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

Central Coast Blue
Responses to Comments on Final Addendum
to the Central Coast Blue EIR
prepared by
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, California 93449 Contact: Matt Downing, AICP, Community Development Director
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
September 2023

Table of Contents

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR i
Table of Contents
Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum ................................................................................. 1 Letter 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Letter 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Letter 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Attachments
Attachment 1 Lithology for IW-5A and IW-5B
Attachment 2 Geotechnical Reports
Attachment 3 Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue

This page intentionally left blank.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft
Addendum
This section includes comments received during the circulation of the Draft Addendum to the Central Coast Blue Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Central Coast Blue Project (Project).

The Draft Addendum to the Final EIR was voluntarily circulated for a 30-day public review period that began on June 7, 2023, and ended on July 7, 2023. The City of Pismo Beach received three comment letters on the Draft Addendum to the Final EIR. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below.

Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
1 Andrew Mutziger, Manager – Planning, Outreach & Grants Division, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
2 2 Miguel Cabrera Director, Northern District Deputy, California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division
7 3 Jeff Edwards and Julie Tacker 16
The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number.

The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter 1).
1 Annaliese Torres
From:Andrew Mutziger
Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2023 4:32 PM
To:Annaliese Torres
Cc:Matt Downing; Dora Drexler; Karl Tupper; Ashley S. Goldlist Subject:[EXT] RE: NOI to Adopt an Addendum to the Central Coast Blue Project Final EIR Attachments:20210914-APCDemailCommentsOnCentralCoastBlue.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Hi Annaliese,
SLO County APCD has no additional comments for this project’s FEIR addendum than those we shared in my 14 Sep 2021 email (attached).

Thank you,
Andy Mutziger
Manager - Planning, Outreach & Grants Division
SLO County APCD
805-781-5956
[email protected]
slocleanair.org
From: APCD_slocleanair
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 8:16 AM
To: Andrew Mutziger ; Ashley S. Goldlist ; Vince Kirkhuff

Subject: FW: [EXT]NOI to Adopt an Addendum to the Central Coast Blue Project Final EIR FYI-

APCD STAFF

SLO COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
3433 ROBERTO COURT, SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401
(W) 805-781-5912
SLOCleanAir.org • SLOCarFree.org
From: Annaliese Torres
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 8:00 AM
Cc: Matt Downing
Subject: [EXT]NOI to Adopt an Addendum to the Central Coast Blue Project Final EIR ATTENTION: This email originated from outside the County's network. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

Hello!
Letter 1

1.1 2

On behalf of the City of Pismo Beach, I am providing the aƩached NoƟce of Intent to Adopt an Addendum to the Central Coast Blue Project Final Environmental Impact Report. InformaƟon on the scope of the Addendum as well as the Ɵming of the public review period for the DraŌ Addendum, the locaƟon and Ɵme of the planned public meeƟng, and how to submit comments on the DraŌ Addendum to the City are all included in the aƩachment.

Thank you!
Annaliese Torres, Senior Environmental Planner
657-999-8337 Direct | 805-644-4455 Main
[email protected]
Trusted | Fair | Transparent | Accountable | Disciplined | Entrepreneurial Ranked 2021 “Best Environmental Services Firm to Work For” by Zweig Group 3 Andrew Mutziger
From:Andrew Mutziger
Sent:Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:21 AM
To:Lacey Minnick; PL_Pre-App; Jerry Hittleman; Stephanie Hawner; Annaliese Miller; Matt Downing; Emi D. Sugiyama; Shaun E. Cooper; Nick Franco; Leslie Terry; Airlin Singewald Cc:Xzandrea D. Fowler; Jon Ansolabehere; Trevor Keith; Tanya M. Richardson; Tim Fuhs Subject:Air Quality Permitting Language for Conditions of Approval - RE: PRE2021-00135 - Central Coast Blue - Phase II
Hi All,
Per APCD’s input during today’s meeting on potential Federal, State, or APCD air quality permitting needs for the Central Coast Blue project, below are two construction phase and one operational phase permitting statements that may be applicable to the project. I recommend that these statements be applied to the project’s conditions of approval so if any of these situations come up during the project, there is a clear understanding of how to handle the air quality permitting needs. If there are any air quality permitting questions, please contact SLO County APCD’s Engineering and Compliance Division at 805-781-5912.

If you have any questions about applying these permitting statements to the project, please contact me.

Tim – the OIS Planning number for this project is 4199.

Sincerely,
Andy Mutziger | Division Manager
Planning, Monitoring & Grants
SLO County Air Pollution Control District
(805) 781-5956 VM • [email protected] • SLOCleanAir.org Potential Construction Phase Air Quality Permitting Needs Proper Abatement of Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM)
Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, abatement, and disposal of asbestos-containing material (ACM). ACM could be encountered during the demolition or remodeling of existing structures or the disturbance, demolition, or relocation of above or below ground utility pipes/pipelines (e.g., transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If this project will include any of these activities, then it may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). NESHAP requirements include but are not limited to:
1) Written notification to the APCD, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing. 2) Asbestos survey report conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant. 3) Written work plan addressing asbestos handling procedures in order to prevent visible emissions.

Go to www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php for more information.

Construction Permit Requirements
Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewed as an exclusive list. For a more detailed listing, please refer to the following webpage: slocleanair.org/library/download-forms. Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers; Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generators; 4 Internal combustion engines;
Rock and pavement crushing;
Tub grinders; and
Trommel screens.

Potential Operational Phase Air Quaity Permitting Needs Operational Permit Requirements
Operational sources may require APCD permits. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing, please refer to the following webpage: slocleanair.org/library/download-forms.
Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator; Internal combustion engines; and
Cogeneration facilities.

Most facilities applying for an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate with stationary diesel engines greater than 50 hp, should be prioritized or screened for facility wide health risk impacts. A diesel engine-only facility limited to 20 non-emergency operating hours per year or has demonstrated to have overall diesel particulate emissions less than or equal to 2 lb./yr. does not need to do additional health risk assessment.
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Lacey Minnick
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 6:47 PM
To: Lacey Minnick; PL_Pre-App; Jerry Hittleman; Stephanie Hawner; Annaliese Miller; Matt Downing; Emi D. Sugiyama; Jackie Mansoor; Shaun E. Cooper; Nick Franco; Leslie Terry; Airlin Singewald Cc: Xzandrea D. Fowler; Jon Ansolabehere; Trevor Keith
Subject: PRE2021-00135 - Central Coast Blue - Phase II
When: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).

Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting
Please reserve this time for Pre-Application Meeting PRE2021-00135.

The meeting packet is attached to this calendar entry.
________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or call in (audio only)
+1 831-296-4487,,729253598# United States, Salinas
Phone Conference ID: 729 253 598#
Find a local number | Reset PIN
Learn More | Meeting options
5 City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
Letter 1
COMMENTER: Andrew Mutziger, Manager – Planning, Outreach & Grants Division, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLO County APCD) DATE: June 22, 2023
Response 1.1
The commenter states SLO County APCD has no additional comments on the Addendum to the Final EIR other than those shared in its September 14, 2021 comment letter.

