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

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,
▪ 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;

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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

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 D
2023 Supplemental Cultural Resources Assessment (CONFIDENTIAL)

Appendix E
Noise Modeling

Reference Noise Level (dBA)75.2
Reference Distance (ft)50
Site Conditions
(Choice: Hard or Soft)Hard
Distance from Barrier to
Source (ft)
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
(ft)
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
(ft)
Height of
Source
(ft)
Height of
Wall (ft)
Height of
Receiver
(ft)
Noise Level
Reduction
(dBA)
Unabated
Noise Level
(dBA)
Resultant
Noise Level
(dBA)
25 75 100 10 17 5 15.18 69 54.00
Barrier Calculations - IW-1
Input Variables
Output Calculations

Reference Noise Level (dBA)75.2
Reference Distance (ft)50
Site Conditions
(Choice: Hard or Soft)Hard
Distance from Barrier to
Source (ft)
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
(ft)
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
(ft)
Height of
Source
(ft)
Height of
Wall (ft)
Height of
Receiver
(ft)
Noise Level
Reduction
(dBA)
Unabated
Noise Level
(dBA)
Resultant
Noise Level
(dBA)
25 175 200 10 13 5 8.64 63 54.52
Barrier Calculations - IW-2A, IW-2B (Well Drilling)
Input Variables
Output Calculations

Reference Noise Level (dBA)75.2
Reference Distance (ft)50
Site Conditions
(Choice: Hard or Soft)Hard
Distance from Barrier to
Source (ft)
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
(ft)
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
(ft)
Height of
Source
(ft)
Height of
Wall (ft)
Height of
Receiver
(ft)
Noise Level
Reduction
(dBA)
Unabated
Noise Level
(dBA)
Resultant
Noise Level
(dBA)
25 175 200 10 24 5 19.27 63 43.89
Barrier Calculations - IW-4 Alternate (Well Drilling)
Input Variables
Output Calculations

Reference Noise Level (dBA)75.2
Reference Distance (ft)50
Site Conditions
(Choice: Hard or Soft)Hard
Distance from Barrier to
Source (ft)
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
(ft)
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
(ft)
Height of
Source
(ft)
Height of
Wall (ft)
Height of
Receiver
(ft)
Noise Level
Reduction
(dBA)
Unabated
Noise Level
(dBA)
Resultant
Noise Level
(dBA)
25 375 400 10 10 5 5.03 57 52.10
Barrier Calculations - MW-2D/2E/2F (Well Drilling)
Input Variables
Output Calculations

Reference Noise Level (dBA)75.2
Reference Distance (ft)50
Site Conditions
(Choice: Hard or Soft)Hard
Distance from Barrier to
Source (ft)
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
(ft)
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
(ft)
Height of
Source
(ft)
Height of
Wall (ft)
Height of
Receiver
(ft)
Noise Level
Reduction
(dBA)
Unabated
Noise Level
(dBA)
Resultant
Noise Level
(dBA)
15 55 70 10 17 5 16.89 72 55.39
Barrier Calculations - MW-3C/3D (Well Drilling)
Input Variables
Output Calculations

Reference Noise Level (dBA)75.2
Reference Distance (ft)50
Site Conditions
(Choice: Hard or Soft)Hard
Distance from Barrier to
Source (ft)
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
(ft)
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
(ft)
Height of
Source
(ft)
Height of
Wall (ft)
Height of
Receiver
(ft)
Noise Level
Reduction
(dBA)
Unabated
Noise Level
(dBA)
Resultant
Noise Level
(dBA)
25 375 400 10 17 5 13.23 57 43.91
Barrier Calculations -MW-NMCA North A/B/C (Well Drilling) Input Variables
Output Calculations

Reference Noise Level (dBA)75.2
Reference Distance (ft)50
Site Conditions
(Choice: Hard or Soft)Hard
Distance from Barrier to
Source (ft)
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
(ft)
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
(ft)
Height of
Source
(ft)
Height of
Wall (ft)
Height of
Receiver
(ft)
Noise Level
Reduction
(dBA)
Unabated
Noise Level
(dBA)
Resultant
Noise Level
(dBA)
25 2175 2200 10 10 5 5.00 42 37.33
Barrier Calculations -MW-NCMA South A/B/C (Well Drilling) Input Variables
Output Calculations

Reference Noise Level (dBA)75.2
Reference Distance (ft)50
Site Conditions
(Choice: Hard or Soft)Hard
Distance from Barrier to
Source (ft)
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
(ft)
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
(ft)
Height of
Source
(ft)
Height of
Wall (ft)
Height of
Receiver
(ft)
Noise Level
Reduction
(dBA)
Unabated
Noise Level
(dBA)
Resultant
Noise Level
(dBA)
25 175 200 10 13 5 8.64 63 54.52
Barrier Calculations - New Production Well (PB-23)
Input Variables
Output Calculations

Appendix F
2023 Paleontological Resources Assessment

Central Coast Blue Project
Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1
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

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
McGrath, A., and J. DiCenzo
2023. Central Coast Blue Project Paleontological Resources Assessment Report – Update #1.

Rincon Consultants Project No. 15-01882. Report on file with City of Pismo Beach Planning Division.

Executive Summary

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................................... 2 Results of Investigation ................................................................................................................. 2 Impacts Assessment and Recommendations ............................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 4 2 Regulations .................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................ 9

2.2 State .................................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Regional and Local ............................................................................................................ 10 3 Resource Assessment Guidelines ................................................................................................ 12

3.1 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Paleontological Sensitivity Criteria ................................................................................... 12 4 Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 14 5 Description of Resources ............................................................................................................. 15

5.1 Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................ 15

5.2 Paleontological Setting ..................................................................................................... 17 6 Evaluation, Impacts, and Recommendations .............................................................................. 18

6.1 Paleontological Sensitivity Evaluation .............................................................................. 18

6.2 Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 18

6.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 19 7 References ................................................................................................................................... 20 8 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................... 22 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2 Project Component Locations ............................................................................................. 6 Figure 3 Geologic Map of Project Components .............................................................................. 16 Appendices
Appendix A Staff Resumes

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

2 Executive Summary
Purpose and Scope
Rincon Consultants, Inc. was retained by the City of Pismo Beach to conduct a paleontological resources assessment for the Central Coast Blue Project (herein referred to as “project”) located in San Luis Obispo County, California. 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. As the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Pismo Beach is required to evaluate the potential for negative impacts to paleontological resources that may be caused by implementation of the project.

This study has been completed in accordance with the requirements of a CEQA-Plus investigation and includes compliance with federal and state regulations in the case a federal nexus is established during the course of project execution. This updated report evaluates the potential paleontological resources impacts of several modifications to the layout of project facilities that have occurred during evolution of the design process, resulting in new project impact areas beyond those identified and evaluated in the original paleontological resources assessment (Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2020). This technical report presents the results of the paleontological resources assessment following the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) paleontological sensitivity classification (SVP 2010), discusses potential impacts to known or unknown paleontological resources, and provides recommended mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less- than-significant levels, pursuant to federal, state, and local, regulations.

