introduced/
Invasive Rating
Wetland
Indicator
Status
Life Form (e.g.,
Tree, Shrub,
Herbaceous)
Coyote Brush
Scrub Developed/Landscaped Ruderal
Iceplant
Mats
Wild Oats and
Annual Brome
Grassland Eucalyptus Grove Saltgrass Flats
Arroyo Willow
Thicket
California
Bulrush
Marshes
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle Native FAC Herb X X X Urtica urens Annual stinging nettle Introduced UPL Herb X Vicia villosa Hairy vetch Introduced UPL Herb X
Vinca major Greater periwinkle Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X

Floral and Faunal Compendium

Biological Resources Assessment D-3
Animal Species Observed Within the Study Area on January 20, 2023 Scientific Name Common Name Status
Native, Introduced,
or Domesticated
Birds
Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Common Native
Calypte anna Anna’s Hummingbird Common Native
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Common Native
Chamaea fasciata Wrentit Common Native
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Common Native
Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Common Native
Haemorhous mexicanus House Finch Common Native
Larus californicus California Gull Common Native
Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe Common Native
Spinus psaltria Lesser Goldfinch Common Native
Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Common Native
Mammals
Canis latrans Coyote (tracks) Common Native
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Common Native Procyon lotor Raccoon (tracks) Common Native

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

D-4

This page intentionally left blank.

D-0
Appendix E
Jurisdictional Delineation

Central Coast Blue
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation
prepared for
City of Pismo Beach
Planning Division
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, California 93449
Contact: Matthew Downing, AICP, Community Development Director prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
April 2023

RINCON CONSULTANTS,INC.

Environmental Scientists |Planners |Engineers
rinconconsultants.com

Table of Contents

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 6 2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Regulatory Guidance .................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Field Survey .................................................................................................................. 9 3 Delineation Results ....................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Soils ............................................................................................................................. 10

3.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types........................................................ 12

3.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 17 4 Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands ..................................................................... 19

4.1 USACE Jurisdiction ...................................................................................................... 31

4.2 RWQCB Jurisdiction .................................................................................................... 31

4.3 CDFW Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................... 32

4.4 CCC Jurisdiction .......................................................................................................... 32 5 References. ................................................................................................................................... 33 Tables
Table 1 Summary of Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types within the Study Area .................................................................................................................. 12 Table 2 USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and CCC Jurisdictional Areas ............................................... 31 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Topographic Map of the Project Location .................................................................... 4 Figure 3 Project Location – Focused Extent ............................................................................... 5 Figure 4 Soils in the Study Area ................................................................................................ 11 Figure 5 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover in Study Area ........................................... 13 Figure 6 NWI and NHD within the Study Area Vicinity ............................................................. 18

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

ii
Figure 7a Jurisdictional Delineation – Overview Map ................................................................ 24 Figure 7b Jurisdictional Delineation – Detention Basin 1 and Riparian Forest .......................... 25 Figure 7c Jurisdictional Delineation – Wetlands 1 and 2, Roadside Drainage, and Riparian Forest ........................................................................................................... 26 Figure 7d Jurisdictional Delineation – Intermittent Stream and Riparian Forest ...................... 27 Figure 7e Jurisdictional Delineation – Agriculture Ditch 1 ......................................................... 28 Figure 7f Jurisdictional Delineation – Agriculture Ditch 2 ......................................................... 29 Figure 7g Jurisdictional Delineation – Detention Basin 2 ........................................................... 30 Appendices
Appendix A Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix B Regulatory Framework
Appendix C Representative Site Photographs
Appendix D Flora Compendium

Executive Summary

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 1
Executive Summary
This Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) Report has been prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. to assist the City of Pismo Beach with project planning for the Central Coast Blue Project located in the city of Grover Beach and the unincorporated community of Oceano in San Luis Obispo County, California.

This JD Report has been prepared and is suitable for use by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to confirm extent of potential jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to confirm extent of potential jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to confirm jurisdiction pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq., and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to confirm extent of potential jurisdiction pursuant to the California Coastal Act.1 This JD identified two detention basins, two wetlands, one roadway drainage, one intermittent stream, two agriculture ditches, and riparian vegetation within the Study Area that are potentially subject to USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or CCC jurisdictions should these features be impacted.

1 The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC. Therefore, the project is not expected to be subject to the requirements of the Local Coastal Programs for the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

2 1 Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) conducted a jurisdictional waters and wetlands delineation for the Central Coast Blue Project (project) in Oceano and Grover Beach, San Luis Obispo County, California.

The delineation was conducted to determine the location and extent of waters and wetlands within the project site that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and California Coastal Commission (CCC).

Proposed development in areas identified as jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands may be subject to the permit requirements of USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, CDFW pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), and CCC pursuant to the California Coastal Act (CCA).2 Actual jurisdictional areas are determined by state and federal authorities at the time regulatory permits are requested.

1.1 Project Location
Project components are located in Grover Beach and portions of unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, including the community of Oceano (Figure 1). The project is regionally accessible from U.S.

Highway 101 and locally accessible from State Route (SR) 1. The project components are located within the Oceano, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle within Township 32 South, Range 13 East, Sections 30 and 31, Mount Diablo baseline and meridian (USGS 2023a). The majority of project components are located within the California Coastal Zone (Figure 2). The Study Area analyzed herein is comprised of the footprints of project components as well as associated buffers around those features in order to capture potential direct and indirect impacts (Figure 2). Buffer sizes vary between project components. A 25-foot buffer on either side of sewer and water distribution pipelines was evaluated to account for the fact that pipelines would be located within the public right-of-way with exact locations dependent on existing utilities and other factors. Buffers varying between 0.1 and 2.5 acres were evaluated for the remaining project components, including injection and monitoring wells, based on topography, surrounding land uses, and biological resources present. The northern extent of the Study Area is located at 35.120928°N, -120.628666°W and the southern extent of the Study Area is located at

35.083430°N, -120.606831°W (Figure 2).

2 The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC. Therefore, the project is not expected to be subject to the requirements of the Local Coastal Programs for the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo.

Introduction

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 3
Figure 1 Regional Location

,w,-//4fSMM|-1
MW 1C/1D
Pa c if i c Ocean
\Study Area
|i i|Focused Extent Figure Boundary
Proposed Project Components
Advanced Treatment
Facility Complex
jjH|j Pump Station
O Injection Well
O Monitoring Well
Production WellO
Pipelines
Advanced Purified Water
to Injection Wells
Pismo Beach Ocean_Outfall Pipeline to
Advanced Treatment
Facility Complex
South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District
Wastewater Treatment Plant
to Advanced Treatment
Facility Complex
Sewer Line
Concentrate Discharge to_Pismo Beach Ocean Outfall
Pipeline
Existing Facilities
|Wastewater Treatment Plant
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Discharge Pipeline
“A00.25
L Miles
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2022.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

4 Figure 2 Topographic Map of the Project Location

Introduction

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 5
Figure 3 Project Location – Focused Extent

—
MW-NCMA North A /B/C
i_J Study Area
Y /A Coastal Zone
Advanced Treatment mmFacilityComplex
|j:[|Pump Station
-flgS.JPipelines
o Injection Well
O Monitoring Well
Production Well
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023.

Additional data provided by County of San Luis Obispo,2017.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

6 1.2 Project Description
The proposed project is a regional advanced purified water project intended to enhance supply reliability by reducing the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin’s vulnerability to drought and seawater intrusion. The project is a multi-agency collaboration between the City of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). The proposed project consists of an advanced treatment facility (ATF) complex (including an equalization basin, monitoring well, and new production well), pipelines, injection wells, monitoring wells, and a pump station. The project would also involve recharge of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin with advanced purified water via injection wells installed at various locations. Water for the project would be sourced from two of the region’s wastewater treatment facilities, the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the SSLOCSD WWTP. The project would alter the pumping regime of existing, operational production wells in the project area and would also include construction of one new production well (PB-23) at the ATF complex to replace an existing well that is failing. Water distribution pipelines would be located within the public rights-of-way along the majority of the pipeline alignments.

1.3 Environmental Setting
The weather in San Luis Obispo County is typical of a Mediterranean climate. Summers are warm and dry, while winters are cool and wet with most of the precipitation falling between November and March. The Study Area is located within the Central Coast geographic subregion of California (Baldwin et al. 2012) and is situated in an urban landscape. The Pacific Ocean and city of Pismo Beach are located just west of the Study Area with a coastal marine climate typical of the coastline in this region. Arroyo Grande Creek is located south of the majority of the Study Area, and a small component of the Study Area is located in the Cienega Valley, south of Arroyo Grande Creek. The overall topography is relatively flat throughout the Study Area. The land use within and surrounding the Study Area is predominately developed and comprised of residential buildings, commercial buildings, recreational areas, roadways, the Oceano Airport, and the SSLOCSD WWTP.

Methodology

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 7
2 Methodology

2.1 Regulatory Guidance
Within the limits of the Study Area, waters and wetlands potentially subject to USACE, RWQCB, CDFW and CCC jurisdictions were delineated in accordance with the following methodologies.

Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.

The lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction for non-wetland waters is determined by the presence of physical characteristics indicative of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The OHWM is identified in accordance with the applicable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections (33 CFR 328.3 and 33 CFR 328.4), Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 (USACE 2005), and various relevant technical publications, including, but not limited to, A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008a) and Review of Ordinary High-Water Mark Indicators for Delineating Arid Streams in the Southwest United States (USACE 2004). These regulations are also reviewed in the determination of non-jurisdictional features (e.g., roadway ditches excavated in uplands).

Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Potential wetland features were evaluated for the presence of wetland indicators; specifically, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology, according to 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 2020 Regional Wetland Plant List was used to determine the indicator status of the examined vegetation by the following indicator status categories: Upland (UPL), Facultative Upland (FACU), Facultative (FAC), Facultative Wetland (FACW), and Obligate Wetland (OBL) (Lichvar et al. 2020).

Representative sample points were taken in areas most likely to exhibit wetland characteristics (i.e., the prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation and suitable landform) and examined in the field for potential wetland indicators. Sample points were not conducted in areas with an obvious prevalence of upland vegetation or in areas where the landform would not support wetland features. USACE Wetland Determination Datasheets (USACE 2010) completed at wetland sample points are provided in Appendix A.

CDFW Streambeds and Riparian Habitat
The extent of potential streambeds, streambanks, and riparian habitat subject to CDFW jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC is 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.

Waters of the State and Wetland Waters of the State
The limits of non-wetland “waters of the State,” as defined under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, were conservatively determined to be coterminous with the potential CDFW- jurisdictional streambeds and riparian habitat previously described based on current interpretation

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

8 of jurisdiction by the Central Coast RWQCB. Therefore, the lateral extent of delineated boundaries includes all streambanks and/or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.