The comment is noted. The September 14, 2021, comment letter was provided by SLO County APCD to the project team following a pre-application meeting with County of San Luis Obispo (County) staff regarding the project’s coastal development permit application. The September 14, 2021, comment letter contained three permitting statements (two construction-phase and one operational-phase) that SLO County APCD recommended be applied to the project’s conditions of approval. The Modified Project would be required to comply with all conditions of approval included in its coastal development permit as well as all applicable air quality regulations and rules promulgated by SLO County APCD.
6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C3311BE-5DA5-46EF-ACEF-EC2997A8224E Gavin Newsom, Governor
David Shabazian, Director
July 6, 2023

VIA EMAIL
Mr. Matthew Downing, Planning Manager
City of Pismo Beach, Public Works Department
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Downing:

PROJECT TITLE: CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT ADDENDUM NO. 1 SCH : 2019120560
The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Amended project referenced above (Project).

CalGEM has previously commented on this project and our recommendations remain the same. Please find the August 28, 2020 letter addressed to Mr. Matthew Downing with comments from The City of Pismo Beach attached.

Thank you for considering CalGEM’s comments. If you have any questions, please contact our District office at (805) 937-7246 or via email at
[email protected]
Sincerely,
Trey Powell
Senior Oil and Gas Engineer
Signature on behalf of
Miguel Cabrera
Northern District Deputy
Enclosure
ZN:ji:kv
cc: Chrono, CSWR
State of California Natural Resources Agency | Department of Conservation Northern District
Orcutt Office and Mail: 195 S. Broadway, Suite 101, Orcutt, CA 93455 | T: (805) 937-7246 | F: (805) 937-0673 Sacramento Office and Mail: 715 P Street, MS 1803, Sacramento, CA 95814 | T: (916) 322-1110 | F: (916) 445-3319 Ventura Office: 1000 S. Hill Road, Suite 116, Ventura, CA 93003 | T: (805) 937-7246 | F: (805) 654-4765 Ventura Mail: 195 S. Broadway, Suite 101, Orcutt, CA 93455 conservation.ca.gov

2.1 Letter 2
7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C3311BE-5DA5-46EF-ACEF-EC2997A8224E Gavin Newsom, Governor
David Shabazian, Director
August 28, 2020

VIA EMAIL
Comment 1
Mr. Matthew Downing, Planning Manager
City of Pismo Beach, Public Works Department
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Downing:

PROJECT TITLE: CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
SCH : 2019120560
Public Resources Code (PRC) section 3208.1 establishes well re-abandonment responsibility when a previously plugged and abandoned well will be impacted by planned property development or construction activities. Local permitting agencies, property owners, and/or developers should be aware of, and fully understand, that significant and potentially dangerous issues may be associated with development near oil, gas, and geothermal wells.

The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) has received and reviewed the above referenced project. To assist local permitting agencies, property owners, and developers in making wise land use decisions regarding potential development near oil, gas, or geothermal wells, CalGEM provides the following well evaluation.

The project is located in San Luis Obispo County, outside of oil and gas field boundaries.

Our records indicate there is one known plugged and abandoned oil or gas well located approximately ¼ mile from proposed injection wells IW-5A and IW-5B, as shown 1 below (Figure 1). The injection wells are proposed for injection at a depth of approximately 200 to 600 feet below ground surface. The details of the oil or gas well located near the injection wells is discussed below.

State of California Natural Resources Agency | Department of Conservation Coastal District – Orcutt, 195 S. Broadway, Suite 101, Orcutt, CA 93455 conservation.ca.gov | T: (805) 937-7246 | F: (805) 937-0673 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C3311BE-5DA5-46EF-ACEF-EC2997A8224E Mr. Matthew Downing
August 28, 2020

Page 2 of 5 ends

Figure 1. Proposed injection wells (IW-5A & IW-5B) and plugged and abandoned oil well (“Oceano” 1). To view information and locations for oil and gas wells visit https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx 0BWell 1BStatus
“Oceano” 1
Madonna Construction
Co.

API: 079-00329
The record review process shows that this well is not
abandoned consistent with current PRC and California
Code of Regulations, title 14, (CCR) as of August 24,
2020.

Based on the well records:

1.Casing shoe plug is not to current standards (CCR
section 1723.3).

2.Surface plug is not to current standards (CCR
section 1723.5).

The base of freshwater is at approximately 1,000 feet
measured depth according to the electric log run on
3/14/1957. A cement plug was placed from 1,100 feet to
777 feet according to records. The cement plug meets
current standards for freshwater protection.

CalGEM recommends that the plugged and abandoned oil well be considered in any modeling of injection pressure and fluid flow. CalGEM recommends that injection wells be completed in a stratigraphically equivalent or higher zone positioned above the base of freshwater plug, if there is potential for the injection wells to influence the well.

Careful consideration of the proposed injection interval placement may reduce the potential risk for downward or upward flow between the injection interval and the portion of the plugged and abandoned well below the base of freshwater plug. 1 (cont.)
9 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C3311BE-5DA5-46EF-ACEF-EC2997A8224E Mr. Matthew Downing
August 28, 2020

Page 3 of 5 ends

CalGEM categorically advices against building over, or in any way impeding access to, oil, gas, or geothermal wells. Impeding access to a well could result in the need to remove any structure or obstacle that prevents or impedes access including, but not limited to, buildings, housing, fencing, landscaping, trees, pools, patios, sidewalks, roadways, and decking. Maintaining sufficient access is considered the ability for a well servicing unit and associated necessary equipment to reach a well from a public street or access way, solely over the parcel on which the well is located. A well servicing unit, and any necessary equipment, should be able to pass unimpeded along and over the route, and should be able to access the well without disturbing the integrity of surrounding infrastructure.

There are no guarantees a well abandoned in compliance with current CalGEM requirements as prescribed by law will not start leaking in the future. It always remains a possibility that any well may start to leak oil, gas, and/or water after abandonment, no matter how thoroughly the well was plugged and abandoned. CalGEM acknowledges wells plugged and abandoned to the most current CalGEM requirements as prescribed by law have a lower probability of leaking in the future, however there is no guarantees that such abandonments will not leak.

CalGEM advises that all wells identified on the development parcel prior to, or during, development activities be tested for liquid and gas leakage. Surveyed locations should be provided to CalGEM in Latitude and Longitude, NAD 83 decimal format. CalGEM expects any wells found leaking to be reported to it immediately and failure to plug and re-abandon the well may result in enforcement action, including an order to perform re-abandonment well work, pursuant to PRC section 3208.1, and 3224.

PRC section 3208.1 gives CalGEM the authority to order or permit the re-abandonment of any well where it has reason to question the integrity of the previous abandonment, or if the well is not accessible or visible. Responsibility for re-abandonment costs may be affected by the choices made by the local permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer in considering the general advice set forth in this letter. The PRC continues to define the person or entity responsible for re-abandonment as:

1.The property owner - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with CalGEM requirements at the time of abandonment, and in its current condition does not pose an immediate danger to life, health, and property, but requires additional work solely because the owner of the property on which the well is located proposes construction on the property that would prevent or impede access to the well for purposes of remedying a currently perceived future problem, then the owner of the property on which the well is located shall obtain all rights necessary to re-abandon the well and be responsible for the re- abandonment.