Results of Investigation
The footprint of project components with known locations contains two geologic units mapped at the surface: Holocene-aged alluvial floodplain deposits and Pleistocene-aged old eolian deposits (Holland 2013). Holocene-aged alluvial flood-plain deposits are likely too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to contain paleontological resources (SVP 2010) and thus have low paleontological sensitivity.

Pleistocene-aged old eolian deposits very rarely produce fossils in California (Jefferson 2010), and eolian (i.e., wind-blown) sediments generally do not preserve paleontological resources. Therefore, old eolian deposits also have low paleontological sensitivity.

Impacts Assessment and Recommendations
The footprint of project components with known locations is underlain by two geologic units with low paleontological sensitivity. Ground-disturbing activities in sediments with low paleontological sensitivity are not anticipated to result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Excavations for pipelines and the ATF complex are anticipated to reach approximately 16 to 25 feet below the surface, respectively. Therefore, ground disturbance associated with these activities will be confined to the same low-sensitivity geologic units mapped at the surface. Conversely, the injection, monitoring, and production wells are anticipated to reach up to 680 feet below the surface. Hall (1973) estimated the surficial alluvial and eolian sediments in the region extend to approximately 100 feet in depth. The nature of geologic units below 100 feet is unknown and, based on the regional geology, these rocks could range from high to no paleontological sensitivity (Holland 2013; Wiegers

Executive Summary

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 3
2021). Therefore, rocks more than 100 feet below the surface have undetermined paleontological sensitivity. However, due to the small diameter of the boreholes for these wells (14 inches or less), paleontological monitoring of these activities is not effective because any encountered paleontological resources would be pulverized by drilling equipment before the spoils reach the surface, such that it is not possible to know whether a paleontological resource is significantly impacted. Therefore, well drilling activities are unlikely to result in destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources and thus would not result in a significant impact.

With adherence to Policy CO-6 in the City of Pismo Beach’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program (2014), which specifies management protocols for unanticipated paleontological resources, significant impacts to paleontological resources are not expected. Further paleontological resources mitigation is not recommended at this time.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

4 1 Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Pismo Beach (City) to conduct a paleontological resources assessment for the Central Coast Blue Project (herein referred to as “project”) located in San Luis Obispo County, California (Figure 1). The paleontological resources assessment consisted of a desktop analysis of geologic maps, a review of published literature and online fossil locality databases, and review of museum locality records. As the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is required to evaluate the potential for negative impacts to paleontological resources that may be caused by the implementation of the project. This study has been completed in accordance with the requirements of a CEQA-Plus investigation and includes compliance with federal and state regulations in the case a federal nexus is established during the course of project execution. This technical report presents the results of the paleontological resources assessment, discusses potential impacts to known or unknown paleontological resources, and provides recommended mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less-than-significant levels, pursuant to federal, state, and local regulations.

1.1 Project Location
The project area is situated approximately seven miles south of the city of San Luis Obispo and is regionally accessible from U.S. Highway 101 and locally accessible from California State Route (SR) 1.

The project area extends from West Grand Avenue in Grover Beach in the north to unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, including Oceano, in the south. The total project area measures approximately 3.5 miles north to south. See Figure 1 for a map of the project location in a regional context.

1.2 Project Description
The proposed project consists of an advanced treatment facility (ATF) complex (including an equalization tank, a monitoring well, and a new production well), pipelines, injection wells, monitoring wells, and a pump station. The project would also alter the pumping regime of existing, operational production wells in the project area. See Figure 1 for a map of the project area in a regional context and Figure 2 for a map of the locations of project components. Each of the project components is described below.

Advanced Treatment Facility Complex
The ATF complex would purify secondary treated wastewater flows from the Pismo Beach and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs).

Treatment steps would include microfiltration/ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet disinfection with advanced oxidation. The ATF complex would include outdoor chemical storage and staff support facilities that may include office space, a locker room, restrooms, file storage, a break room and kitchen, chemical storage and feed facilities, and an emergency power generator.

Introduction

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 5
Figure 1 Regional Location

VisaliaLemoore
N Coalinga
'fa Project Location A Avenal
Delano
99 Bakersfield 58
San Luis Obispo
Santa Maria s
Los Padres
National
ForesttipLompoc
Santa Barbara
Oxnard

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

6 Figure 2 Project Component Locations

r ~*'
--'-.'Vt;-:.mmL 30N
Study Area
[i i |Focused Extent Figure Boundary
Modified Project Components
Advanced Treatment
Facility Complex illPumpStation
O Injection Well
O Monitoring Well
-MW-2D>2E/2F
'•IProductionWellO
Pipelines
Advanced Purified Water
to Injection Wells ISHU f r (
‘,-fMW-3AV3B (Existing)
MW-4 C/4D,
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
“A0.250
L Miles
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ©2022.

Introduction

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 7

Several appurtenant structures would be constructed as part of the ATF complex to support the ATF processes. An equalization storage basin would be constructed to provide greater capacity and operational flexibility to the ATF by addressing fluctuations in flow from the WWTPs without impacting the flow rate to the ATF. The storage basin would occupy approximately 7,500 square feet of area. A new production well (PB-23) and a monitoring well (MW-3C/3D) would also be installed at the ATF complex. Ground disturbance at the ATF complex is expected to reach 25 feet in depth for general grading and excavation and 675 feet in depth for installation of the monitoring and production wells.

Pipelines
Pipelines would be installed along the potential alignments shown in Figure 2.1 These pipelines would accomplish five purposes: 1) convey secondary treated effluent discharged by the Pismo Beach WWTP from the existing ocean outfall 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 ocean outfall pipeline; and 5) convey backwash water from certain injection wells and sanitary sewer waste streams from the ATF complex to the sanitary sewer system. The pipelines would range in size from approximately 6 to 24 inches. Ground disturbance associated with the pipelines is expected to reach six feet in depth with the exception of the trenchless crossing of the railroad tracks, which would reach up to approximately 16 feet in depth.

Groundwater Injection 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 of land.3 Each injection well would be capable of injecting approximately 500 acre-feet per year (AFY). The advanced purified water would be injected at a depth of approximately 160 to 680 feet below ground surface. The injection well network would be accompanied by a network of nested monitoring wells, each approximately five square feet in size, at up to eleven locations throughout the project area.4 Monitoring wells 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. Monitoring wells would be flush-mounted. The diameters of the injection and monitoring wells would be approximately 20 inches to 48 inches (depending on the depth).

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 to be categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA

1 Due to ongoing siting and design efforts, several alternative pipeline alignments are included in the Modified Project to provide flexibility in ultimate siting.
2 Due to ongoing siting and design efforts, several alternative injection well locations are included in the Modified Project to provide flexibility in ultimate siting.
3 This is a conservative assumption of the footprint of each injection well. 4 Due to ongoing siting and design efforts, several alternative monitoring well locations are included in the Modified Project to provide flexibility in ultimate siting.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

8 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, 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.

Production Wells
Several existing production wells would be available for extraction of the injected advanced purified water. The project would involve increased pumping at these wells but would not involve modification of these existing production wells or any associated ground disturbance. As indicated previously, one new production well (referred to herein as PB-23) would be constructed and operated at the ATF complex to replace an existing well that is failing.