The potential wetland waters of the State were evaluated pursuant to State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2019), which acknowledges that “wetland waters of the State” should be delineated using the standard USACE wetland delineation procedures and proclaims the SWRCB takes jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The SWRCB and Central Coast RWQCB have jurisdiction over wetland waters of the State.

Coastal Wetlands
In accordance with the CCA, the CCC defines coastal wetlands as generally extending seaward to the State’s outer limit of jurisdiction (i.e., three nautical miles from the Mean High 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 parameters (California Code of Regulations Title 14 [14 CCR]). The one parameter definition, in which the CCC defines a wetland, is as follows:

Wetland 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. (14 CCR Section 13577) The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project under the CCA rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC. Therefore, the project is not expected to be subject to the requirements of the Local Coastal Programs for the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo.

2.2 Literature Review
Prior to the field survey, Rincon reviewed aerial imagery (Google Earth 2023) of the Study Area, the Oceano, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (USGS 2023a), the Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA, NRCS] 2023a), the National Hydric Soils List by State: California (USDA, NRCS 2023b), and Pismo Beach, California weather history3 (Western Regional Climate Center 2023). These resources were reviewed to better characterize the Study Area and its surroundings from a hydrologic, geologic, and topographic perspective and to determine if any soil units mapped in the Study Area are classified as hydric.

Additionally, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2023), the National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2023b), and a previous Biological Resources

3 No climate data was available for Oceano, California; therefore, the closest location for which climate data is available (Pismo Beach) was utilized.

Methodology

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 9
Assessment prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (2021) were reviewed to determine if any wetlands and/or other waters were previously documented in or near the Study Area.

2.3 Field Survey
On January 20 and 25, 2023, Rincon Biologists Carolynn Honeycutt and Frances Glaser surveyed the Study Area on foot where accessible for potential wetland and non-wetland features. For areas where foot access was inaccessible, aerial photographs were reviewed (Google Earth 2023). Current federal and State policies, methods, and guidelines were used to identify and delineate aquatic features, as summarized under Regulatory Guidance. Further detail on regulatory jurisdiction is provided in Appendix B.

During the field delineation, general site characteristics were noted, vegetation present on site was documented (Appendix C), and photographs of aquatic features and the surrounding areas were taken (Appendix D). Data collection was focused on potential jurisdictional features and was focused on areas that served as a best representation of the conditions of that feature.

The extent of aquatic features, wetland sample points, and vegetation community boundaries were collected in the field using a Trimble Global Positioning System unit with sub-meter accuracy and were subsequently transferred to Rincon’s Geographic Information Systems software program (i.e., ArcGIS Pro) to produce a delineation figure.

A significant rain event occurred between January 9 to 14, 2023, the week prior to the field survey, in which the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Station recorded an accumulation of five inches of rain (Weather Underground 2023). Because the rain event accumulated more water than typically documented for the area, more surface water was observed than normal.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

10 3 Delineation Results

3.1 Soils
The Study Area is located in the San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part soil survey area. The USDA, NRCS Web Soil Survey delineates three soil map units within the Study Area: Mocho variant fine sandy loam, Mocho fine sandy loam (0 to 2 percent slopes, major land resource area 14), Oceano sand (0 to 9 percent slopes), Marimel sandy clay loam (occasionally flooded), Dune land, and Psamments and Fluvents (wet) (USDA, NRCS 2023a). Site-specific soil observations are consistent with those mapped by the USDA, NRCS Web Soil Survey. Soil distribution within 100 feet of the locations of project components is depicted in Figure 4, and each soil map unit is described below. All soils except Oceano sand are included on the National Hydric Soils List, which lists soils that are permanently or seasonally saturated by water, resulting in anaerobic conditions typically found in wetlands (USDA, NRCS 2023b).

Mocho Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Major Land Resource Area 14 Mocho fine sandy loam soils are well-drained soils that occur on alluvial fans and flats. They are formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. A typical soil profile consists of fine sandy loam to a depth of 18 inches, silty clay loam between 18 and 45 inches, and stratified sand to gravelly sand between 45 and 60 inches. For Mocho fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, available water storage is moderate (about 6.5 inches), and the runoff class is low. This soil map unit is moderately alkaline.

Delineation Results

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 11
Figure 4 Soils in the Study Area
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2023.

Additional data provided by USDA NRCS SSURGO 2022 .

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

12 Dune Land
Dune land is excessively drained soil that occurs on beach dunes. It consists of 90 percent dune land soils and nine percent other minor components. A typical profile consists of fine sand to a depth of 60 inches. Available water storage is low, and the runoff class is low.

Psamments and Fluvents, Wet
Psamments and fluvents are entisols, which have no diagnostic horizons. In the Study Area, they are found on floodplains that receive frequent deposits of alluvium. Fluvents are freely-drained and formed in recent water-deposited sediments along rivers and small streams. They are frequently flooded. Psamments are unconsolidated sandy deposits common in dune habitat. In the Study Area, these mixed entisols are found on and near permanently wet areas, such as ponds and vegetated wetlands.

3.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Ten vegetation communities and land cover types were observed in the Study Area. Brief descriptions of the vegetation communities and land cover types are provided in the subsections below. Table 1 lists each documented vegetation community and land cover type and provides their approximate acreage and the percent area coverage in the Study Area. Figure 5 depicts the locations of each vegetation community and land cover type in the Study Area.

The vegetation classification system used for this analysis is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009). The land cover types that are not described in the MCV2 were classified using conventional naming practices (e.g., developed/disturbed).

Table 1 Summary of Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types within the Study Area
Type Approximate Acreage (acres) Approximate Percent Area Agriculture 3.31 5%
Arroyo Willow Thickets 2.45 4%
California Bulrush Marshes 0.06 <1%
Coyote Brush Scrub 0.31 <1%
Developed/Landscaped 37.75 62%
Eucalyptus Grove 3.56 6%
Iceplant Mats 0.20 <1%
Ruderal 10.53 17%
Saltgrass Flats 0.62 1%
Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland 1.78 3%
Total 60.5 100.00%

Delineation Results

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 13
Figure 5 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover in Study Area

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

14 Agriculture
The agriculture land cover type covers approximately 3.31 acres of the Study Area. This land cover type includes active agriculture operations, including heavily disturbed bare ground areas and row crops such as strawberries. Sparse vegetation is present in portions of this land cover type, including non-native cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora, UPL), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare, FAC) and annual stinging nettle (Urtica urens, FAC).

Arroyo Willow Thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance) The arroyo willow thickets vegetation community is typically found between 0 to 9,186 feet (0 to 2,800 meters) in elevation within stream banks and benches and slope seeps as well as along drainages with sediment depositions. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis, FACW) contributes to at least 50 percent relative cover of the tree or shrub canopy.

Within the Study Area, this community is found associated with Arroyo Grande Creek, Meadow Creek, roadway drainages and intermittent streams. Vegetation consists of a canopy of mature arroyo willow and red willow (Salix laevigata, FACW) trees with a dense understory dominated by California blackberry (Rubus ursinus, FAC), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis, UPL), stinging nettle, poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum, FACU) and English ivy (Hedera helix, UPL). Arroyo willow thickets cover approximately 2.45 acres of the Study Area.

California Bulrush Marshes (Schoenoplectus [Acutus, Californicus] Herbaceous Alliance)
California bulrush marshes are an herbaceous emergent wetland vegetation community that occurs in brackish to freshwater marshes, estuaries, sloughs, ponds, and swamps as well as along stream shores. The soils have a high organic content and are poorly aerated. Hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus, OBL) and/or California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus, OBL) are dominant or co-dominant where either species must have greater than 50 percent relative cover.

Common associates include a variety of other freshwater wetland perennial species such as cattails (Typha spp., OBL) and alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus, OBL). Emergent trees and shrubs may be present at low cover. This vegetation community is typically less than 15 feet tall, and the cover is intermittent to continuous. This is a CDFW-designated sensitive vegetation community (CDFW 2023).

Within the Study Area, this community occurs adjacent to the pipeline alignment along Railroad Street and in the vicinity of MW-2D/2E/2F, covering approximately 0.06 acre of the Study Area. This vegetation type is comprised of a dense herbaceous layer of California bulrush with tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis, FACW) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata, FAC) also present.

Coyote Brush Scrub (Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance) Coyote brush scrub is a coastal scrub vegetation community that occurs on coastal bluffs, terraces, stabilized dunes, stream sides, and other similar areas. The soils are variable and contain sandy to relatively heavy clay. Coyote brush is dominant to co-dominant in the shrub canopy where it must have greater than 50 percent absolute cover in the shrub canopy. Common co-dominants and associates include California coffeeberry (Frangula californica, UPL), coast silk tassel (Garrya elliptica, UPL), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica, UPL), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum, UPL), and other similar coastal scrub and riparian shrub species. Emergent trees (i.e., coast live oak [Quercus agrifolia, UPL]) may be present at low cover. This vegetation community is

Delineation Results

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 15
typically less than three meters tall, the shrub canopy is variable, and the herbaceous layer is variable.

Within the Study Area, this community occurs along the southwestern portion of the Oceano Airport and covers approximately 0.31 acre. The shrub layer of this vegetation community is dominated by coyote brush and California blackberry with stinging nettle, ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL), and short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, UPL) also present.

Developed/Landscaped
Developed/Landscaped land cover is the largest land cover type in the Study Area, occupying approximately 37.75 acres. This land cover consists of areas that have been previously developed or otherwise physically modified to the extent that they no longer contain normal soil conditions and no longer support most vegetation. Developed land in the Study Area is characterized by the presence of permanent or semi-permanent structures including residential and commercial buildings, campgrounds, gravel lots, pavement including parking lots and roadways, or hardscape.

This land cover type may also contain areas that are sparsely vegetated, primarily with non-native species. Landscaped land refers to vegetated areas associated with development, specifically planted for aesthetic beautification. Landscaped plants in the Study Area include Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa, UPL), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata, UPL), and African daisy (Dimorphotheca sinuate, UPL). This land cover type is not officially identified in MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009).

Eucalyptus Grove (Eucalyptus spp. Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance) Eucalyptus grove is 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 0 to 1,900 meters in elevation. Eucalyptus species consist of over 80 percent cover within the tree layer. Eucalyptus has a California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) rating of “Moderate” for its invasive tendencies (Cal-IPC 2023). The Study Area contains 3.56 acres of this vegetation community.

Within the Study Area, this community is dominated by blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus, UPL) as the sole tree species. The herbaceous layer is sparse and primarily consists of weedy non- native species such as black mustard (Brassica nigra, UPL). This community is found within the northwest portion of the Study Area, where it appears to have been planted as a windbreak, and immediately north of Calvin Court within the ATF complex location.

Iceplant Mats (Mesembryanthemum spp. – Carpobrotus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance)
Iceplant mats (Mesembryanthemum spp. – Carpobrotus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance) are typically found on bluffs, disturbed land, and sand dunes of the immediate coastline from sea level to 330 feet (100 meters) in elevation. Iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis, UPL), common iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum, UPL), or other iceplant provide at least 80 percent absolute cover close to the coast or provide at least 50 percent relative cover on bluffs, dunes, or disturbed lands.