2.The person or entity causing construction over or near the well - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with CalGEM requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and the property owner, developer, or local agency permitting the construction failed either to obtain an opinion from 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C3311BE-5DA5-46EF-ACEF-EC2997A8224E Mr. Matthew Downing
August 28, 2020

Page 4 of 5 ends

the supervisor or district deputy as to whether the previously abandoned well is required to be re-abandoned, or to follow the advice of the supervisor or district deputy not to undertake the construction, then the person or entity causing the construction over or near the well shall obtain all rights necessary to re-abandon the well and be responsible for the re-abandonment.

3.The party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with CalGEM requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and after that time someone other than the operator or an affiliate of the operator disturbed the integrity of the abandonment in the course of developing the property, then the party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment shall be responsible for the re-abandonment.

No well work may be performed on any oil, gas, or geothermal well without written approval from CalGEM. Well work requiring approval includes, but is not limited to, mitigating leaking gas or other fluids from abandoned wells, modifications to well casings, and/or any other re-abandonment work. CalGEM also regulates the top of a plugged and abandoned well's minimum and maximum depth below final grade. CCR section1723.5 states well casings shall be cut off at least 5 feet but no more than 10 feet below grade. If any well needs to be lowered or raised (i.e. casing cut down or casing riser added) to meet this regulation, a permit from CalGEM is required before work can start.

CalGEM makes the following additional recommendations to the local permitting agency, property owner, and developer:

1.To ensure that present and future property owners are aware of (a) the existence of all wells located on the property, and (b) potentially significant issues associated with any improvements near oil or gas wells, CalGEM recommends that information regarding the above identified well(s), and any other pertinent information obtained after the issuance of this letter, be communicated to the appropriate county recorder for inclusion in the title information of the subject real property.

2.CalGEM recommends that any soil containing hydrocarbons be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Please notify the appropriate authorities if soil containing significant amounts of hydrocarbons is discovered during development.

As indicated in PRC section 3106, CalGEM has statutory authority over the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells, and attendant facilities, to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil, gas, and geothermal deposits; and damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes. In addition to CalGEM's authority to order work on wells pursuant to PRC section’s 3208.1 and 3224, it has authority to issue civil and criminal penalties under PRC 3 (cont.)
4 5
6 11

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0C3311BE-5DA5-46EF-ACEF-EC2997A8224E Mr. Matthew Downing
August 28, 2020

Page 5 of 5 ends

section’s 3236, 3236.5, and 3359 for violations within CalGEM's jurisdictional authority.

CalGEM does not regulate grading, excavations, or other land use issues.

If during development activities, any wells are encountered that were not part of this review, the property owner is expected to immediately notify CalGEM's construction site well review engineer in the Coastal district office, and file for CalGEM review an amended site plan with well casing diagrams. The District office will send a follow-up well evaluation letter to the property owner and local permitting agency.

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jordan Martin at (805) 465-9638 or via email at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Patricia A. Abel
Coastal District Deputy
JM:ks
cc: OLRA [email protected]
State Clearinghouse [email protected]
Tharon Wright [email protected]
Chrono File
CEQA File
CSWR File
Well File
6 (cont.)
7 12

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
Letter 2
COMMENTER: Terry Powell, Northern District Deputy, California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM)
DATE: July 6, 2023
Response 2.1
The commenter states they have previously commented on this project and their recommendations remain the same as those stated in their August 28, 2020, letter.

The comment is noted. Responses to the commenter’s August 28, 2020, letter were provided in Chapter 9, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, of the Central Coast Blue Project Final EIR (see Comment 1).
15 July 7, 2023
The City of Pismo Beach
Attn: Matt Downing
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Via email: [email protected]
RE: Tacker/Edwards comments on Draft Addendum to the Central Coast Blue Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Phase 1 (SCH #2019120560) dated June 5, 2023 Hello Mr. Downing,
Introduction
Central Coast Blue (CCB) has been in a state of flux since the proposal was first conceived in 2012 as the Groundwater Reuse and Replenishment Project. Understanding the evolution of CCB may help understand where the proposal is today and why challenges continue to face the project. Originally, the City of Pismo Beach wanted to construct an Advanced Treatment Facility (ATF) at the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) wastewater treatment plant on Aloha Place in Oceano. The City of Pismo Beach’s treated wastewater was intended for delivery to agricultural interests in Oceano south of Arroyo Grande Creek for irrigation purposes. When this option did not work, Pismo Beach considered purple pipe to public spaces and landscaping, however none of these or other options proved feasible. With nowhere to send the treated wastewater, Pismo Beach decided to co-opt the 2009 false seawater intrusion narrative and morphed the projects’ goal to “stop” seawater intrusion by injecting the water in strategic locations to create a barrier or “curtain”. This, like the very notion of seawater intrusion, became the false premise for the project. Pismo Beach also embraced the mantra of “groundwater replenishment” after learning that the State of California was encouraging these types of projects by way of generous grant funding opportunities and creating financial traction for Pismo Beach and CCB. Unfortunately, the CCB project has yet to fully acquire, with binding agreements, the land for a single injection well site and other project components. It appears the CCB partners want to risk starting construction of the ATF before Waste Discharge Requirements are approved by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for the injection wells. The most challenging part of any recycled water project is how to beneficially deploy the treated wastewater. Presently, CCB has yet to overcome this hurdle.

Please accept these comments on the Draft Addendum to the Central Coast Blue (CCB) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).

Letter 3

3.1 16

Why is a stable project description important?
Per the CEQA Portal Topic Paper, Project Description: “Typically, the larger the change in the project description, the more likely that some reanalysis will be required. As an example, changing the location of a project may change the species and habitats potentially affected, the cultural resources affected, the streets and highways affected by project traffic, whether sensitive noise and air quality receptors are potentially affected by the project, whether the project is consistent with general plan and zoning designations, whether the project would be visible from a scenic highway, whether important farmland or lands under a Williamson Act contract would be affected, as well as many other analyses.

However, even small changes to a project such as its orientation may affect analyses such as aesthetic effects and noise effects. While changes to the project description may be unavoidable in some cases, the implications of these changes and the tradeoff of benefits and costs should be understood.”
The proposed changes to CCB are reflected in Section 2.2 of the Draft Addendum on pages 8-12 where Table 1, Modified Project Components, summarizes the modified or new iteration of the project. It appears, all CCB components have been modified including the ATF Complex with the addition of Pismo Beach Well #23, all Concentrate Pipelines, 4 of the 5 Injection Wells, the addition of three new Monitoring Wells and relocation of six totaling 9 of 13 changed, a new or modified location for virtually all the Secondary Effluent Pipelines and modified locations for almost all the Purified Water Distribution Pipelines.

The pipelines alone have nearly doubled in length from 18,000 lineal feet (3.4 miles) up to 30, 000 lineal feet (5.7 miles). The additional transmission pipeline length is a result of the numerous changes in the location of both Injection and Monitoring wells. With changes to the well sites and the additional transmission pipelines needed, it will require more dewatering, utility conflict resolution, more repaving and more concrete for curb, gutter, and sidewalk replacement.