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 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 ATF, and expansion upgrades to equipment within the ATF complex to accommodate flows from the SSLOCSD WWTP. 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.

Earthwork activities associated with the project would include drilling, trenching, grading, and excavation to various depths up to 25 feet. Wells would be drilled up to a depth of approximately 680 feet. 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). Trenches would be excavated to approximately six feet in depth and would be backfilled after pipeline installation, and installation of the trenchless pipeline under the Union Pacific Railroad tracks would involve ground disturbance up to 16 feet in depth. To accommodate the ATF complex, the existing pavement and fencing at the location of the ATF complex would be removed. In addition, 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 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 complex. Excavation depth is not anticipated to exceed 25 feet at any locations other than the injection, monitoring, and production wells, which would be drilled to depths of up to 680 feet.

Regulations

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 9
2 Regulations
This study has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and includes compliance with federal and state regulations in the case a federal nexus is established during the course of project execution. A federal nexus may be established if federal funding is acquired and/or federal permitting is necessary. Compliance with both sets of regulations allows the lead agency to apply the results of this technical study should a federal nexus be established at a later time. Federal, state, and local regulations applicable to potential paleontological resources in the project area are summarized below.

2.1 Federal
A variety of federal statutes address paleontological resources specifically. They are applicable to all projects occurring on federal lands and may be applicable to specific projects if the project involves a federal agency license, permit, approval, or funding.

National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (United States Code Section 4321 et seq.; 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1502.25), as amended, directs federal agencies to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage (Section 101[b][(4]).” The current interpretation of this language includes scientifically important paleontological resources among those resources that may require preservation.

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) is part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-011 Subtitle D). The PRPA directs the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land and develop plans for inventorying, monitoring, and deriving the scientific and educational use of such resources. The PRPA prohibits the removal of paleontological resources from federal land without a permit, establishes penalties for violations, and establishes a program to increase public awareness about such resources. While specific to activity that occurs on federal lands, some federal agencies may require adherence to the directives outlined in the PRPA for projects on non-federal lands if federal funding is involved or if the project includes federal oversight.

2.2 State
California Environmental Quality Act
Paleontological resources are protected under CEQA, which states in part that a project will “normally” have a significant effect on the environment if it, among other things, will directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Section VII[f] of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

10 CEQA does not define “a unique paleontological resource or site.” However, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has defined a “significant paleontological resource” in the context of environmental review as follows:

Fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years). (SVP 2010) The loss of paleontological resources meeting the criteria outlined above (i.e., a significant paleontological resource) would be a significant impact under CEQA. The CEQA lead agency is responsible for ensuring that impacts to paleontological resources are mitigated, where practicable, in compliance with CEQA and other applicable statutes.

California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code states:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

Here “public lands” means those owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance activities, and for permit actions undertaken by others (e.g., encroachment and land use permits).

2.3 Regional and Local
County of San Luis Obispo
The County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (County of San Luis Obispo 2010) contains one goal, one policy, and two implementation strategies pertaining to paleontological mitigation. They are as follows:
▪ Goal CR 4: The county’s known and potential Native American, archaeological and paleontological resources will be preserved and protected.  Policy CR 4.5. Protect paleontological resources from the effects of development by avoiding disturbance where feasible.
− Implementation Strategy CR 4.5.1 Paleontological Studies. Require a paleontological resource assessment and mitigation plan to 1) identify the extent and potential significance of the resources that may exist within the proposed development and 2) provide mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts when existing information indicates that a site proposed for development may contain biological, paleontological, or other scientific resources.

Regulations

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 11
− Implementation Strategy CR 4.5.2 Paleontological Monitoring. Require a paleontologist and/or registered geologist to monitor site-grading activities when paleontological resources are known or likely to occur. The monitor will have the authority to halt grading to determine the appropriate protection or mitigation measures. Measures may include collection of paleontological resources, curation of any resources collected with an appropriate repository, and documentation with the County.

Additionally, Section 11.04.060(b) of the San Luis Obispo County Code (2014) states that it is unlawful for any person to engage in the following acts within any county park or facility without prior written authorization from the director or designee:
1) Remove, cut, dig, or disfigure any soil, rock, or fossil 2) Dig up, pick, remove, mutilate, injure, or collect any historical or archaeological artifact or object
3) Disturb, deface, disfigure, mark on, or destroy any cave, rock formation, or any other naturally occurring feature
4) Deposit any earth, sand, rock, stone, or other substance or dig such materials from any area City of Pismo Beach
Although project construction activities would occur in Grover Beach and Oceano, the City, as the lead agency and one of the project sponsors, and its contractor(s) would abide by its own policies related to paleontological resources. The City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program (2014) contains the following policy pertaining to paleontological resources:
▪ CO-6 Construction Suspension. Should archaeological and paleontological resources be disclosed during any construction activity, all activity that could damage or destroy the resource shall be suspended until a qualified archaeologist has examined the site.

Construction shall not resume until mitigation measures have been developed and carried out to address the impacts of the project on these resources.

City of Grover Beach
The City of Grover Beach General Plan (2010) does not contain policies applicable to the preservation or mitigation of paleontological resources. The City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Program (2014) contains one policy recommendation pertaining to paleontological resources:
▪ Policy: Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required by the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

12 3 Resource Assessment Guidelines

3.1 Significance Criteria
Fossils represent the only direct evidence of past life from Earth’s history. Fossils are thus a foundational data source for research on a wide variety of topics that fall under the broad umbrella of “evolutionary pattern and process” including taphonomy, phylogeny, paleoecology, stratigraphy, biochronology, taxonomy, and cladistics.

Significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that meet one or more of the following criteria:
▪ Unique;
▪ Unusual;
▪ Rare;
▪ Diagnostically important;
▪ Common but have the potential to provide valuable scientific information for evaluating evolutionary patterns and processes; and/or
▪ Could improve our understanding of paleochronology, paleoecology, paleophylogeography, or depositional histories.

New or unique specimens can provide new insights into evolutionary history; however, additional specimens of even well represented lineages can be equally important for studying evolutionary pattern and process, evolutionary rates, and paleophylogeography. Even unidentifiable material can provide useful data for dating geologic units if radiometric dating is possible. As such, common fossils (especially vertebrates) may be scientifically important and therefore considered significant.

3.2 Paleontological Sensitivity Criteria
The SVP (2010) describes sedimentary rock units as having high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. This criterion is based on rock units in which significant fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. While these standards were written specifically to protect vertebrate paleontological resources, all fields of paleontology have adopted these guidelines, which are given here verbatim:

I. High Potential (Sensitivity). Rock units from which significant vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils or significant suites of plant fossils have been recovered have a high potential for containing significant non-renewable fossiliferous resources. These units include but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcanic formations which contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. Sensitivity comprises both (a) the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, or stratigraphic data. Areas which contain potentially datable organic remains older than the Holocene epoch, including deposits

Resource Assessment Guidelines

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 13
associated with nests or middens, and areas which may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also classified as significant.