Iceplant is a non-native invasive species, originally planted in the 1940s and 1950s for landscaping and dune stabilization (Cal-IPC 2023). These perennial ground-hugging succulents form large monospecific mats (Sawyer et al. 2009). Iceplant has a Cal-IPC rating of “High” for its invasive

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

16 tendencies (Cal-IPC 2023). This hardy species spreads readily from landscaped areas into dune and scrub habitats, outcompeting native species for space, nutrients, and moisture. Within the Study Area, this community is associated with development and occurs along existing roadways. Iceplant is the dominant species, with non-native cheeseweed mallow and native blue elderberry (Sambucas nigra ssp. caerulea, FACU) also present. Iceplant mat covers approximately 0.20 acre of the Study Area.

Ruderal
Ruderal vegetation is associated with and adjacent to areas of active disturbance within the Study Area. This vegetation community occurs where ground has previously been disturbed and is currently not in active use. The ruderal vegetation is dominated by cheeseweed mallow, black mustard, short-podded mustard, telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora, UPL), and wild radish (Raphanus sativus, UPL), with non-native grasses and forbs also present. Ruderal vegetation covers approximately 10.53 acres of the Study Area, the second largest community in the Study Area.

Saltgrass Flats (Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Alliance) Saltgrass flats is a low growing herbaceous vegetation community that occurs in costal salt marshes, playas, swales and terraces along washes that are intermittently flooded from 0 to 1,500 meters. It is most often associated with alkaline or saline soils that are poorly drained. Saltgrass, spiny rush (Juncus acutus, FACW) or Cooper’s rush (Juncus cooperi, FACW) are dominate species with greater than 50 percent relative cover.

Within the Study Area, this community is associated with the freshwater emergent wetland located along the southern portion of the Oceano Airport and covers approximately 0.62 acre. This vegetation community is dominated by saltgrass and fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa, OBL) with non-native Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon, FACU) and beaked spikerush (Eleocharis rostellata, OBL) also present.

Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland (Avena spp. – Bromus spp.

Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance)
Wild oats and annual brome grassland is an open-to-dense naturalized vegetation community that is dominated or co-dominated by non-native, often invasive, annual grasses (e.g., wild oats [Avena spp., UPL], ripgut brome, and foxtail barley [Hordeum murinum, FACU]). This vegetation community is often interspersed with native and non-native forbs. Emergent trees and shrubs may be present but at low cover.

This vegetation community forms an almost continuous cover over approximately 1.78 acres of the Study Area. This vegetation type is dominated by ripgut brome and wild oats, with Bermuda grass, English plantain (Plantago lanceolata, FAC), cheeseweed mallow, common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus, UPL), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa, UPL), black mustard, and short-podded mustard also present. This vegetation community is located surrounding the saltgrass flats within the southern portion of the Oceano Airport within the Study Area. Signs of active mowing were observed within the Oceano Airport.

Delineation Results

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 17

3.3 Hydrology
The Study Area is located within the Meadow Creek-Frontal Pacific Ocean subwatershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 12 – 180600060705) and Lower Arroyo Grande Creek subwatershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 180600060605) (USGS 2023b). The majority of the Study Area is within the Meadow Creek- Frontal Pacific Ocean Subwatershed (HUC 12-180600060705) and contains most of the developed portion of the Study Area. Stormwater within the Study Area typically flows through roadway drainages or along roadways into the City of Grover Beach’s storm drain system or the County of San Luis Obispo’s storm drain system that eventually flow into the Pacific Ocean.

No portions of Arroyo Grande Creek or Meadow Creek are located within the Study Area. One National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) flowline and one NHD waterbody are documented within the Study Area - a canal ditch located in the vicinity of NCMA South A/B/C and a pond at the intersection of South 13th street and The Pike in the vicinity of MW-4C/4D (Figure 6). (The mapped pond is a City-owned stormwater detention basin that is part of the City’s storm drainage system.) The NWI depicts a Freshwater Emergent Wetland within 100 feet of MW-2C/2D/2E, Freshwater Forested Shrub/Wetland areas occurring within the Oceano Airport, and Forested Shrub/Wetland and Riverine Habitat areas occurring at or within 100 feet of MW-NCMA South A/B/C. Additionally, the NWI depicts Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland areas associated with Meadow Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek occurring at or within 100 feet of some of the proposed injection well, monitoring well, and water distribution pipeline locations. The drainages and wetlands mapped by the NWI are generally consistent with the observations made during the field reconnaissance survey.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

18 Figure 6 NWI and NHD within the Study Area Vicinity

J Study Area
NHD Features
v\vv Lake/Pond
Swamp/Marsh
Sea/Ocean
Artificial Path
Canal/Ditch
Coastline
Stream/River
NWI Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
imagery proviaea oy Microsoft amg ana its licensors zuzi.

Additioanl data provided by U.S.Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset.2022 and U.S.Fish &Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory,2022.

Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 19
4 Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and
Wetlands
Based on the field delineation, two detention basins, two wetlands, a roadway drainage, an intermittent stream, and two agriculture ditches potentially subject to the jurisdictions of USACE, RWQCB, CDFW and/or CCC are present within the Study Area (Figure 7a through Figure 7g).

Descriptions of these potentially jurisdictional features are provided below, and their locations and the locations of their respective sample points are depicted in Figure 7c. Completed Arid West Wetland Determination Data Sheets are provided for each sample point in Appendix A, and representative photographs are included in Appendix D. The acquisition of regulatory permits from USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and CCC would only be required if project activities impact the identified features.

Detention Basins
Two detention basins were observed within the Study Area. Both detention basins were observed with standing water due to a recent precipitation event prior to the survey. Both basins were excavated by the City of Grover Beach to be part of the City of Grover Beach Stormwater Management Program (City of Grover Beach 2010).

An approximately 0.06-acre detention basin was observed west of Barca Street (Figure 7a; Appendix D, Photograph 1) near MW-2D/2E/2F. In the NWI, this basin is defined as an excavated emergent “seasonally flooded” (PEM1Cx) wetland (USFWS 2023). This detention basin is surrounded by development, and several outfall pipes were observed along the banks of the basin. The basin floor was dominated by California bulrush with the banks dominated by arroyo willow and non-native grasses, including ripgut brome. Standing water was also observed during the survey at the bottom of the basin. In review of historical aerial imagery (Google Earth 2023), this basin does contain water following average precipitation events, and vegetation within the basin and along its banks depicted in historical imagery were consistent with observations during the survey. Due to inaccessibility, no wetland sample points were collected at this location; however, it is assumed this seasonally wet depression contains all three wetland parameters. The limits of each vegetation community within the basin were mapped digitally using aerial imagery.

A second detention basin was observed adjacent to South 13th Street, at MW-4C/4D (Figure 7g). In the NHD, this basin is defined as a lake/pond feature (USGS 2023b). The approximately 0.10-acre detention basin is surrounded by active agriculture operations, roadways, and residential buildings.

The basin contained non-native, upland vegetation including iceplant along the banks, and surface water was observed at the time of the survey (Appendix D, Photograph 2). Based on historical aerials, this basin typically does not hold water for an extended period of time (Google Earth 2023).

The limits of the basin surface water at the time of the survey were mapped digitally using aerial photography. Due to inaccessibility, no wetland sample points were collected at this location; however, based on the nature of this basin for stormwater collection, it is assumed to be a seasonal wetland with all three wetland parameters.

Detention Basin 1 and Detention Basin 2 are excavated in uplands, have no connectivity to any drainages or streams and are specifically excluded from CWA jurisdiction by definition as a non- jurisdictional water under 33 CFR 328.3(b)10. As such, they are likely not under the jurisdiction of

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

20 the USACE or RWQCB pursuant to the CWA. The detention basins also would not likely be considered under jurisdiction of CDFW because they lack a streambed and an associated riparian corridor. However, these detention basins are likely considered waters of the State under the jurisdiction of RWQCB pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In addition, a portion of Detention Basin 1 is located within the Coastal Zone and meets the definition of a coastal wetland. As a result, this portion of Detention Basin 1 is likely regulated by the CCC pursuant to the CCA.

Wetlands
Two wetlands were observed within the Oceano Airport within the Study Area (Figure 7c). Both areas are topographic low points that likely accumulate stormwater runoff from the airport. A total of 0.49 acre of emergent wetlands occurs within the Study Area at locations where water distribution pipelines are proposed.

Wetland 1 was observed within the southwestern portion of Oceano Airport. The area is a low depressional area that collects stormwater runoff from the airport (Appendix D, Photograph 3). Due to its location within the Oceano Airport, the area is routinely disturbed by active airport maintenance, including mowing. The wetland is approximately 37 feet at its largest width and approximately 540 feet in length, totaling approximately 0.31 acre. The area is surrounded by wild oat and annual grassland vegetation community with arroyo willows to the north and northwest.

A wetland sample point (SP) and an upland SP were investigated. SP-1 was excavated where vegetation began to transition to upland species and topography began to elevate from the depression. Vegetation at SP-1 was dominated by saltgrass with ripgut brome. Although SP-1 passed the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation, no hydric soils or wetland hydrology was observed; therefore, SP-1 was determined to be located outside of a wetland. SP-2 was taken in an area most representative of the wetland feature. Although the vegetation community at SP-2 is best described as saltgrass flats based on MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009), it is dominated by fleshy jaumea with beaked sedge and saltgrass. Because the dominate species in this area contains an OBL indicator status, SP- 2 passed the dominance test and is therefore considered to contain hydrophytic vegetation. The soil pit was excavated to a depth of 12 inches. The soil profile was uniform and comprised of loam with a dark surface color of 2.5Y 3/2. Redox was limited at two percent. Standard hydric soil indicators were not observed, but problematic soils were indicated with moderately alkaline soils. Primary wetland hydrology indicators were observed, including a high water table and surface water averaging approximately four inches in depth, which exceeded the typical hydrology due to the significant rain event that occurred a week prior to the survey. Wetland 1 thus meets the definition of a wetland with all three wetland parameters.

Wetland 2 was observed within the southeastern side of the Oceano Airport property (Appendix D, Photograph 4). The area is a low depressional area that collects stormwater runoff from the airport and the adjacent SSLOCSD WWTP. Due to its location within the Oceano Airport, the area is routinely disturbed by active airport maintenance, including mowing. The depressional area spans approximately two feet in width and approximately 190 feet in length, totaling approximately 0.18 acre. The area is surrounded by wild oat and annual grassland vegetation community. SP-3 was collected adjacent to standing water. The area was dominated by ripgut brome and wild oats; however, the vegetation parameter is considered problematic because the area is routinely disturbed by airport maintenance activities. A soil sample was excavated, and soils were synonymous to SP-1, including problematic hydric soils due to moderately alkaline soils. Standing water, a primary wetland hydrology indicator, was observed averaging six inches in depth and about

Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 21
two feet in width, and a high water table was observed, likely due to the significant rain event prior to the survey. Although vegetation and soils indicators were problematic, they were assumed present along with wetland hydrology. As a result, SP-3 meets the definition of a three-parameter wetland. SP-4 was collected where wetland hydrology was absent and was determined to be upland.

Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 are considered isolated. As such, they do not meet the definition of adjacent wetlands under 33 CFR 328.3 and will not likely be under the jurisdiction of the USACE.

These wetlands also would not likely be considered under jurisdiction of CDFW because they lack a streambed and/or associated riparian corridor. However, these wetlands are considered to be wetland waters of the State and subject to RWQCB jurisdiction under State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (2019). These wetlands are also in the Coastal Zone within the original jurisdiction of the CCC and meet the definition of a coastal wetland.4 Therefore, the wetlands are likely regulated by the CCC pursuant to the CCA.

Roadway Drainage
A roadway drainage was observed adjacent to Aloha Place that conveys water south towards Meadow Creek through a 24-inch culvert with a concrete apron (Figure 7c; Appendix D, Photograph 5). The drainage begins within arroyo willow thicket comprised of arroyo willows and red willows.

The roadway drainage is a swale-like feature with no defined bed, lacks a defined OHWM, and is vegetated with ripgut brome, prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola, FACU), English plantain, and Bermuda grass. The top of bank spans approximately four feet in width, and the arroyo willow thicket extends approximately three feet beyond the top of bank. The drainage likely receives water runoff from the airport, including a swale feature observed to the east within the arroyo willow thickets. The drainage likely conveys flowing water only during precipitation events or immediately thereafter.

However, due to the significant rain event prior to the survey and a high water table in the area, standing water was observed within the drainage at a depth of approximately three inches.

Approximately 0.01 acre of the roadway drainage is located within the Study Area.

Since the roadway drainage is an ephemeral feature that is specifically excluded by definition as a non-jurisdictional water under 33 CFR 328.3(b)3, it will not likely be under the jurisdiction of USACE or RWQCB pursuant to the CWA. However, the drainage will likely be considered a water of the State regulated by the Central Coast RWQCB pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and a CDFW streambed and riparian habitat pursuant to CDFW jurisdiction under the CFGC. The roadway drainage is also in the Coastal Zone within the original jurisdiction of the CCC and meets the definition of a coastal wetland. Therefore, the roadway drainage is likely regulated by the CCC pursuant to the CCA.

Intermittent Stream
An intermittent stream was observed east of Delta Lane (Figure 7d; Appendix D, Photograph 6). The intermittent stream has direct connectivity to Arroyo Grande Creek through large culverts south of the Study Area. The intermittent stream contained positive indicators for an OHWM with a defined bed and bank and was approximately three feet in width with banks approximately three feet in height. The stream is surrounded by arroyo willow thicket that recently experienced understory vegetation clearing and tree trimming. The arroyo willow vegetation extends from the access

4 The Coastal Commission retains coastal permitting jurisdiction over certain lands in the Coastal Zone, such as tidal lands and public trust lands. Its jurisdiction over these areas is known as “original” or “retained” jurisdiction. Local agencies with adopted LCPs do not have permitting authority over development in these areas.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

22 roadway to the SSLOCSD WWTP to approximately 20 feet from the OHWM. During the time of the survey, water was observed within the stream flowing from Arroyo Grande Creek through a culvert.

This channel is likely overflow from the Arroyo Grande Creek during precipitation events or is tidally influenced by proximity to the Pacific Ocean. It also directs roadway drainage from Delta Lane and the Oceano Airport. Approximately 0.001 acre of intermittent stream is located within the Study Area.

The intermittent stream is a relatively permanent water that is a non-navigable tributary to a traditional navigable water and meets the criteria required to be considered a water of the U.S. and State. Therefore, it is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE and RWQCB pursuant to the CWA. The stream and its associated riparian corridor are also likely under CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to the CFGC. The intermittent stream is also in the Coastal Zone within the original jurisdiction of the CCC and meets the definition of a coastal wetland. Therefore, the intermittent stream is likely regulated by the CCC pursuant to the CCA.

Agriculture Ditches
Two agriculture ditches were observed within the Study Area (Figure 7e and Figure 7f). These ditches are located adjacent to active agricultural lands and predominantly receive water from irrigation discharges. These ditches are routinely modified and maintained for agriculture operations.

Agriculture Ditch 1 is located west of the intersection of Produce Place and 26th Street, near MW- North A/B/C (Appendix D, Photograph 7). The ditch passes through a 12-inch pipe culvert under an access roadway and flows west, meandering between the piles that support railroad tracks. The ditch had been recently modified through excavation and is unvegetated. An OHWM was identified by the presence of a defined bed and bank, with the top of bank spanning approximately six feet wide. No water was observed within the agriculture ditch during the survey. Agriculture Ditch 1 is an artificially irrigated area that would revert back to upland should irrigation water cease and is specifically excluded by definition as a non-jurisdictional water under 33 CFR 328.3. As a result, this feature will not likely be under the jurisdiction of the USACE or RWQCB pursuant to the CWA.

However, the ditch will likely be considered a water of the State regulated by the Central Coast RWQCB pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. This agriculture ditch would not likely be considered under jurisdiction of CDFW. In addition, this ditch is not located within the Coastal Zone and therefore would not be regulated by the CCC pursuant to the CCA.

Agriculture Ditch 2 is located approximately 0.57 mile southwest of Agriculture Ditch 1, east of Big Pocket Lake, and adjacent to Produce Place near MW-NCMA South A/B/C. Due to inaccessibility, the ditch was delineated using aerial imagery, the NWI, and the NHD. The NHD depicts a Canal/Ditch that originates from Los Berros Creek, travels within 25 feet of MW-NCMA South A/B/C, and connects to a canal/ditch that eventually terminates into Arroyo Grande Creek (USGS 2023b). The NWI depicts Agriculture Ditch 2 as a seasonally flooded, excavated stream bed (R4SBCx) that originates in the agriculture fields approximately 0.77 mile to the east of MW-NCMA South A/B/C and a temporarily flooded forested broad-leaved wetland (PFO1A) to the west of MW-NCMA South A/B/C (USFWS 2023). Through aerial imagery review, Agriculture Ditch 2 appears to receive water primarily from irrigation input. However, consistent with the NHD, water may enter from Los Berros Creek during precipitation events. No adjacent riparian vegetation was observed in aerial imagery, and jurisdiction of the ditch is likely bound between the banks. Agriculture Ditch 2 may be a relatively permanent water that is a tributary to a traditional navigable water (i.e., the Pacific Ocean via Arroyo Grande Creek). Therefore, this ditch meets the criteria required to be considered a water

Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 23
of the U.S. and State potentially under the jurisdiction of the USACE and RWQCB pursuant to the CWA. The ditch likely also falls under potential CDFW jurisdiction pursuant the CFGC. In addition, this ditch is in the Coastal Zone and meets the definition of a coastal wetland. As such, this ditch is likely regulated by the CCC pursuant to the CCA.

Riparian Forest
Adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek, arroyo willow thicket riparian habitat was observed (Appendix D, Photograph 8). This habitat extends beyond the tops of banks of these creeks and is restricted due to development associated with the SSLOCSD WWTP and Aloha Place. As previously discussed under Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types, this community includes hydrophytic vegetation associated with a stream and is defined as a riparian corridor. The riparian corridor provides habitat for plants and wildlife; therefore, it is within the boundary of the riparian limits regulated by CDFW pursuant to the CFGC and within potential jurisdiction of RWQCB pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In addition, riparian habitats associated with Meadow Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek are in the Coastal Zone within the original jurisdiction of the CCC and would be regulated by the CCC pursuant to the CCA.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

24 Figure 7a Jurisdictional Delineation – Overview Map

Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 25
Figure 7b Jurisdictional Delineation – Detention Basin 1 and Riparian Forest

Coordinate System :NAD 1983 State Plane California IV
Projection:Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum:North American 1983

35.112788
-120.627663 1inch =300 feet
Imagery Provided by ESRI,2023
Created on February 6th,2023
Map Created by:Rincon Consultants,Inc.
|Study Area
California Coastal Zone
CCC/CDFW /RWQCB Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetlands
Riparian and
Waters of the State
(0.25 ac./917 linear ft )
CCC/RWQCB Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetland and
Waters of the State
(0.20 ac/125 linear ft )
NA0150300 35.106028
II -120.621311Feet
15-01882 PB,PB RGS CEQA JD maps
FigX Jurisdictional DelineationImageryprovidedbyESRIanditslicensors©2023 .Page 1 of 6

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

26 Figure 7c Jurisdictional Delineation – Wetlands 1 and 2, Roadside Drainage, and Riparian Forest

Mendel Dr Coordinate System:NAD 1983 State Plane California IVProjection:Lambert Conformal Conic Datum:North American 1983

35.104626
-120.627654
Study Area
#Wetland Sample Point
Culvert
Non-Jurisdictional Swale
California Coastal Zone
CCC/CDFW /RWQCB Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetlands
Riparian and
Waters of the State
(1.31 ac./l,880 linear ft)
CDFW /RWQCB Jurisdiction
Streambed and Waters of the State
(0.02 ac./175 linear ft)
CCC/RWQCB Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetlands and
Wetland Waters of the State
(0.51 ac./l,026 linear ft)
NA0150300 35.097856III-120.621326Feet
PB,PB RGS CEQA JD matImageryprovidedbyESRIanditslicensors©2023.lurisdictional Del

Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 27
Figure 7d Jurisdictional Delineation – Intermittent Stream and Riparian Forest

Coordinate System :NAD 1983 State Plane California IV
Projection:Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum:North American 1983
1inch =200 feet
Imagery Provided by ESRI,2023
Created on February 6th,2023
Map Created by:Rincon Consultants,Inc.
|Study Area
California Coastal Zone
CCC/CDFW /RWQCB Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetlands
Riparian and
Waters of the State
(0.25 ac./742 linear ft )
USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction
Non -wetland waters of
the U.S.and State
(0.001 ac./37 linear ft )
200 N0100 35.097281AII-120.617206Feet
Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors ©2023 .RGS CEQA JD mapPage3of6FigXJurisdictionalDelineate

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

28 Figure 7e Jurisdictional Delineation – Agriculture Ditch 1

Coordinate System :NAD 1983 State Plane California IV
Projection:Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum:North American 1983
1inch =100 feet

35.091352
120.602333
Imagery Provided by ESRI,2023
Created on February 6th,2023
Map Created by:Rincon Consultants,Inc.
||Study Area
#Culvert
California Coastal Zone
RWQCB Jurisdiction
Waters of the State
(0.09 ac/380 linear ft )
NA050100 35.089102
I -120.600229Feet
FigX Jurisdictional DelineationImageryprovidedbyESRIanditslicensors©2023.Page 4 of 6

Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 29
Figure 7f Jurisdictional Delineation – Agriculture Ditch 2

I Coordinate System:NAD 1983 State Plane California IV
Projection:Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum:North American 1983

35.083998
-120.606988 1inch =50 feet
Imagery Provided by ESRI,2023
Created on February 6th,2023
Map Created by:Rincon Consultants,Inc.
'•I
])Study Area
California Coastal Zone
CCC/CDFW/RWQCB/USACE Jurisdiction
Coastal Wetland
CDFW Streambed
and Non-wetland
Waters of the U.S
and State
(0.07 ac/192 linear ft )
NA02550 35.082873
-120.605931I
Feet
15-01882 PB,PB RGS CEQA JD maps
FigXJImageryprovidedbyESRIanditslicensors©2023.Page 5 of 6 Delineation

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

30 Figure 7g Jurisdictional Delineation – Detention Basin 2

Assessment of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 31
Table 2 USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and CCC Jurisdictional Areas Jurisdictional
Area
USACE Jurisdiction RWQCB Jurisdiction
CDFW
Jurisdiction
CCC/City of Grover
Beach/San Luis
Obispo County
Jurisdiction
Non-Wetland
Waters
of the U.S.1
(ac./lin. ft.)
Wetland
Waters of
the U.S.
(ac.)
Non-wetland
Waters
of the State2
(ac. / lin. ft.)
Wetland
Waters of
the State
(ac.)
CDFW
Jurisdictional
Streambed3
(ac. / lin. ft.) CCC Wetland (ac.)
Detention
Basin 1
--/-- -- 0.20/125 -- --/-- 0.20
Detention
Basin 2
--/-- -- --/-- 0.11 --/-- --
Wetland 1 --/-- -- --/-- 0.31 --/-- 0.31
Wetland 2 --/-- -- --/-- 0.20 --/-- 0.18
Roadway
Drainage
--/-- -- 0.02/175 -- 0.32/175 0.32
Intermittent
Stream

0.001/37 -- 0.001/37 -- 0.13/245 0.13
Agriculture
Ditch 1
--/-- -- 0.09/380 -- -- --
Agriculture
Ditch 2

0.07/192 -- 0.07/192 -- 0.07/192 0.07
Arroyo
Willow
Riparian
--/-- -- 1.81/3,539 -- 1.81/3,539 1.48
Total 0.07/229 -- 2.19/4,448 0.60 2.33/4,151 2.69
USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; CCC = California Coastal Commission; ac. = acre; lin. ft. = linear feet 1 Includes culverted waters of the U.S.
2 Section 401 of the CWA and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act waters of the State, calculated to top of bank or edge of riparian. 3 Streambed calculated to top of bank or edge of riparian, whichever is greater

4.1 USACE Jurisdiction
The Study Area contains approximately 0.07 acre (229 linear feet) of potential non-wetland waters of the U.S., which consist of an intermittent stream and an agriculture ditch, both of which have direct connection to the Pacific Ocean.

4.2 RWQCB Jurisdiction
The Study Area contains approximately 2.19 acres (4,448 linear feet) of potential waters of the State and approximately 0.60 acre of potential wetland waters of the State. These potential State waters consist of detention basins, roadway drainages, intermittent streams, agriculture ditches, and wetlands. Riparian vegetation is also conservatively included based on Rincon’s understanding of the current jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

32 4.3 CDFW Jurisdiction
The Study Area contains approximately 2.33 acres (4,151 linear feet) of potential CDFW streambed jurisdiction. Waters included in potential CDFW streambed jurisdiction consist of a roadway drainage, intermittent stream, an agriculture ditch, and associated riparian vegetation.

4.4 CCC Jurisdiction
The majority of the Study Area is located within the Coastal Zone and contains approximately 2.69 acres of potential CCC wetlands pursuant to the CCA.5 These CCC wetlands contain characteristics of at least one wetland parameter and consist of a detention basin, wetlands, roadway drainage, intermittent stream, agriculture ditch, and associated riparian vegetation.

5 The City of Pismo Beach is currently pursuing acquisition of a consolidated coastal development permit from the CCC for the project rather than separate coastal development permits from the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC. Therefore, the project is not expected to be subject to the requirements of the Local Coastal Programs for the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo.

References

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation 33
5 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. University of California Press.

Berkeley, California.

Brady, Roland H. and Kris Vyverberg. 2013. Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility-scale Solar Power Plants. CEC-500-2014- 013. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-500-2014- 013.pdf. Accessed February 2023.

California Coastal Commission (CCC). 2011. Definition and Delineation of Wetlands in the Coastal Zone. Available at: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2011/10/W4-10-2011.pdf .

Accessed January 2023.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. A Field Guide to Stream and Alteration Agreements. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/LSA (accessed February 2023).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. California Natural Community List.

Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline .

Accessed January 2023.

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2023. Cal-IPC Inventory, Central West region. Available at:
https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/ . Accessed January 2023.

Google Earth. 2023. Available at: https://earth.google.com/web . Accessed January 2023.

Grover Beach, City of. 2010. City of Grover Beach Storm Water Management Program. March 2010.

Available at: http://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/View/88/Storm-Water- Management-Program?bidId=. Accessed January 2023.

Jepson Flora Project (Eds.). 2023. Jepson eFlora. Available at: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ .

Accessed January 2023.Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. The National Wetland Plant List: 2020 wetland ratings. Federal Register Volume 85, Issue 96:
29689-29691. Published 18 May 2020.

Rincon Consultants, Inc (Rincon). 2021. Central Coast Blue Project Biological Resources Assessment.

Prepared for the City of Pismo Beach. January 2021.

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

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge and Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019.

Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/procedures_confor med.pdf. Accessed January 2023.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Technical Report Y-97-1. In: United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

34 ______. 2004. Review of Ordinary High-Water Mark Indicators for Delineating Arid Streams in the Southwest United States. Technical Report ERDC TR-04-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, New Hampshire.
______. 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05: Ordinary High-Water Mark Identification. U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C.
______. 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. Technical Report ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12.

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, New Hampshire.
______. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
______. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. Technical Report ERDC/CRREL TN-10-

1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, New Hampshire.
______. 2020. National Wetlands Plant List (Version 3.5) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, New Hampshire. Available at: http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ . Accessed January 2023.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). 2023a. Web Soils Survey: Custom Area of Interest in the Pismo Beach Survey Area. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm . Accessed January 2023. ______. 2023b. State Soils Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils List: California. Available at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316619.html . Accessed January 2023.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html . Accessed January 2023.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2023a. Oceano, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, accessed via the National Map. Accessed February 2023. ______. 2023b. National Hydrography Dataset. Accessed via the National Map. Accessed January 2023.

Weather Underground. 2023. San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Station. Available at:
https://www.wunderground.com/weather/KSBP . Accessed January 2023.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2023. Pismo Beach, California (046943) Station. Available at:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6943 . Accessed January 2023.

Appendix A
Wetland Determination Datasheets (January 2023)

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Project/Site: Central Coast Blue City/County: Grover Beach Sampling Date: January 20, 2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Pismo Beach State: California Sampling Point: SP-1 Investigators(s): Carolynn Honeycutt and Frances Glaser Section, Township, Range: S31, T32S, R13E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): C- Mediterranean California Lat/Long: 35.1026, -120.6255 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Mocho fine sandy loam, 0 to 2% slope, MLRA 14 NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ☐ No ☑ (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation ☑ , Soil ☐ , or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ☑ No ☐
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ☐ , Soil ☑ , or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☐ No ☑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☑
Remarks: Point collected upslope, higher elevatiom than wetland. No hydrology observed, no hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation dominance present but not prevalent.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Stratum/Species Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100% (A/B)
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )

% = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 1 x 1 = 1
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 98 x 3 = 294
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 6 x 5 = 30
Column Totals: 105 (A) 325 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1

% = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
☑ Dominance Test is >50%
☐ Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
☐ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Jaumea carnosa 1 No OBL
Distichlis spicata 95 Yes FAC
Geranium molle 1 No UPL
Bromus diandrus 5 No UPL
102% = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
% = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: % Cover of Biotic Crust: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☑ No ☐ Remarks: Mowed 3 months prior to survey. Dominated by DISSPI, mostly senescent.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-11

2.5Y 3/1 98 5YR 5/8 2 C PL Sandy clay loam Rocks within soil throughout sample.

Damp.
1Type: C = Concentration, D – Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ☐ Reduced Vertic (F18) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Vernal Pools (F9) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☐ No ☑
Remarks: Although small amounts of redox concentrations along roots within top 6 inches are present, not indicators were met.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils ☐ Surface Water (A1) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Biotic Crust (B12) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) ☐ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☑

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

Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Project/Site: Central Coast Blue City/County: Grover Beach Sampling Date: January 20, 2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Pismo Beach State: California Sampling Point: SP-2 Investigators(s): Carolynn Honeycutt and Frances Glaser Section, Township, Range: S31, T32S, R13E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): C- Mediterranean California Lat/Long: 35.1026, -120.6255 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Mocho fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 % slope, MLRA 14 NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ☐ No ☑ (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation ☐ , Soil ☐ , or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ☑ No ☐
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ☐ , Soil ☑ , or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☑ No ☐
Remarks: The landscape setting likely collected and concentrates water due to its convex nature. Dominated by hydrophytic vegetation and standing water with hydric soils of redox dark surfaces.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Stratum/Species Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:

% = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 95 x 1 = 95
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 5 x 3 = 15
FACU species 3 x 4 = 7
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 103 (A) 117 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.13

% = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
☑ Dominance Test is >50%
☑ Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
☐ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Jaumea carnosa 80 Yes OBL
Distichlis spicata 5 No FAC
Eleocharis rostellata 15 No OBL
Cynodon dactylon 3 No FACU
103% = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
% = Total Cover
0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☑ No ☐ Remarks: Vegetation dense and dominated by Jaumea with dispersed beaked spikerush.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP-2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12

2.5Y 3/2 95 5YR 4/6 2 CS M Loam Saturated. Very little redox observed around sand grains
1Type: C = Concentration, D – Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ☐ Reduced Vertic (F18) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Vernal Pools (F9) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Remarks: Dark loam soil with little redox observed surrounding sand grains. Problematic soils observed due to moderately alkaline soils; therefore, identifiable redox do not readily form. Soils saturated and waited for drying of soil to identify redox.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils ☑ Surface Water (A1) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) ☑ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Biotic Crust (B12) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) ☐ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes ☑ No ☐ Depth (inches): 4 Water Table Present? Yes ☑ No ☐ Depth (inches): 2 Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☑ No ☐

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

Remarks: Standing water observed with depths up to 4 inches. Water table very high observed in soil pit. Large rain event brining 7+ inches of precipitation saturated the water table in this area.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Project/Site: Central Coast Blue City/County: Grover Beach Sampling Date: January 20, 2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Pismo Beach State: California Sampling Point: SP-3 Investigators(s): Carolynn Honeycutt and Frances Glaser Section, Township, Range: S31, T32S, R13E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): C- Mediterranean California Lat/Long: 35.100963, -120.623696 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Mocho fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 % slope, MLRA 14 NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ☐ No ☑ (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation ☑ , Soil ☐ , or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ☑ No ☐
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ☐ , Soil ☑ , or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☑ No ☐
Remarks: The landscape setting likely collected and concentrates water due to its convex nature. Standing water present with problematic moderately alkaline soils and problematic vegetation that is routinely mowed.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Stratum/Species Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 0 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B)
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )

% = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 2 x 3 = 10
FACU species 3 x 4 = 7
UPL species 95 x 5 = 475
Column Totals: 100 (A) 485 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.85

% = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
☐Dominance Test is >50%
☐ Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
☐ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
☑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Bromus diandrus 80 Yes UPL
Distichlis spicata 2 No FAC
Avena spp. 15 No UPL
Cynodon dactylon 3 No FACU
100% = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
% = Total Cover
0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☑ No ☐ Remarks: Problematic vegetation due to routine mowing in the area. The area has concave surface (depression) that likely ponds water.