As an estimate, at least 80% of the CCB components have changed since the certification of the FEIR. It is inconceivable that the addition of over two miles of transmission pipelines, on top of all the other project changes, would not add impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts already analyzed. These substantial changes to CCB by way of modified or new locations for most project components trigger the requirement for a subsequent environmental document per Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Modified Project is, in essence, a new project and should be reviewed accordingly in accordance with CEQA.

For example, the location and number of injection and monitoring wells continues to change even after the publication of the Draft Addendum due to the inability to make the necessary land acquisitions. For example, additional monitoring wells (MW-NCMA North A/B/C and South A/B/C) have been proposed to be sited in the agricultural area south of Arroyo Grande creek necessitating an underground creek crossing. The potential increase in impacts from these new Monitoring Wells extends beyond those analyzed in the Final EIR. The Draft Addendum, as a vehicle for CEQA compliance, inappropriately discounts the potential impacts. Likewise, many CCB project components continue to change including

3.2 17

the number of Injection Wells (2-5), location, depth, and quantity of water that will be injected in each injection well.

As further examples, in three recent separate meetings regarding CCB, representations regarding the number of Injection Wells varied from three (3) to five (5). On June 5, 2023, at a meeting of the Joint Powers Authority/Joint City Councils, it was stated there would be four (4) injection wells. Then, on June 14, 2023, at a presentation before the Oceano Community Services District (non-participating member of CCB), project representatives indicated there would be three (3) to four (4) injection wells, and lastly, on June 19, 2023, at a meeting of the Joint Powers Authority it was represented that five (5) injections wells would be constructed.

Bay way of background, the original project called for three (3) Injection Wells at the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground, one injection well just south of the Grover Beach train station and one at the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD), which is the only original Injection Well (IW-5A) still being proposed. Even with IW-5A there remains considerable uncertainty with respect to receipt of the required Federal Aviation Administration approval for construction of the injection well at this location adjacent to Oceano County Airport (L52).

Not only is the number and location of injection wells in question, but also the depth and resulting quantity of treated wastewater to be injected per well. The FEIR indicated CCB will inject water to a depth of approximately 200 to 600 feet. The Draft Addendum has expanded the injection zone to between 160 to 680 feet. It is unclear what the differences in depth for injection is intended to accomplish. The shallower the Injection Wells used to discharge treated wastewater, the greater the potential for surfacing effluent and/or groundwater.

Furthermore, if only three Injection Wells are ultimately constructed, it would mean each Injection Well would receive up to 100,000,000 gallons per year or approximately 270,000 gallons per day. The Draft Addendum’s Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1 indicates each injection well would be capable of injecting 500 acre-feet per year (AFY).” With approximately 900 AFY of treated water for disposal, this capacity would suggest only two Injection wells may be utilized. It appears improbable one Injection Well could take 163,000,000 gallons per year. The potential for surfacing effluent and displaced groundwater would be likely. Neither the FEIR nor Draft Addendum analyzes this potentiality through computer modelling, use of test injection well results or other calculations.

Presently, CCB has not secured, by way of easements, licenses, or other agreements, for any of the locations for Injection and most Monitoring Wells. There are no encroachment permits from either the County of San Luis Obispo or the City of Grover Beach for the construction of Injection and Monitoring Wells in the public street rights-of-way. Likewise, there is no agreement with Oceano CSD for the use of the Oceano Depot parking lot, owned by the district or for Monitoring Wells (MW-5D/5E/5F). Nor is there an agreement with the SSLOCSD for use of their site. Additionally, Cal Trans and Union Pacific Railroad

3.3 3.4
18 easements are required and have not been obtained. If agreements for the use of any real property for project components cannot be obtained, the location of such components will continue to be modified, which has been the trend with CCB for many years.

Addendum vs. Supplemental EIR
On page 21 of the Draft Addendum it states, “As discussed in the impact analysis below, the environmental impacts of the Modified Project are substantially similar to those analyzed in the certified EIR for the Original Project. The modifications between the Original Project and the Modified Project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of significant environmental impacts beyond those which have already been identified and characterized in the certified EIR.” The Modified Project deviates from the Original Project significantly and the changes cannot be considered minor or minimal. This statement supporting the use of an addendum is conclusory given the project description remains fluid and the increase in severity of significant environmental impacts beyond those which have already been identified and characterized in the certified EIR, have not been determined or analyzed and cannot until there is a fixed project description.

Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs
Per the CEQA Portal Topic Paper, Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs:
“Subsequent environmental review is environmental analysis prepared for a later discretionary approval after an agency has certified a prior EIR or adopted a ND2 (PRC Section 21166; CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). Prior to approving a later project based on a program EIR, an agency must first determine whether the project is “within the scope” of the program EIR and whether it triggers the requirements for subsequent environmental review. Both determinations must be supported by substantial evidence. If the agency is required to conduct subsequent environmental review after a program EIR, the later analysis may rely on the program EIR for some portion of the subsequent review (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168[c][1], 15152).

The decision to prepare a Draft Addendum instead of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR was not based on substantial evidence. To the contrary, the modified project components, not withstanding the significant changes, were determined to not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Due to the inability to fully quantify impacts, it is not possible to fully assess the likely cumulative environmental effects of the proposal.

Per CEQA Portal Topic Paper Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs and Streamlining When Is a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR Required? When an agency has prepared a program EIR and a further discretionary approval is necessary, a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required only where the later activity, which is within the scope of the program EIR, would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][1]). The requirements for subsequent and supplemental review are limited in order to balance “CEQA’s central purpose of promoting consideration

3.4 cont.

3.5 3.6

3.7 19

of the environmental consequences of public decisions with interests in finality and efficiency” (Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. [2016] 1 Cal.5th 937, 949). The agency must first determine, based on substantial evidence, whether the previous EIR retains some informational value (Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. [2016] 1 Cal.5th 937, 949). If so, the agency may prepare an initial study to determine whether the project triggers the requirements for subsequent review (PRC Section 21094[c]). When a program EIR or project-level EIR has been certified, a subsequent EIR is not required unless (PRC Section 21166; CEQA Guidelines Section 15162): (1) “Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions” to the EIR “due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects”; (2) “Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances,” and those changes will require “major revisions” to the EIR “due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects”; or (3) “New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time” of preparation of the EIR, becomes available.

Such information must show either: the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If the conditions in either section (1), (2), or (3), above, are triggered, an agency must prepare a subsequent environmental document. Clearly, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(1) has been triggered.

Dewatering
It is unclear if the project proponent used a piezometer in project component areas where it’s critical to determine depth to groundwater, i.e., at the ATF site and the detention basins.

Likewise, it does not appear a Soils Investigation was performed for the same areas.

The project’s impacts related to construction encountering groundwater are seriously understated. The proposed project includes discharge of dewatering water to “temporary storage and timed release to the sanitary or storm sewer or trucking up to one mile for percolation into a stormwater retention basin.”
Only two detention basins were identified.