II. Low Potential (Sensitivity). Sedimentary rock units that are potentially fossiliferous but have not yielded fossils in the past or contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils of well documented and understood taphonomic, phylogenetic species and habitat ecology.

Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist may allow determination that some areas or units have low potentials for yielding significant fossils prior to the start of construction. Generally, these units will be poorly represented by specimens in institutional collections and will not require protectio n or salvage operations. However, as excavation for construction gets underway it is possible that significant and unanticipated paleontological resources might be encountered and require a change of classification from Low to High Potential and, thus, require monitoring and mitigation if the resources are found to be significant.

III. Undetermined Potential (Sensitivity). Specific areas underlain by sedimentary rock units for which little information is available have undetermined fossiliferous potentials. Field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to specifically determine the potentials of the rock units are required before programs of impact mitigation for such areas may be developed.

IV. No Potential. Rock units of metamorphic or igneous origin are commonly classified as having no potential for containing significant paleontological resources.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

14 4 Methods
Rincon evaluated the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units which underlie the footprint of project components with known locations using the results of the museum locality search and review of existing information in the scientific literature concerning known fossils in those geologic units.

Rincon submitted a request to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) for a list of known fossil localities from the project area and immediate vicinity (i.e., localities recorded on the United States Geological Survey Oceano, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle), reviewed geologic maps, and reviewed primary literature and online databases.

Rincon assigned paleontological sensitivities to the geologic units in the footprint of project components with known locations. The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically-sensitive geologic units.

This updated report evaluates the potential paleontological resources impacts of several modifications to the layout of project facilities that have occurred during evolution of the design process, resulting in new project impact areas beyond those identified and evaluated in the original paleontological resources assessment (Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2020).

Description of Resources

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 15
5 Description of Resources

5.1 Geologic Setting
The project area is situated in the Coast Ranges, one of eleven major geomorphic provinces in California (California Geological Survey 2002). A geomorphic province is a region of unique topography and geology that is distinguished from other regions based on its landforms and geologic history. The Coast Ranges extend about 600 miles from the Oregon border south to the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County and are characterized by numerous north-south–trending mountain ranges and valleys (Norris and Webb 1990). Prominent geologic features near the project area include the San Luis Range, Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes, Arroyo Grande Creek, the Oceano fault, and the Nine Sisters Miocene volcanic peaks (Holland 2013; Lettis et al. 1994; Surdham and Stanley 1984).

The basement rocks of the Coast Ranges include the plutonic Salinian Block and the Jurassic to Cretaceous metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks of the Franciscan Complex. During the Mesozoic Era and into the Cenozoic Era, the area of the present-day Coast Ranges was covered by seawater and thick deposits of marine sedimentary rocks accumulated on the Franciscan basement rock (Bartow and Nilsen 1990; Graymer et al. 1996). Starting in the late Miocene epoch, the mountains of the Coast Ranges began to rise, and terrestrial sedimentary rocks were deposited (Norris and Webb 1990), with the Pleistocene marked by glacially-controlled sea level fluctuations and tectonic uplift during which the shoreline advanced and retreated as much as 30 miles across the continental shelf (Hall 2007).

As shown in Figure 3, the footprint of project components with known locations includes two geologic units mapped at the surface: Holocene-aged alluvial flood-plain deposits and Pleistocene-aged old eolian deposits (Holland 2013). The distribution, lithology, and paleontology, of these geologic units are discussed below.

Alluvial Floodplain Deposits (Qa)
Holocene-aged alluvial floodplain deposits underlie some of the western and southern project components (Figure 3). Holocene-aged alluvial floodplain deposits consist of active and recently active flood-plain deposits composed of unconsolidated sandy, silty, and clay-bearing alluvium (Holland 2013). Alluvial floodplain deposits are found underlying project components west of SR 1. According to Hall (1973), the maximum thickness of these alluvial deposits is approximately 90 feet. Holocene- aged alluvial floodplain deposits are likely too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources and therefore have low paleontological sensitivity.

Old Eolian Deposits (Qoe)
Pleistocene-aged old eolian deposits underlie most of the eastern and northern project components (Figure 3). Old eolian deposits consist of well-sorted, dissected, red to brown windblown sand with weak soil development (Holland 2013). Old eolian deposits are mapped in the more eastern (inland) parts of the footprint of project components with known locations. Hall (1973) combines old eolian deposits with young eolian deposits and suggests the combined maximum thickness of the young and old eolian deposits is approximately 100 feet. Coastal eolian deposits very rarely preserve fossils

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

16 Figure 3 Geologic Map of Project Components

Geologic Units and Paleontological
Sensitivity
Qa —Alluvial floodplain
deposits (late Holocene)
Qoe—Old eolian deposits
(late Pleistocene)
1,100 N0550AJi
Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors (P 2023.

Additional data provided by Holland,2013.

Description of Resources

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 17
in California (Jefferson 2010), and eolian (i.e., wind-deposited) sediments generally do not preserve paleontological resources. Therefore, old eolian deposits have low paleontological sensitivity.

5.2 Paleontological Setting
Rincon received the results of a paleontological records search from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County on December 24, 2019 (McLeod 2019). According to the results of the museum records search, no paleontological resources have been recorded within the footprint of project components with known locations. The closest fossil locality to the footprint of project components with known locations from Pleistocene-age deposits is LACM 4089, approximately nine miles to the southeast in Nipomo, which yielded a fossil mammoth (Mammuthus columbi). The depth of this fossil locality was not stated (McLeod 2019).

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

18 6 Evaluation, Impacts, and
Recommendations

6.1 Paleontological Sensitivity Evaluation
In accordance with SVP (2010) guidelines, Rincon determined the paleontological sensitivity of the footprint of project components with known locations based on a review of geologic maps, published literature and online databases, and museum records. The results of this paleontological assessment indicate the two geologic units mapped at the surface within the footprint of project components with known locations - Holocene-aged alluvial floodplain deposits and Pleistocene-aged old eolian deposits - have low paleontological sensitivity.

6.2 Impacts
All known project components are located in areas mapped as sediments with low paleontological sensitivity (Figure 3). Ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project include trenching and trenchless boring for pipelines; drilling for groundwater injection, monitoring, and production wells; and excavations for the ATF complex. Excavations for the pipelines and the ATF complex are expected to reach up to 16 and 25 feet below the surface, respectively. Therefore, these excavations are not anticipated to have a significant impact on paleontological resources because they would be confined to geologic units with low paleontological sensitivity.

Drilling for groundwater injection, monitoring, and production wells is anticipated to reach up to 680 feet below the surface. The low-sensitivity geologic units mapped at the surface in the footprint of project components with known locations are estimated to be up to 100 feet thick (Hall 1973), meaning that drilling would impact geologic units not mapped at the surface. Based on the regional geology, these geologic units could represent Cenozoic sedimentary rocks (e.g., Pismo Formation or Monterey Formation), Cenozoic igneous rocks (Obispo Formation), or Mesozoic sedimentary, metasedimentary, or metavolcanic rocks (Franciscan Complex or Salinian Block) (Holland 2013; Wiegers 2021). These rocks could range from having no paleontological sensitivity (e.g., igneous or metavolcanic rocks) to high paleontological sensitivity (e.g., Cenozoic sedimentary rocks). The nature of the rocks more than 100 feet below the surface is unknown; therefore, they are considered to have an undetermined paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological monitoring of boreholes is typically conducted by examining spoils brought up during the drilling process for any contained fossil remains.