2.5Y 3/2 100 Loam Saturated.
1Type: C = Concentration, D – Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ☐ Reduced Vertic (F18) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Vernal Pools (F9) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Remarks: Dark loam soil no redox. Problematic soils observed due to moderately alkaline soils; therefore, identifiable redox do not readily form. Soils saturated and waited for drying of soil to identify redox.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

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

Remarks: Standing water observed with depths up to 4 inches. Water table very high observed in soil pit. Large rain event brining 7+ inches of precipitation saturated the water table in this area.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Project/Site: Central Coast Blue City/County: Grover Beach Sampling Date: January 20, 2023 Applicant/Owner: City of Pismo Beach State: California Sampling Point: SP-4 Investigators(s): Carolynn Honeycutt and Frances Glaser Section, Township, Range: S31, T32S, R13E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): C- Mediterranean California Lat/Long: 35.101027, -120.623669 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Mocho fine sandy loam, 0 to 2% slope, MLRA 14 NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ☐ No ☑ (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation ☑ , Soil ☐ , or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ☑ No ☐
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ☐ , Soil ☑ , or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes☐ No ☑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☐ No ☑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☑
Remarks: Point collected upslope, higher elevatiom than wetland. No hydrology observed, no hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation dominance present but not prevalent.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Stratum/Species Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:

% = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 1 x 1 = 1
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 98 x 3 = 294
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 6 x 5 = 30
Column Totals: 105 (A) 325 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Cynodon dactylon 5 No FACU
Avena spp. 15 Yes UPL
Geranium molle 1 No UPL
Bromus diandrus 85 No UPL
106% = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
% = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: % Cover of Biotic Crust: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☑ Remarks: Dense vegetation dominated by upland species.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP-4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-11

2.5Y 3/1 100 Sandy clay loam Damp soil
1Type: C = Concentration, D – Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ☐ Reduced Vertic (F18) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Vernal Pools (F9) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☐ No ☑
Remarks: Although soil is moderately alkaline, sand component in the soil likely does not allow for ponding. No redox observed.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☑

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

Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed.

Appendix B
Regulatory Framework

Regulatory Framework

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation B-1
Regulatory Framework
The following is a brief summary of the regulatory context under which biological resources are managed at the federal, state, and local levels. A number of federal and state statutes provide a regulatory structure that guides the protection of jurisdictional features. Agencies with the responsibility for protection of jurisdictional features within the project site include:
▪ United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; non-wetland waters and wetlands of the United States)
▪ Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB; waters of the State) ▪ California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; riparian areas, streambeds, and lakes) ▪ California Coastal Commission (CCC; coastal wetlands) United States Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction
The USACE is responsible for administering several federal programs related to ensuring the quality and navigability of the nation’s waters.

Clean Water Act Section 404
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through USACE, to issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the "navigable waters at specified disposal sites." Section 502 of the CWA further defines "navigable waters" as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” “Waters of the United States” are broadly defined at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3 to include navigable waters, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, as well as wetlands, marshes, and wet meadows. In recent years the USACE and United States 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 that have invalidated the updated regulations. Thus, the agencies’ longstanding definition of “waters of the United States,” which dates from 1986, remains in effect albeit with supplemental guidance interpreting applicable court decisions as described below.

Waters of the U.S.

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

2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;

3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

B-2
natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;

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

5. Tributaries of waters identified in items 1 through 4 above;

6. The territorial sea;

7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in items 1 through 6 above.

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation dominates areas where frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation exerts a controlling influence on the plant species present. Plant species are assigned wetland indicator status according to the probability of their occurring in wetlands. More than fifty percent of the dominant plant species must have a wetland indicator status to meet the hydrophytic

Regulatory Framework

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation B-3
vegetation criterion. The USACE published the National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2020), which separates vascular plants into the following four basic categories based on plant species frequency of occurrence in wetlands:
▪ Obligate Wetland (OBL). Almost always occur in wetlands. ▪ Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands, but occasionally found in non-wetlands. ▪ Facultative (FAC). Occur in wetlands or non-wetlands. ▪ Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands. ▪ Obligate Upland (UPL). Almost never occur in wetlands.

The USACE considers OBL, FACW and FAC species to be indicators of wetlands. An area is considered to have hydrophytic vegetation when greater than 50 percent of the dominant species in each vegetative stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) falls within these categories. Any species not appearing on the National Wetlands Plant List is assumed to be an upland species, almost never occurring in wetlands. In addition, an area needs to contain at least 5 percent vegetative cover to be considered as a vegetated wetland.

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

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

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 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

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

B-4
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.

Regulatory Framework

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation B-5
▪ Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and, ▪ Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.

Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction
The SWRCB and nine 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 Section 13050[e]). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering portions of the CWA.

Clean Water Act Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant requesting a federal license or permit for an activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters (such as a Section 404 Permit) to provide

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

B-6
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 SWRCB for multi-region projects. The process begins when an applicant submits an application to RWQCB and informs 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 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 RWQCB has not either issued or denied the application for Section 401 Certification, 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.

Regulatory Framework

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation B-7
Non-Wetland Waters of the State
The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not currently established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state, except for wetlands. 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 SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by 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 as compared to the USACE.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 states 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 CDFW of that activity.

Thereafter, if CDFW determines and informs the entity that the activity will not substantially adversely affect any existing fish or wildlife resources, the entity may commence the activity. If, however, CDFW determines the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource, the entity may be required to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) from CDFW, which will include reasonable measures necessary to protect the affected resource(s), before the entity may conduct the activity described in the notification. Upon receipt of 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.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

B-8
▪ The plain language of Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code establishes the following general concepts:
 References “river,” “stream,” and “lake”
 References “natural flow”
 References “bed,” “bank,” and “channel”
▪ Applicable court decisions, in particular Rutherford v. State of California (188 Cal App. 3d 1276 (1987), which interpreted California Fish and Game Code Section 1602’s use of “stream” to be as defined in common law. The Court indicated that a “stream” is commonly understood to:
 Have a source and a terminus
 Have banks and a channel
 Convey flow at least periodically, but need not flow continuously and may at times appear outwardly dry
 Represent the depression between the banks worn by the regular and usual flow of the water
 Include 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  Include the land that is covered by the water in its ordinary low stage  Include lands below the OHWM
▪ CDFW regulations defining “stream” for other purposes, including sport fishing (14 California Code of Regulations 1.72) and streambed alterations associated with cannabis production (14 California Code of Regulations 722[c][21]), which indicate that a stream:
 Flows at least periodically or intermittently
 Flows through a bed or channel having banks
 Supports fish or aquatic life
 Can be dry for a period of time
 Includes watercourses where surface or subsurface flow supports or has supported riparian vegetation
▪ Guidance documents, including A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (California Department of Fish and Game 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)  Width 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)  Features 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

Regulatory Framework

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation B-9
 Canals, 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
 Biologic components of a stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, all aquatic animals including fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species which derive benefits from the stream system
 The 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 various environments. The importance of each factor may be weighted based on site-specific considerations and the applicability of the indicators to the streambed at hand.

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

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

In accordance with the CCA, the CCC defines coastal wetlands as generally extending seaward to the State’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). The one parameter definition as follows:

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

B-10
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 California Code of Regulations Section 13577).

Appendix C
Flora Compendium (January 2023)

Flora Compendium

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation C-1
Plant Species Observed within the Study Area on January 20 and 24, 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Native/Introduced/
Invasive Rating1
Wetland
Indicator
Status
Life Form
(e.g., Tree,
Shrub,
Herbaceous)
Coyote Brush
Scrub
Developed/
Landscaped Ruderal
Iceplant
Mats
Wild Oats &
Annual Brome
Grassland
Eucalyptus
Grove Saltgrass Flats
Arroyo
Willow
Thicket
California
Bulrush
Marshes
Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed Native FACU Herb X Avena spp. Wild oats Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Native UPL Shrub X
Brassica nigra Black mustard Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X X X X Carpobrotus edulis Iceplant Introduced; High UPL Herb X X X Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Introduced; Moderate FACW Herb X X Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Introduced; Moderate FACU Herb X X X Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Native FACW Herb X Dimorphotheca sinuata African daisy Introduced UPL Herb X Distichilis spicata Saltgrass Native FAC Herb X X Eleocharis rostellata Beaked spikerush Native OBL Herb X Eschscholzia californica California poppy Native UPL Herb X Equisetum spp. Horsetail Native FAC Fern X
Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum Introduced; Limited UPL Tree X X Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red ironbark Introduced UPL Tree X Foeniculum vulgare Fennel Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X Hedera helix English ivy Introduced; High UPL Shrub X Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue Introduced; Limited FAC Herb X Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress Native UPL Tree X Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraphweed Native UPL Herb
Hirschfeldia incana Short-podded mustard Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X X Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley Introduced; Moderate FACU Herb X Jaumea carnosa Fleshy jaumea Native OBL Herb X
Datura stramonium Jimson weed Introduced UPL Herb X
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Introduced FACU Herb X X Malva parviflora Cheeseweed mallow Introduced UPL Herb X X Melilotus indicus Annual yellow sweetclover Introduced FACU Herb X X Oxalis pes-caprae Sourgrass Introduced; Moderate Herb X Pinus radiata Monterey pine Introduced; Limited UPL Tree X Plantago coronopus Buckhorn plantain Introduced FAC Herb X X Plantago lanceolata English plantain Introduced; Limited FAC Herb X X Plantago major Common plantain Introduced FAC Herb X X Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed Introduced FAC Herb X Raphanus sativus Wild radish Introduced; Limited UPL Herb X X Rubus ursinus California blackberry Native FAC Shrub X X Salix laevigata Red willow Native FACW Tree X

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

C-2
Scientific Name Common Name
Native/Introduced/
Invasive Rating1
Wetland
Indicator
Status
Life Form
(e.g., Tree,
Shrub,
Herbaceous)
Coyote Brush
Scrub
Developed/
Landscaped Ruderal
Iceplant
Mats
Wild Oats &
Annual Brome
Grassland
Eucalyptus
Grove Saltgrass Flats
Arroyo
Willow
Thicket
California
Bulrush
Marshes
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Native FACW Tree X Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea Blue elderberry Native FACU Tree X Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush Native OBL Herb X Silybum marianum Milk thistle Introduced; Limited UPL Herb X X Sonchus oleraceus Common sow thistle Introduced UPL Herb X Stipa miliacea Smilo grass Introduced UPL Herb X X Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak Native FACU Shrub X X Urtica dioica Stinging nettle Native FAC Herb X X X Urtica urens Annual stinging nettle Introduced UPL Herb X Vicia villosa Hairy vetch Introduced UPL Herb X
Vinca major Greater periwinkle Introduced; Moderate UPL Herb X References: Jepson 2023, USACE 2020

Appendix D
Representative Photographs (January 2023)

Representative Photographs

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation D-1

Photograph 1. Overview of Detention Basin 1 with California bulrush surrounded by arroyo willows, facing northwest. January 20, 2023.