Basin No. 1
The Barca Basin is an approximately 0.06-acre detention basin on the west side of Barca Street. This basin is seasonally flooded, and currently discharges to Meadow Creek upstream of Oceano Lagoon. This basin’s biological investigation reveals it is an active wetland. This detention basin is surrounded by development, including the current use of

3.8 3.7
(cont.)
20 an automobile junk/storage yard at the south end of Huber where the ATF is proposed to be built. The basin floor is dominated by California bulrush and its banks are dominated by arroyo willow and non-native grasses. These hydrophytic plants indicate wetlands and shallow groundwater. Standing water was also observed during the survey at the bottom of the basin. In review of historical Google images, this basin contains water following average rain events. The project biologists were unable to access the property to sample the wetland, however, they “assumed this seasonally wet depression contains all three wetland parameters” based on the limits of each vegetation community using aerial imagery. This basin would not be a good location to discharge the dewatering water due to its proximity to the source of groundwater so near to the surface. In essence, the discharged groundwater would be absorbed into the ground only to be pumped back up and discharged again and again at this location. This basin is small and would be inadequate for the estimated volume of dewatering discharges described in the Draft Addendum. During the rainy season, it appears this basin is already accepting runoff and cannot hold additional water from the dewatering operation.

Basin No. 2
The Pike Basin is adjacent to the busy intersection of South 13th Street and The Pike. This basin was defined as a “lake/pond feature” by USGS and is only about 0.10-acre. This detention basin is surrounded by agriculture operations, roadways, and residential buildings. The basin contained non-native, upland vegetation including iceplant along its banks. Based on historical aerials, this basin typically does not hold water for an extended period. The limits of the basin surface water at the time of the survey were mapped digitally using aerial photography. The project biologists were unable to access the property to sample the wetland, however, they “assumed this seasonally wet depression contains all three wetland parameters” based on the limits of each vegetation community using aerial imagery. This basin may be able to handle a small quantity of the dewatering water from the project, but not without significant impacts to traffic at the corner of 13th St. and The Pike. It is severely undersized to be able to accept the estimated volume of dewatering water from the project, let alone the ATF site, as the project proponents represented throughout the Draft Addendum.

Several statements in the Draft Addendum relate specifically to the construction dewatering at the ATF:
•Construction dewatering would also be required at the ATF complex, and disposal of produced groundwater would require approximately 72 truck trips per day on average.
•Average of 72 round-trip truck trips for hauling produced groundwater one mile to stormwater detention basin.
•Produced groundwater would be disposed of via one of several methods, including connections to the City’s existing ocean outfall pipeline that runs under State Route 1, temporary storage and timed release to the sanitary or storm sewer, or trucking up to one mile for percolation into a stormwater retention basin, which would require approximately 1,250 truck trips per injection and production well, (cont.)

3.8 21

approximately 60 truck trips per monitoring well, and approximately 72 truck trips per day on average for the ATF complex.

The Draft Addendum does not say how much water each of the 72 trucks will carry. As described in the above statements, the proposed scenario could look like this: Seventy-two (72)trucks carrying 5,000 gallons each would deliver 360,000 gallons (over an acre foot) each day to the detention basin(s). It is unlikely the 0.10 ac. Basin could hold this much water daily, if at all. Seventy-two (72) trucks in an eight (8) hour day would equate to one truck filled and driven to and from the detention basin every 6 minutes. The same number of trucks hauling water over a 12-hour day would equate to one truck filled and driven to and from the basin every ten (10) minutes. It is unclear if a single truck could be filled every 6-10 minutes to accomplish this task, indicating there would be many trucks waiting to be filled at the ATF site and many trucks lined up to dispose at the detention basin.

Again, significantly impacting traffic at the basin location and in and around the ATF site.

The Draft Addendum suggests construction of the ATF will take 2 years; it does not say how long dewatering will continue at this location.

Discharge to a sanitary sewer
Any discharge to a sanitary sewer will require the wastewater treatment plant to increase treatment volumes which has impacts on operations at the plant. Any discharge to a storm sewer or ocean outfall is a waste of water. The dewatering plan should clearly state that the primary option for dewatering is to land. These land disposal locations should be identified and analyzed for environmental impacts associated with large volumes of groundwater disposal.

Beneficial use of groundwater
In the project area, groundwater is a natural barrier to seawater intrusion. It is unfathomable that one of CCB’s purported benefits is to mitigate seawater intrusion, yet the current plan for construction dewatering may exacerbate it.

Groundwater quality at the ATF
This groundwater is of unknown quality. It is unclear from either the FEIR and/or the Draft Addendum, what the groundwater quality is at the proposed 1.5-acre ATF site. 980 Huber contains several unpaved storage yards separated with chain link fencing that has been used and continues to be used for the storage of automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles, storage containers, boats, trailers and miscellaneous equipment. The northwestern portion of the parcel is occupied by American Roof Removal/American Roofing Co. The decades of these activities at this site present the likelihood of leaked gasoline, motor oil, brake fluid and other fluids from boats and vehicles into the groundwater. The level of groundwater and ground surface contamination/pollution is not disclosed in the Draft Addendum or FEIR. The Draft Addendum does not analyze or otherwise address any clean up necessary for the use of the site as an ATF. The FEIR and Draft Addendum fail to identify where will all these vehicles be disposed of and who is responsible for them and what the environmental impacts of cleaning up the site are.

3.8 (cont.)

3.9 3.10

3.11 22

Absent from both the FEIR and the Draft Addendum is an analysis of the groundwater quality that is going to be dewatered at the ATF site and what proper method of treatment and disposal will occur.

Biological Resources Assessment Meadow Creek Lagoon
The Draft Addendum does not reference the Biological Resources Assessment Meadow Creek Lagoon, prepared by Terra Verde in October 2012 (attached for your reference).

This report identified Pacific Pond Turtle and California Red Legged Frog in the vicinity of the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District/Meadow Creek/Oceano Airport properties. This study would be helpful to understand the diversity of species in the vicinity and potential impacts of the CCB proposed pipelines in these biologically diverse sensitive areas which were not analyzed. Study area pictured below:

3.11 (cont.)

3.12 23

California Red Legged Frog (CRLF)
The CRLF, pictured below, was observed at the footbridge that was installed by SSLOCSD many years ago. The footbridge was recently removed due to homeless encampment activities, on the westerly boundary of the SSLOCSD property.

Photo 18. Individual California red-legged frog observed near footbridge during night eyeshine survey (May 30, 2012).

Pacific Pond Turtle
Additionally, several Pacific Pond Turtles were found in areas near and around Norswing Drive, the Meadow Creek Lagoon and the airport property.

The Draft Addendum fails to consider this study to determine the potential for the project to encounter these species.

Construction Noise
In the winter of 2021, the City of Pismo Beach, as the lead agency for CCB, built a test injection well in the San Luis Obispo County Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground.