However, due to the proposed well drilling method for depths greater than 100 feet, any encountered paleontological resources would be pulverized by drilling equipment before the spoils reach the surface such that it would not be possible to know whether a paleontological resource is significantly impacted by drilling activities. No known paleontological resources would be impacted and the level of potential impacts to undiscovered resources is unknowable; therefore, well drilling activities would be unlikely to result in destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources. As a result, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Evaluation, Impacts, and Recommendations

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 19

6.3 Recommendations
Further paleontological resources work is not recommended at this time. The City would abide by Policy CO-6 in its General Plan and Local Coastal Program (2014), which requires suspension of construction activity in the event that a paleontological resource is disclosed and retention of a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist to examine the site. Construction would not resume until mitigation measures have been developed and carried out to address the impacts of the project on these resources.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

20 7 References
Bartow, J. A., and T. H. Nilsen. 1990. Review of the Great Valley Sequence, Eastern Diablo Range and Northern San Joaquin Valley, Central California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90- 226, Menlo Park, California.

California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/CGS-Note-36.pdf Graymer, R.W., D.L. Jones, and E.E. Brabb. 1996. Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Alameda County, California: A Digital Database. U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 96–252. Menlo Park, California. Scale 1:75,000.

Grover Beach, City of. 2010. City of Grover Beach General Plan. http://www.grover.org/index.aspx?NID=230 (accessed February 2023). ______. 2014. Local Coastal Program. https://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1808 (accessed February 2023).

Hall, C.A. 1973. Geology of the Arroyo Grande 15’ Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California:

California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 24, scale 1:48,000. ______. 2007. Introduction to the Geology of Southern California and Its Native Plants. University of California Press, Los Angeles. 493 p.

Holland, P.J. 2013. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Oceano 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California: A Digital Database, Version 1.0: California Geological Survey, scale 1:24,000.

Jefferson, G.T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report. Volume 7, pp. 5-172.

Lettis, W. R., Kelson, K.I., Wesling, J.R., Angell, M., Hanson, K.L., and Hall, N.T. 1994. Quaternary deformation of the San Luis Range, San Luis Obispo County, California. In Alterman, I.B., McMullen, R.B., Cluff, L.S., and Slemmons, D.B., eds., Seismotectonics of the Central California Coast Ranges. Geological Society of America Special Papers, v. 292, p. 111-132.

McLeod, S.A. 2019. Paleontological resources for the proposed Central Coast Blue Project, Rincon Project # 15-01882, in Oceano, San Luis Obispo County, project area: Museum records search letter from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC).

Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb. 1990. Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.

Pismo Beach, City of. 2014. City of Pismo Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program. https://www.pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/247/01-General-Plan-?bidId= (accessed February 2023).

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon). 2020. Central Coast Blue Project Paleontological Resources Assessment. April 2020.

San Luis Obispo, County of. 2010. County of San Luis Obispo General Plan. https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms- Documents/Plans.aspx (accessed February 2023).

References

Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 21
______. 2014. San Luis Obispo County Code, Title 11 – Parks and Recreation, Section 11.04.060. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_luis_obispo_county/codes/county_code?nodeId=TIT1 1PARE_CH11.04ALCOPAFAEXNALA (accessed February 2023).

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf (accessed February 2023).

Surdam, R.C., and K.O. Stanley. 1984. Stratigraphic and Sedimentologic Framework of the Monterey Formation, Pismo Syncline, California: SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology Field Trip Guide: Stratigraphic, Tectonic, Thermal, and Diagenetic Histories of the Monterey Formation, Pismo and Huasna Basin, California, v. 2.

Wiegers, M.O. 2021. Preliminary geologic map of the west half of the San Luis Obispo 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, California, version 2.0. [map.] California Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Maps PGM-18-03.2021, scale 1:100,000.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project

22 8 List of Preparers
Resumes for all preparers are included in Appendix A.

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Primary Authors
▪ Andrew McGrath, PhD, Paleontologist
Senior Review
▪ Jennifer DiCenzo, BA, Paleontological Program Manager Principal Review
▪ Nichole Jordan, MA, Principal

Appendix A
Staff Resumes

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
MA, Applied Anthropology,
California State University, East
Bay (2009)
BA, Anthropology, California
State University, Sacramento
(2005)
AA, Social Science, Los Rios
Community College,
Sacramento (2003)

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATIONS
Register of Professional
Archaeologists
California Council for the
Promotion of History
Society for American
Archaeology
Society for California
Archaeology, Legislative
Committee
Section 106 for Experienced
Practitioners
Section 4(f) for Historic
Properties
CEQA for Advanced
Practitioners

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE
16 EXPERIENCE
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
(2020 to present)
Nichole Jordan, RPA
Cultural Resources Principal
Ms. Jordan is a Cultural Resources Principal with Rincon Consultants. She is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (#989208) and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology and the Society for California Archaeology’s professional qualification standards for Principal Investigator. Ms. Jordan has 19 years of experience in cultural resources management, including project management, personnel management, Native American consultation, archival research, laboratory analysis, ethnographic and historical research, field survey, archaeological excavation, laboratory analysis, collections management, and GIS applications. She has experience with cultural and tribal cultural resources issues as they relate to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). She directs the preparation of cultural resources technical studies compliant with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), CEQA, and agreement documents. These include studies documenting research, survey, testing, excavation, monitoring and evaluation for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register).

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Contract Manager, Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Access Roads Management Program (North Region), Various COunties
Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Access Roads Management Program manages PG&E’s network of access roads to electrical transmission and certain distribution infrastructure throughout PG&E’s service territory. Ms. Jordan’s team provided land planner support, resource agency permitting, resource constraints analyses, resource inventories, and general environmental services to support the Access Road Management program in the North Region.

Project Manager, Southwest Gas – North Shore Drive Gas Line Replacement Project, San Bernardino County
Southwest Gas proposed the North Shore Drive project in Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County. The United States Forest Service is the Section 106 lead on the project for which several archaeological and built environment cultural resources are being evaluated for inclusion in the National Register and California Register. The project’s potential to affect resources will be assessed and Environmentally Sensitive Area Fencing will be placed, as appropriate.

Project Manager, North Star Solar – North Star Generation Tie Line, Switching Station, and Related Facilities, Fresno County
North Star Solar proposed the North Star Generation Tie Line, Switching Station, and Related Facilities Project as part of the continuing development and expansion of its North Star solar generating facility near Mendota in Fresno County. This CEQA‐ compliant cultural resources study evaluated three built environment resources and identified three historic‐period archaeological resources eligible for inclusion in the California Register. During project construction, pre-construction meetings were held with the construction crew, and archaeological monitoring was conducted at archaeological resource locations, which was documented in the archaeological monitoring report.