Photograph 2. Overview of Detention Basin 2 with surface water surrounded by iceplant and ruderal vegetation, facing northwest. January 20, 2023.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

D-2

Photograph 3. Overview of Wetland 1 within Oceano Airport, facing southeast. January 20, 2023.

Photograph 4. Overview of Wetland 2 within Oceano Airport, facing southeast. January 20, 2023.

Representative Photographs

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation D-3

Photograph 5. Overview of roadway drainage with vegetated bed and adjacent arroyo willow thicket, facing northeast. January 20, 2023.

Photograph 6. Overview of intermittent stream with defined bed and banks and associated riparian corridor, facing south. January 20, 2023.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

D-4

Photograph 7. Overview of Agriculture Ditch 1, recently excavated and unvegetated, facing east.

January 20, 2023.

Photograph 8. Overview of arroyo willow thicket associated with Arroyo Grande Creek south of the Study Area, facing west. January 20, 2023.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Stratum/Species Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:

% = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 1 x 1 = 1
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 98 x 3 = 294
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 6 x 5 = 30
Column Totals: 105 (A) 325 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

2.5Y 3/1 98 5YR 5/8 2 C PL Sandy clay loam Rocks within soil throughout sample.

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☐ No ☑
Remarks: Although small amounts of redox concentrations along roots within top 6 inches are present, not indicators were met.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☑

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

Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Stratum/Species Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:

% = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 95 x 1 = 95
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 5 x 3 = 15
FACU species 3 x 4 = 7
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 103 (A) 117 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.13

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Type:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

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

Remarks: Standing water observed with depths up to 4 inches. Water table very high observed in soil pit. Large rain event brining 7+ inches of precipitation saturated the water table in this area.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☑ No ☐
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☑ No ☐
Remarks: The landscape setting likely collected and concentrates water due to its convex nature. Standing water present with problematic moderately alkaline soils and problematic vegetation that is routinely mowed.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Stratum/Species Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:

% = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 2 x 3 = 10
FACU species 3 x 4 = 7
UPL species 95 x 5 = 475
Column Totals: 100 (A) 485 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.85

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Type:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

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

Remarks: Standing water observed with depths up to 4 inches. Water table very high observed in soil pit. Large rain event brining 7+ inches of precipitation saturated the water table in this area.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Stratum/Species Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:

% = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 1 x 1 = 1
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 98 x 3 = 294
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 6 x 5 = 30
Column Totals: 105 (A) 325 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ☐ No ☑
Remarks: Although soil is moderately alkaline, sand component in the soil likely does not allow for ponding. No redox observed.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☐ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☑

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

Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed.

Appendix F
Streambed Percolation Analysis

1 To:

Mr. Daniel Heimel, MS, PE
Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
805 Aerovista Place, Suite 201
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
From:

Johnson Yeh, Ph.D., PG, CHG
Principal Geohydrologist
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Lauren Wicks, PG
Project Geohydrologist
GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Date: January 19, 2021
Subject: Pismo Beach Phase 1B EIR Support – Streambed Percolation Analysis

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Central Coast Blue (CCB) is a regional recycled water project that will reduce the risk of seawater intrusion and improve water supply sustainability in northwestern Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin). The project will use advanced-treated recycled water from the City of Pismo Beach and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) as an injection water source. This water will be injected in the Arroyo Grande-Tri-Cities Mesa portion of the Basin to establish a seawater intrusion barrier and improve the reliability of groundwater supplies in the region.

As part of the Phase 1B Hydrogeologic Evaluation, GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. (GEOSCIENCE) was tasked with expanding the previous Regional Groundwater Sustainability Project (RGSP) Phase 1A Model to include an evaluation of injection and extraction scenarios with flows from the SSLOCSD and City of Pismo Beach WWTPs. This evaluation was included in the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), summarizing the proposed project’s potential environmental impacts. Comments received on the draft EIR included questions from the California State Parks about potential impacts of CCB on streambed percolation. This technical memorandum (TM) was developed in response to these questions.

Technical Memorandum

GEOSCIENCE
The First Name in Groundwater
GEOSCIENCE wsc
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING,INC.

Pismo Beach Phase 1B EIR Support – Streambed Percolation Analysis 19-Jan-21 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2 2.0 PHASE 1B MODEL
The CCB Phase 1B Model was developed for the unconsolidated to semi-consolidated water-bearing sediments within the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA), Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA), and portion of the Santa Maria Valley Management Area (SMVMA) (Figure 1). SEAWAT, a block- centered, finite-difference groundwater flow code developed by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS; Guo and Langevin, 2002), represents the model code used for model development (refer to GEOSCIENCE, 2019a and 2019c for detailed model description and discussion). The main water-bearing formations are the Paso Robles Formation and the Careaga Sand, which constitute the deeper aquifer, and the dune sand, terrace deposits, and quaternary alluvium, which constitute the shallow aquifer (LSCE, 2017). The low- yield formations which underlie and generally flank the main groundwater basin are considered impermeable and are not part of the modeled groundwater flow system.

2.1 Model Calibration in the Shallow Aquifer
The method of calibration used for the Phase 1B Model was the industry standard “history matching” technique, which involves adjusting model parameters to produce the best-fit between simulated and observed groundwater system responses. During the process of calibration, model parameters are adjusted using reasonable anticipated values until model-generated water levels and concentrations match historical observations. In addition, the model was calibrated in a multi-step process involving external review of initial calibration results by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)1 and implementation of revisions to the model as part of subsequent calibration efforts.

The transient calibration period used for model calibration was from 1977 through 2016 using monthly stress periods. Calibration results for wells completed in the Shallow Aquifer along Arroyo Grande Creek are shown on Figure 2. Calibration in these wells shows a good correlation and model-calculated water levels reflect the general pattern and long- and short-term temporal trends in groundwater observations.

1 The Phase 1B Model development represented a collaborative process by which the model development and calibration was modified based on feedback from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Members of the TAC included representatives of the Nipomo Mesa Management Area Technical Group (NMMA TG), GSI (representing the NCMA), and Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC). Comments during the process were provided during routine progress meetings as well as in response to a series of technical memorandums (TMs) that were issued throughout the process of developing the model and running project scenarios to document the work.

Pismo Beach Phase 1B EIR Support – Streambed Percolation Analysis 19-Jan-21 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 3 2.2 Model-Calculated Streambed Percolation

2.2.1 Streamflow Routing Package
Streams are simulated in the Phase 1B Model by the Streamflow Routing Package. Surface water runoff and interflow estimated by the surface water model are routed downstream by the sequential numbering of reaches and segments. A stream reach is a section of the stream that is associated with a particular finite-difference cell. The reaches are numbered in a downstream order to represent the direction of flow.

Reaches can be grouped into segments that represent lengths of the stream between connections with another stream or tributary, lake, or watershed boundary. The streambed locations modeled in the Phase 1B Model are indicated on Figure 3.

Inflows to a stream reach include user-specified inflow to the first reach of a stream segment, inflows from upstream reaches, precipitation directly onto the stream channel, surface runoff and interflow from adjacent watershed areas, and groundwater discharge to the streambed. Outflows include diversions, evaporation, downward leakage across the streambed, and stream outflow. The downward leakage or streambed percolation is calculated as a function of the hydraulic conductivity of the streambed, the wetted perimeter of the streambed, the length of the stream reach, the underlying groundwater head, the stream stage, and the streambed thickness.

In the Phase 1B Model, streambed elevation was determined from Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) for the 7.5” topographic quadrangles in the model area. DEMs consist of a sampled array of elevations for a number of ground positions at regularly spaced intervals. These digital cartographic/geographic data files are produced by the USGS as part of the National Mapping Program.

2.2.2 Mechanisms of Percolation
A stream gains or loses water depending on the relative head in the stream and in the underlying aquifer.

This interchange of water between the stream and the aquifer (e.g., Dune Sand or alluvium) varies spatially and temporally, and is influenced most by changes in the height of the nearby groundwater table and by changes in the hydraulic conductivity of the streambed deposits. To explore this further, we can consider three different theoretical scenarios with different groundwater level positions. In the first case, the water table, or groundwater head, is below the bottom of the streambed and the stream loses water to the aquifer – as shown in the figure below.

Pismo Beach Phase 1B EIR Support – Streambed Percolation Analysis 19-Jan-21 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 4 Figure A. Surface Water and Groundwater Interaction – Water Table below Bottom of Streambed

Under these conditions, streambed percolation can be described through the following equation:

When BOTstr > Haquifer,

Streambed Percolation = Cstr (Hstr – BOTstr) Eqn. (1)

Cstr = Kstr x W x L x M Eqn. (2)

Where

BOTstr = Bottom of streambed,
Haquifer = Water table or groundwater surface,
Cstr = Streambed conductance,
Hstr = Head in stream,
Kstr = Hydraulic conductivity of streambed sediments, W = Width of streambed,
L = Length of streambed segment, and
M = Streambed sediment thickness.

Percolation
Head in Stream
(Hstr )
Stream
J MStreambed
—Bottom of Streambed
(BOTstr)
W
Water Table (Hagjjjfei)
Aquifer

Pismo Beach Phase 1B EIR Support – Streambed Percolation Analysis 19-Jan-21 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 5 As indicated by Eqn (1), the streambed percolation under these conditions (i.e., water table below the bottom of the streambed) is only a function of the streambed conductance and the stream head.

Percolating water is therefore in freefall condition below the stream and the groundwater level relative to the streambed has no impact on percolation until the water table rises high enough to come in contact with the streambed. Under this second case, let us consider a water table that is positioned above the bottom of the streambed but below the head in the stream – as shown below.