Permitted by SLO County, the construction of that well included sound walls to attenuate the noise associated with the 24 hr./7 days a week well drilling. The sound wall approved in the permit was considerably smaller than what was built. The resulting sound wall was large in scale, unsightly and remained in place for several months. The Draft Addendum makes no mention of any sound walls as noise mitigation measures for any of the many wells to be constructed for the project. Only the well proposed at the SSLOCSD property is distanced away from residences, yet the San District itself has employees that work on the property seven days a week that are sensitive receptors whose work may be disrupted by the continuous noise. All other Monitoring and Injection Wells are in or near residential neighborhoods. If the project includes sound walls, their unsightly visual appearance, mass as an obstruction to roads and streets should be analyzed as part of the project. The inconvenience to travelers to and from their homes will be frustrating. (cont.)

3.12 3.13
24 Conclusion
The most challenging part of any recycled water project is how and where to deploy the treated wastewater and so far, CCB project proponents have not solved that problem.

Unfortunately, CCB has been designed and pursued based upon grant eligibility and consultant direction rather than specific project goals and objectives. CCB has never enjoyed a stable project description. Until the proposal can be described in sufficient detail, it is impossible to fully analyze the potential adverse environmental consequences, let alone craft mitigation measures to lessen the severity of impacts. Nor is the determination of the cumulative impacts possible. Moreover, the Draft Addendum is absent of substantial evidence to support the findings in the document with respect to the project changes or impacts and as a result cannot be adopted to complement the CCB FEIR. (cont.)

3.13 3.14
25 Recommendations
Secure necessary agreements, including any easements, encroachment permits, fee title land acquisition or other legal vehicles to ensure the land is part of the project. This would allow the project description to become fixed and an Initial Study may be performed, and a subsequent environmental document may be prepared for that version of CCB. Lastly, we encourage the CCB member cities and their respective councils to read the project documents including grant & loan applications, so decision making about the project is informed and not merely as cheerleaders, as it, unfortunately, has been to date.

Sincerely,
Jeff Edwards
Attachment: Biological Resources Assessment Meadow Creek Lagoon, prepared by Terra Verde in October 2012
Copies:

Geoff English, CCB General Manager
John Peschong, SLO Co. Board of Supervisors Chair
Trevor Keith, , SLO Co. Director of Planning and Building Jon Ansolabehere, SLO Co. Deputy County Counsel
Jane Gray, CCRWQCB Board Chair
Matt Keeling, CCRWQCB Executive Officer
James Bishop, CCRWQCB Engineering Geologist
Allene Villa, OCSD President
Will Clemons, OCSD General Manager
Kate Huckelbridge, CCC Executive Director
Dan Carl, CCC Central Coast District, Deputy Director
Kira Smith, SWRCB DFA
Jeff Dinsmore, SWRCB DDW
Gary Willey, SLO Co. APCD
Wade Crowfoot, CA Natural Resources Agency Secretary

3.15 26

Biological Resources Assessment

Meadow Creek Lagoon

Prepared for:

San Luis Obispo County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District
County Government Center, Room 207
San Luis Obispo, California 93408

Prepared by:

Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC
3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102
San Luis Obispo, California 93401

October 2012
27 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.
28 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
“As a County-approved biologists, we hereby certify that this Biological Resources Assessment was prepared according to the Guidelines established by the County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building and that the statements furnished in the report and associated maps are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; and we further certify that a senior biologist was present throughout the site visit(s) associated with this report.”

27 September 2012
Signature line Date

27 September 2012
Signature line Date
29 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This biological resources assessment was prepared at the request of the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) for the Meadow Creek Lagoon and surrounding riparian, wetland, and coastal dune habitat. The lagoon is located in the community of Oceano, on the south coast of San Luis Obispo County, California. A survey area of approximately 49.02 acres was defined in order to address all potential environmental constraints during the planning process.

The survey area is mostly undeveloped, with the exception of a few private residences and established trails that occur within the survey boundary. However, the survey area is immediately surrounded by commercial, residential, and recreational uses, including the County- owned-and-operated Oceano Airport, and, thus, experiences a high level of human disturbance.

Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (Terra Verde) staff conducted a total of 13 field surveys between May 9 and September 21, 2012, including vegetation community mapping, botanical surveys, a fisheries assessment, protocol-level surveys for California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), water quality analysis, wildlife inventory, and wetlands delineation. Ten natural vegetation communities were observed within the survey area, as well as anthropogenic and ruderal areas. Additionally, a large portion of the survey area is covered by open water.

Four sensitive plants were observed within the survey area; Blochman’s leafy daisy (Erigeron blochmaniae), California spineflower (Mucronea californica), Blochman’s ragwort (Senecio blochmaniae), and southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus subsp. leopoldii). Additionally, three sensitive habitat communities were observed: Central dune scrub, Central foredunes, and Coastal and valley freshwater marsh. The survey area also has the potential to support twenty-eight sensitive wildlife species. Of these, Terra Verde staff observed the following within the survey area: tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), California red-legged frog, Pacific pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus).
30 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................. i INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 2 Soils Assessment and Wetland Delineation .................................................................... 4 Botanical Surveys and Vegetation Community Mapping ............................................. 4 Fisheries Assessment ......................................................................................................... 5 Water Quality Analysis .................................................................................................... 5 USFWS Protocol-level California Red-legged Frog Surveys ........................................ 6 Avian Survey ..................................................................................................................... 7 Wildlife Inventory ............................................................................................................. 7 Sufficiency of Biological Data .......................................................................................... 8 RESULTS ........................................................................................ 8 Soils..................................................................................................................................... 8 Vegetation Communities .................................................................................................. 9 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 13 Sensitive Species .............................................................................................................. 17 Sensitive Plant Species ..................................................................................................... 18 Sensitive Fish Species ....................................................................................................... 20 Sensitive Amphibian Species ............................................................................................ 21 Sensitive Reptilian Species ............................................................................................... 23 Sensitive Avian Species .................................................................................................... 25 Sensitive Mammal Species ............................................................................................... 30 Sensitive Invertebrate Species .......................................................................................... 31 REFERENCES ............................................................................. 33 Appendix A: Maps
Appendix B: Observed Plant and Wildlife Species List
Appendix C: Potential Sensitive Species List
Appendix D: Site Photographs
Appendix E: CNDDB California Native Species Field Survey Forms Appendix F: Field Survey Forms
31 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.
32 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

INTRODUCTION
This biological resources assessment summarizes the results of a series of surveys conducted by Terra Verde of the Meadow Creek Lagoon and adjacent coastal and riparian habitat features in Oceano, California (see Appendix A, Figure 1: Location Map). This report is intended to provide a comprehensive review of the existing biological resources within the Meadow Creek Lagoon, as well as along the surrounding habitat areas. This assessment may be utilized to assist the District in designing and implementing future flood control and drainage projects within the area.