Nichole Jordan, RPA, Page 2
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)
Principal Investigator, California Department of Transportation – Kilburn Road Bridge Replacement Project, Stanislaus County
The County of Stanislaus, in coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration, proposed the Kilburn Road Bridge Replacement Project near Crows Landing.

Kilburn Road Bridge (No. 38C0168) is a National Register–eligible resource that required a Finding of Effect, Environmentally Sensitive Area Action Plan, and Memorandum o f Agreement. This project also required a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) and Area of Potential Effects (APE) map.

Principal Investigator, City of Elk Grove – Kammerer Road Extension Project, Elk Grove The County of Sacramento and the City of Elk Grove, in coordination with Caltrans with funding administered through the Federal Highway Administration, proposed to extend Kammerer Road between Highway 99 and Interstate 5. Ms.

Jordan directed the cultural resources technical studies, which resulted in a finding of no historic properties affected with standard conditions. The scope of work included an HPSR, ASR, APE, Historical Resources Evaluation Report, Management Plan, Programmatic Agreement, and Memorandum o f Understanding. Fourteen built environment cultural resources were recommended not eligible for inclusion in the National Register and California Register , and one prehistoric archaeological resource was assumed eligible for both registers for the purposes of the project.

Consulting tribes were invited to be concurring parties on the Programmatic Agreement prepared for the project because they identified the prehistoric archaeological resource as a tribal cultural resource within the APE.

Principal Investigator, Caltrans – North County Corridor New State Route 108 Project, Stanislaus County The North County Corridor Transportation Expressway Authority, in conjunction with Caltrans, as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration, proposed the North County Corridor New State Route 108 project. The project will relocate the existing State Route 108, which currently runs through the cities of Riverbank and Oakdale, to the south and would increase roadway capacity to accommodate existing and future traffic vol umes. Ms. Jordan directed the preparation of the Historical Resources Evaluation Report, which evaluated 141 properties, recommending four eligible for inclusion in the National Register and 137 properties not eligible for inclusion.

Principal Investigator, City of Rancho Cordova – Folsom Boulevard Complete Streets Project, Rancho Cordova The City of Rancho Cordova, in conjunction with Caltrans, proposed to construct sidewalks, bike lanes, medians, safety fencing, and street and pedestrian lighting along Folsom Boulevard between Rod Beaudry Drive and Horn Road at the western end of the city. Ms. Jordan managed the cultural resources subconsultants that prepared an ASR, HPSR, and Extended Phase I Study to determine if this project had the potential to affect a previously identified archaeological resource adjacent to the APE. The State Office of Historic Preservation concurred with the recommendation of no historic properties affected.

Task Manager, City of Elk Grove – Big Horn Boulevard and Bilby Road Extension Projects, Elk Grove Ms. Jordan managed the completion of the cultural resources identification and evaluation study required for the project’s compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Ms. Jordan directed the preparation of the study, delineation of the APE, interested parties consultation, a built environment survey, and built environment resources evaluations for inclusion in the National Register with one resource recommended eligible.

Task Manager, City of South San Francisco – Community Civic Campus Project, South San Francisco Ms. Jordan directed the preparation of a cultural resources letter report summarizing the methods and results of an intensive‐level cultural resources field survey, records search, and two California Register evaluations. The intent of the field survey, records search, and California Register evaluations was to determine the presence of any historical resources (archaeological and built environment) within or adjacent to the project area that may be directly impacted by the project. Based on the results of this study, the project does not have the potential to impact known cultural resources; however, sensitivity for encountering prehistoric and historic period archaeological resources is very high.

Mitigation measures included a pre-construction meeting, construction monitoring, construction cessation if archaeological resources are identified, and adherence to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
BA, Anthropology, Minor in
Geology, San Diego State
University, San Diego,
California

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE
10+

EXPERIENCE
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
(2021 to present)
Red Tail Environmental, Inc.
(2018 to 2021)
Paleo Solutions, Inc.
(2012 to 2018)
Jennifer DiCenzo
Paleontological Program Manager
Ms. DiCenzo has over 10 years of fieldwork and consulting experience in California paleontology and archaeology. She received her B.A. degree in anthropology with a focus in archaeology and a minor in geology with a focus on paleontology at San Diego State University in 2012. She has made substantial contributions supervising field staff, surveying, construction mitigation monitoring, conducting data recovery, salvaging fossils, preparing fossils in laboratory settings, writing technical assessments, developing and administering monitoring and mitigation plans, and managing projects. Ms. DiCenzo has coordinated compliance monitoring on a range of projects including renewable energy, housing and commercial development, transportation, and utility projects. She has written or supervised the preparation of numerous technical documents including paleontological resources assessments and technical reports, impact analyses, paleontological mitigation and monitoring plans, paleontological sections of Environmental Impact Reports, Environmental Assessment, Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declarations, paleontological monitoring reports, and paleontological survey reports .

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Senior Paleontologist/Project Manager, County of San Luis Obispo - San Luis Obispo County Paso Basin Land Use Management Area Planting Ordinance Program Environmental Impact Report, San Luis Obispo County
Ms. DiCenzo was responsible for overseeing the paleontological study for incorporation into the Program Environmental Impact Report for this project. The study consisted of reviewing existing literature and geological mapping to provide a paleontological resources assessment and sensitivity analysis and recommending measures to mitigate impacts to fossil resources.

Senior Paleontologist, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department – Water Resource Recovery Facility Project, San Luis Obispo County Ms. DiCenzo was responsible for providing oversight and coordination of paleontological fieldwork for this ongoing mass excavation into Quaternary older alluvial deposits.

Senior Paleontologist/Project Manager, City of Port Hueneme – Bubbling Springs Routine Maintenance Agreement Project, Ventura County Ms. DiCenzo oversaw preparation of the paleontological resources section of the Initial Study-Negative Declaration for the project. The study included reviewing existing literature and geological mapping to provide a paleontological resources assessment and sensitivity analysis and providing measures to mitigate impacts to fossil resources.

Senior Paleontologist/Project Manager, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency – South Wells PFAS Groundwater Treatment Facility Project, Ventura County Ms. DiCenzo oversaw preparation of the paleontological resources section for the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The study included reviewing existing literature and geological mapping to provide a paleontological resources assessment and sensitivity ratings and providing measures to mitigate impacts to fossil resources during construction.

Jennifer DiCenzo, Page 2
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)
Principal Investigator/Project Manager, Casitas Municipal Water District – Ventura-Santa Barbara Intertie Project, Ventura County
Ms. DiCenzo is responsible for managing paleontological consulting, monitoring, and reporting for several ongoing projects related the Ventura-Santa Barbara Intertie Project. Ms. DiCenzo supervises and coordinates paleontological field personnel and provides guidance related to handling of paleontological resource localities during excavations into multiple geologic units with a range of sensitivities.

Senior Paleontologist/Project Manager, Southern California Edison – Valle Substation Project, Ventura County Ms. DiCenzo was responsible for providing oversight and coordination of all fieldwork and prepared a summary of findings for a paleontological survey of this proposed utility improvements project.