Figure B. Surface Water and Groundwater Interaction – Water Table above Bottom of Streambed but below Head in Stream

Under these conditions, the stream is still losing water to the aquifer. Streambed percolation can be described using the following equation:

When Hstr > Haquifer > BOTstr,

Streambed Percolation = Cstr (Hstr – Haquifer) Eqn. (3)

Eqn. (3) indicates that under these conditions (i.e., water table that is positioned above the bottom of the streambed but below the head in the stream), streambed percolation is a function of the streambed conductance, stream head, and groundwater level elevation. Therefore, fluctuation of the groundwater surface within this range will affect how much streambed percolation occurs (the greater the difference Percolation
Head in Stream
(Hstr)
Water TaMe (Ha^J
Stream!j MStreambed
Bottom of Streambed
(BOTstr)
W
Aquifer

Pismo Beach Phase 1B EIR Support – Streambed Percolation Analysis 19-Jan-21 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 6 in head, the more percolation will occur). However, if the head in the aquifer rises above the head in the stream, the stream will become a gaining stream and gain water from the aquifer. This third case is illustrated below.

Figure C. Surface Water and Groundwater Interaction – Water Table above Head in Stream

Under these conditions, streambed percolation can be described using the following equation:

When Haquifer > Hstr,

Groundwater Flow to Stream = Cstr (Haquifer – Hstr) Eqn. (4)

Eqn. (4) indicates that when the water table is positioned above the head in the stream, the groundwater flow from the aquifer system to the stream is a function of the streambed conductance, groundwater level elevation, and stream head. As with the previous case, fluctuation of the groundwater surface above the stream head stage will affect how much flow from the aquifer occurs (the greater the difference in head, the more gaining streamflow will occur).

Flow from
Aquifer
i Head in Stream
(Hstr )
Stream
i
MStreambed
Bottom of Streambed
(BOTstr )
W
Aquifer

Pismo Beach Phase 1B EIR Support – Streambed Percolation Analysis 19-Jan-21 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 7 2.2.3 Scenario Results
Streamflow into the model area in the Arroyo Grande and Los Berros Creek was based on USGS gaged streamflow from the Arroyo Grande at Arroyo Grande Gage (Site No. 11141500) and Los Berros Creek near Nipomo CA Gage (Site No. 11141600), respectively. Surface runoff within the model area also contributed to streamflow and was calculated based on land use type (with industrialized land use having less permeability and more potential for runoff).

The development of streambed conductivity values was conceptual and aided by previous studies. During model calibration, conductivity values were adjusted to match observed water level conditions and are within published ranges of typical conductivity values. With limited reliable streamflow data available to assess model simulation of flow and streambed percolation, the accuracy of the magnitude of model- calculated streambed percolation may be limited. However, it is reasonable and industry standard to use the model to estimate the relative changes between a baseline and scenario runs – thereby isolating potential project effects.

A baseline and six project scenarios were made with the Phase 1B model using MODFLOW groundwater flow model code. The results are presented in GEOSCIENCE (2019b). For the purpose of this discussion, only results from Scenario 2 are provided, as Scenario 2 represents the first phase of the project and was identified by State Parks as being of particular concern. Major assumptions for the Baseline scenario and Scenario 2 are summarized in the following table.

Table 2-1. Model Scenario Assumptions
Model
Scenario Hydrology Groundwater Pumping CCB
Implementation Agricultural NMMA NCMA
Baseline Historical
(1977-2016)
Based on 2016
Crop Distribution
and Historical
Rainfall
Average of
Last 5 Years
(2012-2016)
(5,663 AFY)
Average of Last 5 Years
for Municipal (1,080 AFY)
and Small Purveyors
None
2 Historical
(1977-2016)
Based on 2016
Crop Distribution
and Historical
Rainfall
Average of
Last 5 Years
(5,663 AFY)
Municipal Extraction of
2,500 AFY
Phase 1
(900 AFY)

For the purpose of this evaluation, streambed percolation was analyzed in two areas of the Arroyo Grande Creek: Part 1 and Part 2 (see Figure 3). The relative difference in streambed percolation between the Baseline scenario and Scenario 2 (Scenario 2 minus Baseline) is presented in attached Table 1. As shown, the proposed project is not anticipated to affect streambed percolation in Part 2 of the Arroyo Grande

Pismo Beach Phase 1B EIR Support – Streambed Percolation Analysis 19-Jan-21 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 8 Creek. Streambed conductance in this area is lower than in Part 1 (conceptually, lower stream reaches typically have greater concentrations of fine-grained sediments which reduce the ease with which water can percolate through the streambed) and water levels tend to fluctuate less closer to the coast due to the influence of the ocean (constant head). Since streambed percolation is a function of streambed conductance and head (both in the surrounding aquifer system and stream), low conductance and less change in head lead to overall lower percolation rates.

In Part 1, streambed percolation shows predicted increases in five of the 40 years included in the model simulation period. These five years reflect hydrological conditions from 1983, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 – all with above average rainfall. During these wet years, water levels in the surrounding aquifer system rise, creating conditions similar to those shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 above. Under these conditions, groundwater elevation affects the amount of streambed percolation, and that is why slight differences are seen between baseline (no project) conditions and CCB Scenario 2 project conditions. In other years, groundwater conditions are likely similar to those shown in Figure 2-1, and the fluctuation of groundwater elevation does not affect streambed percolation. However, the predicted increased streambed percolation (leading to a corresponding reduction in streamflow) under Scenario 2 conditions is minimal – ranging from 0.2 acre-ft/yr in 1996 to 29.0 acre-ft/yr in 1998, occurring in wet years during which streamflow is higher than average conditions. Therefore, under Scenario 2 conditions, the proposed CCB project is not anticipated to significantly impact streambed percolation or surface flow in Arroyo Grande Creek.

3.0 REFERENCES
GEOSCIENCE, 2019a. City of Pismo Beach and South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Central Coast Blue Phase 1B Hydrogeologic Evaluation – Technical Memorandum No. 3: Model Calibration. Prepared for Water Systems Consulting, Inc. Dated May 14.

GEOSCIENCE, 2019b. City of Pismo Beach and South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Central Coast Blue Phase 1B Hydrogeologic Evaluation – Technical Memorandum No. 4: Model Scenario Evaluation. Prepared for Water Systems Consulting, Inc. Dated May 14.

GEOSCIENCE, 2019c. City of Pismo Beach and South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Central Coast Blue Phase 1B Hydrogeologic Evaluation – Executive Summary. Prepared for Water Systems Consulting, Inc. Dated November 25.

Pismo Beach Phase 1B EIR Support – Streambed Percolation Analysis 19-Jan-21 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 9 Guo, W., and C.D. Langevin, 2002. User’s Guide to SEAWAT: A Computer Program for Simulation of Three- Dimensional Variable-Density Ground-Water Flow. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water- Resources Investigations 6-A7.

LSCE (Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers), 2017. 2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition – Santa Maria Valley Management Area. Dated April.

FIGURES

GEOSCIENCE

Jan-21
FIGURE 1WATERSYSTEMSCONSULTING,INC.

PISMO BEACH PHASE 1B EIR SUPPORT -STREAMBED PERCOLATION ANALYSIS GEOSCIENCE

PISMO BEACH PHASE 1B EIR SUPPORT – STREAMBED PERCOLATION ANALYSIS WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC.

Jan-21
·
20 2
1 ,

G
E
O
S
C
I
E
N
C
E

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,

I
n
c
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

D
r
a
w
n

B
y
:

D
B
.

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
:

S
t
a
t
e

P
l
a
n
e

1 9
8 3
,

Z
o
n
e

V
.

W
:
\
G
I
S
_
p
r
o
j
\
W
S
C
_
P
i
s
m
o
_
B
e
a
c
h
\
4 7
_
T
M
_
F
i
g
_
2 _
h
y
d
r
o
g
r
a
p
h
s
_
w
l
_
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
_
1 -
2 1
.
m
x
d
FIGURE 2

SELECTED HYDROGRAPHS
ALONG

ARROYO GRANDE CREEK
(SHALLOW AQUIFER)
±
0 2,000 4,000
Feet

EXPLANATION
Water Level Target for
Shallow Aquifer!(
-50
0 50
100
150
200
1977 1987 1997 2007
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t

N
A
V
D

8 8
)
32S13E31G01
Observation
Simulation
-50
0 50
100
150
200
1977 1987 1997 2007
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t

N
A
V
D

8 8
)
32S13E31R01
Observation
Simulation
-50
0 50
100
150
200
1977 1987 1997 2007
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t

N
A
V
D

8 8
)
32S13E32M03
Observation
Simulation

GEOSCIENCE

PISMO BEACH PHASE 1B EIR SUPPORT – STREAMBED PERCOLATION ANALYSIS WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC.

Jan-21
·
20 2
1 ,

G
E
O
S
C
I
E
N
C
E

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,

I
n
c
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

D
r
a
w
n

B
y
:

D
B
.

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
:

S
t
a
t
e

P
l
a
n
e

1 9
8 3
,

Z
o
n
e

V
.

W
:
\
G
I
S
_
p
r
o
j
\
W
S
C
_
P
i
s
m
o
_
B
e
a
c
h
\
4 7
_
T
M
_
F
i
g
_
3 _
v
e
g
_
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
_
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
_
p
e
r
c
_
1 -
2 1
.
m
x
d
FIGURE 3

LOCATION OF

STREAMBED

PERCOLATION
±
0 2,000 4,000
Feet

EXPLANATION
Part 1
Part 2
Model Cells Used to Simulate
Streambed Percolation
Selected Model Cells Used for
Streambed Percolation Analysis

GEOSCIENCE

TABLE

GEOSCIENCE

Pismo Beach Phase 1B EIR Support – Streambed Percolation Analysis Table 1 Part 1 Part 2
acre‐ft/yr acre‐ft/yr
1977 0.0 0.0
1978 0.0 0.0
1979 0.0 0.0
1980 0.0 0.0
1981 0.0 0.0
1982 0.0 0.0
1983 25.3 0.0
1984 0.0 0.0
1985 0.0 0.0
1986 0.0 0.0
1987 0.0 0.0
1988 0.0 0.0
1989 0.0 0.0
1990 0.0 0.0
1991 0.0 0.0
1992 0.0 0.0
1993 0.0 0.0
1994 0.0 0.0
1995 5.7 0.0
1996 0.2 0.0
1997 13.6 0.0
1998 29.0 0.0
1999 0.0 0.0
2000 0.0 0.0
2001 0.0 0.0
2002 0.0 0.0
2003 0.0 0.0
2004 0.0 0.0
2005 0.0 0.0
2006 0.0 0.0
2007 0.0 0.0
2008 0.0 0.0
2009 0.0 0.0
2010 0.0 0.0
2011 0.0 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0
2013 0.0 0.0
2014 0.0 0.0
2015 0.0 0.0
2016 0.0 0.0
Average 1.8 0.0
Streambed Percolation along Arroyo Grande Creek (1977 ‐ 2016) Year
Scenario 2 minus Baseline
19‐Jan‐21 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

Appendix C
Jurisdictional Delineation