Existing Site Conditions
The survey area is located in the coastal community of Oceano in southern San Luis Obispo County, where Meadow Creek merges into Arroyo Grande Creek before flowing into the Pacific Ocean. Development and flood control infrastructure near the confluence of Meadow Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek have contributed to the creation of Meadow Creek Lagoon. Elevations within the survey area range from approximately 0 to 25 feet (0 to 7.62 m) above mean sea level (msl). The survey area consists primarily of the open water of the Meadow Creek Lagoon and surrounding riparian and coastal dune habitat, as well as a small portion of the Arroyo Grande Creek corridor. A portion of the northeastern extent of the survey area consists of a maintained public park. The survey area wraps around the northwest-southeast axis of the Oceano Airport in an approximately horseshoe shape. It is bordered by Pier Avenue and residential housing to the north, Arroyo Grande Creek to the south, and a mix of residential housing, recreational facilities, and the Oceano Airport along the east and west boundaries. Lakeside Avenue roughly bisects the approximately horseshoe-shaped survey area (see Figure 2: Survey Area).

The climate within San Luis Obispo County is highly variable and ranges from a cool, coastal climate in the west to a hotter, more typical Mediterranean climate in the east. The survey area is situated within the historic and current floodplain of Meadow Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek.

Due to its proximity to the coast, the survey area receives regular coastal fog and experiences a strong maritime influence.

The survey area is located within the Oceano U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle adjacent to the Oceano Airport, west of Highway 1, between Pier Avenue and Arroyo Grande Creek in Oceano, California. The riparian corridor of Arroyo Grande Creek and associated flood control levee comprise the southern boundary of the survey area and Pismo Beach borders the survey area to the west (see Figure 2 and Figure 3: Topographic Map).

The purpose of this biological resources assessment is to report the results of the biological surveys conducted within the project area, which includes the following:
Review existing relevant scientific literature and other pertinent information related to the survey area, including recent reports regarding field work conducted by others in the area;
creation of a list of regionally occurring special-status species determined to have the potential to occur within the habitat communities identified within the survey area; 33 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
evaluation of the potential for the occurrence of special-status plant and wildlife species within the survey area;
characterization of the vegetation communities present within the survey area; determination of the presence/absence of special-status plant species within the survey area, based on the list of potentially occurring species; assess the potential for proposed activities to adversely impact existing biological resources; and
recommend mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize any potential impacts to biological resources.

This biological resources assessment was prepared according to the guidance provided by San Luis Obispo County (County) for biologists that are pre-approved for environmental work within San Luis Obispo County and meets all of the associated County requirements.

METHODOLOGY
For purposes of this report, the survey area covers an approximately 49.02-acre area including the entire Meadow Creek Lagoon, surrounding riparian and coastal dune habitat features, and the western-most extent of the Arroyo Grande Creek corridor. The survey area extends from the traffic bridge over Meadow Creek along Pier Avenue in the north, downstream to the flap gates at the southern extent of the lagoon where it merges with Arroyo Grande Creek. The undeveloped dune habitat on the eastern side of the Oceano Airport was also included in the survey area (see Figure 2). To the extent that access was feasible, all undeveloped areas surrounding Meadow Creek Lagoon were included in the survey efforts. A comprehensive biological resources assessment was conducted within the survey area, which included:
Botanical surveys and vegetation community mapping
Fisheries assessment and water quality analysis
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol-level California red-legged frog (CRLF) surveys
Avian surveys
Wildlife inventory
Details regarding the methodology used for each of the focused surveys are summarized below.

A total of 13 surveys were conducted between May 9 and September 21, 2012. Refer to Table 1 below for all survey dates, times, surveyors, and site conditions. All plant and wildlife species encountered during survey efforts were noted to the lowest possible taxonomic level, which is required for accurate identification and reporting.
34 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Table 1. Field Survey Schedule
Date Survey Type Biologists Site Conditions Areas Surveyed May 9, 2012 Focused botanical
and wildlife
Brian Dugas
Jessica Adinolfi
Partly cloudy to
sunny. Temperatures
in the mid 60s F.

Light NW winds.

Coastal foredune
habitat areas located
east and west of the
Meadow Creek
Lagoon
May 25, 2012 Focused botanical
and wetlands
Brian Dugas
Brooke Langle
Jessica Peak
Jessica Adinolfi
Partly cloudy to
sunny. Temperatures
in the low 60s F.

Light NW winds.

Meadow Creek
Lagoon and wetland
complex located east
of Oceano Airport
May 29, 2012 Focused botanical
and wetlands
Brian Dugas
Brooke Langle
Jessica Peak
Jessica Adinolfi
Partly cloudy to
sunny. Temperatures
in the mid 60s F.

Light NW winds.

Meadow Creek
Lagoon and wetland
complex located east
of Oceano Airport
May 30, 2012 California red-
legged frog daytime
Brian Dugas
Rhett Blanton
Clear. Air
temperature71° F,
water temperature
65° F. Light W
winds.

Meadow Creek
Lagoon & Arroyo
Grande Creek mouth
May 30, 2012 California red-
legged frog eyeshine
Brian Dugas
Brooke Langle
Rhett Blanton
Peter Giles
Halden Peterson
Jessica Adinolfi
Clear. Air
temperature 60° F,
water temperature
69° F. No wind.

Meadow Creek
Lagoon & Arroyo
Grande Creek mouth
June 15, 2012 Fisheries inventory
Brian Dugas
Nick Fernella
Peter Giles
Rhett Blanton
Clearing fog. Air
temperature 54° F,
water temperature
68° F. 2 - 3 mph
winds.

Shoreline to 40 feet
off shore from the
northeastern portion
of Meadow Creek
Lagoon (Oceano
Memorial Park)
June 18, 2012 Fisheries inventory
Brian Dugas
Nick Fernella
Peter Giles
Rhett Blanton
Clearing fog. Air
temperature 66° F,
water temperature
68° F. 0 - 2 mph
winds.

Location 1: 10 to 40
feet off shore from
the northern channel
bank, behind trailer
park. Location 2:
500 feet west of
Location 1.

June 19, 2012 Fisheries inventory
Brian Dugas
Nick Fernella
Peter Giles
Rhett Blanton
Clearing fog. Air
temperature 66° F,
water temperature
59 °F. 0 - 1 mph
winds.

Location 1: north
side of Meadow
Creek Lagoon flap
gates. Location 2:

Arroyo Grande
Creek side of flap
gates.

July 6, 2012
Rare plant survey
and vegetation
community
mapping, and avian
survey
Theo Fitanides
Jessica Adinolfi
Clearing fog. Air
temperature 58 - 61°
F. 0 – 9 mph winds.

Meadow Creek
Lagoon & Arroyo
Grande Creek mouth
35 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Date Survey Type Biologists Site Conditions Areas Surveyed July 27, 2012
Rare plant survey
and vegetation
community mapping
Jessica Adinolfi
Kristen Nelson
High marine layer,
good survey
visibility, Air
temperature 55° F, 0
–3 mph winds.

Meadow Creek
Lagoon vicinity,
Arroyo Grande
Creek mouth
August 1, 2012 California red-
legged frog eyeshine
Brian Dugas
Peter Giles
Rhett Blanton
Halden Peterson
High marine layer,
good survey
visibility, Air
temperature 61.5° F,
water temperature
62 °F. 0 – 1.5 mph
winds.

Arroyo Grande
Creek mouth and
upstream, Meadow
Creek Lagoon
vicinity, Meadow
Creek, downstream
pool below
footbridge in
Meadow Creek.