Senior Paleontologist, Southern California Edison – Valley South Subtransmission Line Project, Riverside County Ms. DiCenzo was responsible for leading a crew of eight team members through 17 miles of a proposed linear transmission line alignment. All survey work was incorporated into the Proponent ’s Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Southern California Edison. This included proper Bureau of Land Management authorization and permitting to conduct surveying and a research design for field reconnaissance related to the PEA, Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report documentation for the transmission line.

Paleontologist, California Department of Transportation District 8 – French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Project, Riverside County
Ms. DiCenzo was one of two paleontologists responsible for surveying, planning, construction mitigation monitoring, and writing the paleontological technical sections of the final survey and monitoring reports for excavations into the highly sensitive Pauba Formation in a complex area of the project requiring work on a busy freeway and city streets.

Project Manager/Senior Paleontologist, Greystar/City of San Diego – Sixth and Olive Project, San Diego County Ms. DiCenzo was responsible for recovering 70 fossil specimens from nine localities for a mass excavation 70+ feet into San Diego Formation near Balboa Park in eastern Downtown San Diego . She drafted the budget, prepared the proposal, attended preconstruction meetings with the City of San Diego, provided record search and literature review results, then applied cross-trained archaeological and paleontological field and technical support during the project, provided project management/scheduling, salvaged fossil specimens, prepared fossil specimens in the laboratory, curated the fossil collection, and wrote the final paleontological monitoring report.

Project Manager/Paleontologist, City of San Diego – Courthouse Commons South Block Project, San Diego County Ms. DiCenzo attended preconstruction meetings with City of San Diego and provided record search and literature review. Ms. DiCenzo provided paleontological technical expertise, monitoring, salvaging, and project management/scheduling for a mass excavation into very old paralic deposits.

Project Manager/Field Paleontologist/Report Author, City of San Diego – Ashley Falls Large Scale Storm Flow Storage Lid Project, San Diego County
Ms. DiCenzo estimated project budget and prepared proposal, performed preliminary record search and literature review of project area, attended the preconstruction meeting, delivered the Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, created a WEAP training tri-fold, scheduled monitoring personnel, monitored, and wrote the report for a storm flow drain in Rancho Santa Fe.

Project Manager/Field Paleontologist, United States General Services Administration – San Ysidro Land Port of Entry Phase 3 Project, San Diego County
Ms. DiCenzo scheduled personnel and delivered WEAP training for a re-routing, re-aligning, widening, and expansion of the inspection areas and parking facility at Mexico's El Chaparral facility at the United States/Mexico border at San Ysidro.

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
PhD, Earth Science, University
of California, Santa Barbara
(2021)
Certificate in College and
University Teaching, University
of California, Santa Barbara
(2021)
BA, Biology &
BA, Evolutionary Biology,
summa cum laude, Case
Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio (2016)

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE
1 Andrew J. McGrath, PhD
Paleontologist/Assistant Project Manager
Dr. McGrath has nine years of paleontological research experience, including fieldwork in California and Bolivia, presentations at research conferences, and four first-author publications.

Dr. McGrath earned a PhD in Earth Science in 2021 from the University of California, Santa Barbara. In his dissertation, Dr. McGrath described South American native ungulate and rodent fossils and analyzed their phylogeny, biochronology, and locomotor ecology.

Since joining Rincon in July 2021, Dr. McGrath has conducted paleontological monitoring, paleontological field surveys, and desktop analyses, and prepared technical documents (e.g., environmental impact reports, initial studies, construction compliance monitoring reports, and paleontological mitigation plans).

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Paleontologist, State Route 46 Corridor Improvement Project (Cholame Section) – Caltrans, San Luis Obispo County, California (2022-present) The State Route (SR) 46 Corridor Improvement Project (Cholame Section) involves the construction of a new alignment for SR 46 near Cholame, California. Dr. McGrath was the primary author of the project’s Paleontological Mitigation Plan and conducted paleontological construction monitoring to ensure environmental compliance.

Paleontologist, California High Speed Rail – CP1D North Extension Project, Madera County, California (2022-present)
The CP1D North Extension project involves the construction of part of California’s high-speed rail system. Dr. McGrath was responsible for scheduling paleontological and archaeological monitors, reaching out to Native American tribes for cultural resource monitoring and surveying, and drafting monthly monitoring reports.

Paleontologist, Blythe Mesa Solar, LLC – Blythe Mesa Solar II Project, Blythe, Riverside County, California (2021-2022)
The Blythe Mesa Solar II project involved the construction of several large solar photovoltaic arrays. Dr. McGrath was responsible for scheduling paleontological monitors, cataloging fossil discoveries, and ensuring environmental compliance for paleontological monitoring on private and federal lands. Dr. McGrath also drafted monitoring reports which summarized the monitoring efforts on federal and non- federal lands.

Paleontologist, Southern California Edison Company – Cal City Substation 115 kV Upgrade Project, Kern and San Bernardino Counties, California (2021-2022) The Cal City Substation 115 kV Upgrade project analyzed several proposed routes for new and upgraded utility lines near California City, California. Dr. McGrath assisted in the field survey and was the primary author of the resulting Paleontological Resources Technical Report.

Andrew J. McGrath, PhD, Page 2
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

OTHER PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Paleontological/Cultural Resource Monitor Scheduling and Support ▪ East and West Ojai Avenue Pipeline Replacement Project (Ventura Co.) Paleontological Mitigation Programs
▪ Campus Pointe Phase Mitigation Compliance Project (San Diego Co.) ▪ Lugo-Victorville Remedial Action Scheme Project (San Bernardino Co. and BLM) ▪ Coptic Orthodox Church Project (San Bernardino Co.)
▪ Lake Mathews Valve Storage Project (Riverside Co.)
▪ Country Club Well Mitigation Project (Santa Cruz Co.) Environmental Review Documents
▪ Heritage Ranch Water Resources Recovery Facility Project (Paleontological Resources Analysis) (San Luis Obispo Co.)
▪ California City Cannabis Cultivation Project (Initial Study) (Kern Co.) ▪ City of Pleasant Hill Housing Element Update (Initial Study) (Contra Costa Co.) ▪ Chowchilla High School Sports Complex Project (Initial Study) (Madera Co.) ▪ El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project (Initial Study) (Santa Clara Co.) ▪ City of American Canyon General Plan Update (Environmental Impact Report) (Napa Co.) ▪ Ukiah General Plan Update (Environmental Impact Report) (Mendocino Co.) ▪ Moss Landing Wastewater Treatment Facility (Paleontological Resource Analysis-CEQA Plus) (Monterey Co.) ▪ Town of Moraga Comprehensive Advanced Planning Initiative (Environmental Impact Report) (Contra Costa Co.) ▪ Slover/Banana Warehouse Project (Initial Study) (San Bernardino County) ▪ Watson Lane Annexation Project (Environmental Impact Report) (Napa Co.) ▪ Valor Elementary School Project (Initial Study) (Los Angeles Co.) ▪ Washington Street Sewer Bypass Project (Paleontological Resources Analysis-CEQA Plus) (Monterey Co.) ▪ Ventura-Santa Barbara Counties Intertie Project (Initial Study) (Ventura & Sant a Barbara Cos.) ▪ 32051 Coast Highway Project (Paleontological Resources Analysis) (Orange Co.) ▪ Los Altos Housing Element Update (Initial Study) (Santa Clara Co.) ▪ San Ramon Housing Element Update (Initial Study) (Contra Costa Co.) ▪ 101 N Fremont St Hotel Project (Environmental Impact Report (Monterey Co.) ▪ Coastal Rail Trail, Segments 8-9 Project (Environmental Impact Report (Santa Cruz Co.) ▪ Laguna Rd HDPE Pipeline Project (Initial Study) (Ventura Co.) ▪ Overland Drive Widening Project (Initial Study) (Riverside Co.) ▪ Bell Oasis Apartments Project (Initial Study) (Orange Co.) ▪ Ausonio Apartments Project (Environmental Impact Report) (Monterey Co.) ▪ Fontana-Foothill Apartments Project (Initial Study) (San Bernardino Co.) ▪ 150 Vista del Sol Project (Paleontological Resources Analysis) (Orange Co.) ▪ 1290 Embarcadero Rd Battery Energy Storage System Project (Paleontological Resources Analysis) (San Luis Obispo Co.)
▪ 660 University Mixed Use Project (Environmental Impact Report) (Santa Clara Co.) ▪ Berkeley Housing Element Update (Environmental Impact Report) (Alameda Co.)

Andrew J. McGrath, PhD, Page 3
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

▪ Orinda Downtown Precise Plan (Environmental Impact Report) (Contra Costa Co.) ▪ Del Valle Substation Project (Add. to Paleontological Resources Analysis) (Los Angeles & Ventura Cos.) ▪ Slover and Cherry Logistics Facility Project (Initial Study) (San Bernardino Co.) ▪ Phase 2 Foster Park Fish Passage Improvement (Initial Study) (Ventura Co.) ▪ Charolais Ranch Subdivision Project (Environmental Impact Report) (Monterey Co.) ▪ Lugo-Victorville Remedial Action Scheme Project (Add. to Paleontological Resource Analysis) (San Bernardino Co.) ▪ Mesa Tanks Replacement Project (Initial Study) (Ventura Co.) ▪ Rohnert Park 2040 General Plan Update (Environmental Impact Report) (Sonoma Co.) ▪ City of Millbrae General Plan Update and Specific Plan Update (Environmental Impact Report) (San Mateo Co.) ▪ Lee Subdivision Project (Environmental Impact Report) (San Benito Co.) ▪ Trinity County General Plan Update (Background Report) (Trinity Co.) ▪ SoCalGas Pipeline Safety Enhancement Program (Draft Environmental Reports) (various) ▪ 1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project (Initial Study) (Santa Clara Co.) ▪ 200 Portage Road Condominium Project (Environmental Impact Report) (Santa Clara Co.) ▪ Coarsegold Water Treatment – Cultural Study (Paleontological Resources Assessment) (Fresno Co.) ▪ 325 Hampshire Road Project (Environmental Impact Report) (Ventura Co.) ▪ 2022 Tulare County RTP/SCS Project (Environmental Impact Report) (Tulare Co.) ▪ City of Piedmont Housing Element Update (Environmental Impact Report) (Alameda Co.) ▪ Key Energy Storage Project (Paleontological Resources Assessment) (Fresno Co.) ▪ James Irrigation District Solar Project (Initial Study) (Fresno Co.) ▪ South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project (Initial Study) (Alameda Co.) ▪ Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan Update (Environmental Impact Report) (Los Angeles Co.) ▪ San Pablo Dam Road Self-Storage Project (Initial Study) (Contra Costa Co.) ▪ Bubbling Springs Natural Channel Vegetation Removal Project (Initial Study) (Ventura Co.) Paleontological Surveying
▪ Del Valle Substation Project (Field Survey) (Los Angeles & Ventura Cos.) ▪ Cal City Substation 115 kV Upgrade Project (Field Survey) (Kern & San Bernardino Cos.) Paleontological Monitoring
▪ Blythe Mesa Solar II Project (Riverside Co. and BLM)
▪ West Ojai Pipeline Replacement Project (Ventura Co.)
▪ Running Ridge Pipeline Replacement Project (Ventura Co.) ▪ Grand Ave and Lion St Pipeline Replacement Project (Ventura Co.) ▪ Bluffs at Ridgemark Environmental Compliance Project (San Benito Co.)

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
PhD Dissertation (Sept. 2016 – present)
▪ Phylogenetic analysis of proterotheriid litoptern mammals and description of Miocene Chilean litoptern fossils ▪ Description of Miocene Bolivian litopterns and diversity and body size analysis of litopterns through Cenozoic ▪ Relationships of Miocene Patagonian rodent communities and description of Miocene Chilean rodent fossils ▪ Locomotory structure of Miocene South American native ungulate community analysis of tarsal bones

Andrew J. McGrath, PhD, Page 4
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

Field Volunteer, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History (Aug. 2018) Excavation of fossil sea cow from Santa Rosa Island (CA) team of volunteers, museum staff, and Channel Islands National Park staff led by Dr. Jonathan Hoffman
Undergraduate Researcher, Case Western Reserve University (2012 – 2016) ▪ Projects:
 Dietary reconstruction of Miocene notoungulate mammals using low-magnification enamel microwear  Description of Miocene Bolivian macraucheniid litopterns and comparative analysis of body mass estimation methods
▪ Fieldwork:
 May 2015 and 2016: Quebrada Honda, Bolivia. Collection of paleosol, paleomagnetic, and palynological samples and vertebrate fossils. Fossil curation.

PUBLICATIONS
McGrath, A.J., Chick, J., Croft, D.A., Dodson, H.E., Flynn, J.J., & Wyss, A.R. 2022. Cavioids, chinchilloids, and erethizontoids (Hystricognathi, Rodentia, Mammalia) of the early Miocene Pampa Castillo Fauna, Chile. American Museum Novitates, 3984: 1–46.

McGrath, A.J., Anaya, F., & Croft, D.A. 2020. New proterotheriids (Litopterna, Mammalia) from the middle Miocene of Quebrada Honda, Bolivia, and trends in diversity and body size of proterotheriid and macraucheniid litopterns.

Ameghiniana, 57(2): 159–188.

McGrath, A.J., Flynn, J.J., & Wyss, A.R. 2020. Proterotheriids and macraucheniids (Litopterna: Mammalia) from the Pampa Castillo fauna, Chile (early Miocene, Santacrucian SALMA) and a new phylogeny of Proterotheriidae.

Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 18(9), 717–738.

McGrath, A.J., Anaya, F., & Croft, D.A. 2018. Two new macraucheniids (Mammalia: Litopterna) from the late middle Miocene (Laventan South American Land Mammal Age) of Quebrada Honda, Bolivia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 38(3), e1461632.

Pismo Beach City CouncilSeptember 5, 2023

Pismo Beach City Council
September 5, 2023