August 16, 2012
Water quality
assessment and
wildlife surveys
Brian Dugas
Peter Giles
Temperature: 65° F
Wind: 9 mph NW
Meadow Creek
Lagoon & Arroyo
Grande Creek mouth
September 21, 2012 Final rare plant and
wetlands mapping
Brian Dugas
Jessica Adinolfi
Clearing fog. Air
temperature 60-70°
F. 0 – 10 mph winds
Coastal foredune
habitat areas located
east and west of the
Meadow Creek
Lagoon and wetland
features bordering
lagoon
Soils Assessment and Wetland Delineation
General information about soil profiles within the survey area was determined using the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey (see Figure 4: Soils Map).

Additional analysis was conducted as part of the wetland delineation conducted within the survey area. Details of the survey methodology and results for the wetland delineation are summarized in a separate document.

Botanical Surveys and Vegetation Community Mapping
Five botanical surveys were conducted within the survey area on May 9, 25, 29, and July 6 and 27, 2012. Field surveys were pedestrian in nature and lasted between three and seven hours each day. During the surveys, the vegetation communities on site were classified, mapped, and further evaluated for the occurrence of and the overall potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species (see Figure 5: Vegetation Communities). Vegetation community characterization was based on the classification systems presented in A Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008). Survey conditions and timing were suitable for detection of all potentially occurring sensitive plant species. Given the comprehensive and floristic methods that were used, any special-status plant species not previously identified within a five-mile radius of the survey area would be identified, with the exception of the lower channel of Arroyo Grande Creek which not included in the survey area. Plant species identification, nomenclature, and taxonomy followed The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et al 2012).
36 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Fisheries Assessment
A fisheries assessment was conducted within the Meadow Creek Lagoon, which included all accessible, open water areas within the survey area. The lagoon was sampled by a team of four biologists over the course of three days on June 15, 18, and 19, 2012. These efforts consisted of two and a half days of seine fishing and a half-day of snorkel surveys. One narrow channel of water in the southern extent of the survey area with restricted access was sampled by hand- netting; another larger channel of water in the southern extent of the survey area was not surveyed due to inaccessibility for seine fishing, and lack of visibility for snorkel surveys (see Figure 6: Fisheries Assessment and Water Quality Analysis). A beach seine 22 meters (m) long by 1.8 m deep and with a mesh size of approximately 3 millimeters was the primary sampling tool used to capture fish. A 1-foot by 1-foot hand net with similar mesh size was used when the seine was not applicable. In most cases, the seine was deployed by two to four biologists that utilized traditional seining tactics. The large seine allowed for the potential capture of benthic, semi-pelagic, and pelagic species. A two-man canoe was also utilized to deploy the seine in areas of deep water (greater than five feet deep).

Netting began at the northeast end of Meadow Creek Lagoon and continued south towards the floodgate at the lagoon’s historic confluence with the Arroyo Grande Estuary. Locations of each seine drag were selected to attain sampling coverage throughout the spatial spectrum of the lagoon. Each seine location was selected with the criterion of adequate space to deploy and retrieve the seine, accessibility to open water with minimal bank vegetation disruption, and limited aquatic vegetation to minimize seine drag and improve overall capture rates.

In addition to the seining effort, a half-day of sampling via underwater observation for species presence was conducted. The crew was able to access portions of the lagoon that were not feasible to sample using the beach seine. Crew members entered these areas in groups of two and proceeded in an upstream direction (see Figure 6), concentrating efforts on the outer margins of the lagoon. Each surveyor used a dive light that was used to inspect areas of dense cover with reduced ambient light.

The final component of the fisheries survey included a hand-netting effort in the narrow channel near the Oceano Sewer Treatment Plant. This aquatic feature was too small for either seine fishing or snorkel surveys. The hand net was used to pull through the water in various areas of the channel.

Individuals of each species caught were temporarily contained in an aerated live bait container, identified, enumerated as quickly as possible, and returned to the water. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of California (McGinnis 2006) was used as a reference guide, when needed.

Water Quality Analysis
In order to gain a better understanding of the fisheries composition and overall health of Meadow Creek Lagoon, water quality samples were taken at each seine-pull location. The survey was conducted by a two-person team working from the shoreline on August 16, 2012. The following attributes were measured at each location using an YSI/556-02 Multiparameter Water Sampling 37 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Unit: temperature, conductivity, percent dissolved oxygen (DO), dissolved oxygen (milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and pH. The aforementioned attributes are critical factors when determining fish habitat suitability in freshwater systems, particularly temperature and percent DO.

USFWS Protocol-level California Red-legged Frog Surveys Terra Verde conducted USFWS protocol-level surveys to determine the presence or absence of CRLF within the survey area. Survey methods followed the USFWS Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005) and consisted of three main components: 1) background research, 2) habitat assessment, and 3) field surveys.

Prior to initiating field surveys, a desktop analysis was completed utilizing the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to identify known CRLF occurrences within a five-mile radius of the survey area (see Figure 7:

Five-mile CNDDB – CRLF). Scientific literature and past studies of the area were also utilized to gather information regarding CRLF occurrences in the vicinity of the survey area. Following background research, a habitat assessment was performed on May 30, 2012 to identify suitable habitat areas within the survey boundary. All accessible aquatic habitat, shorelines, and immediately surrounding riparian habitat areas were included within the CRLF survey area.

Aquatic habitat up to one mile was not surveyed due to the known occurrences of CRLF in Arroyo Grande Creek and lack of access to private property. Identification, nomenclature, and taxonomic notes were referenced using the Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003).

Field surveys were timed appropriately to allow for one daytime survey and two nighttime surveys during the breeding season. The day survey was completed within a 24-hour period of the first night survey on May 30. Timing was such that night surveys were initiated in excess of one hour after sunset, and planned to avoid periods of full lunar illumination. Wind speed was noted during all surveys and did not exceed five miles per hour. Visibility and temperature conditions were also noted during the survey efforts and remained acceptable throughout all surveys.

Per USFWS survey protocol, surveyors listened for CRLF vocalizations before initiating pedestrian or watercraft surveys. Specifically, surveyors spent approximately 10 to 15 minutes listening to and documenting all detectable amphibian vocalizations. Watercraft and pedestrian surveys were initiated shortly thereafter and were conducted in teams of two. Each team was led by an individual trained and with experience identifying CRLF. In general, eyeshine surveys were completed holding an approximately 32,000-candela flashlight held at eye level with the aid of binoculars ranging from 8x42 to 10x42. Each team carried a digital camera to document any CRLF observations.

Although presence of CRLF was confirmed during the first nighttime survey of May 30, 2012, a supplemental survey was conducted in areas not covered by previous CRLF survey efforts and deemed suitable habitat for CRLF per the request of the District. The additional eyeshine survey took place on August 1, 2012 and was performed via watercraft and on foot. Areas surveyed 38 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
included the downstream pools along the southern extent of the lagoon, Arroyo Grande Creek banks upstream of the creek outlet and adjacent to the levee, and other isolated habitat features surrounding the lagoon. Prior to and following surveys, gear was sterilized of potential pathogens using the procedures recommended by USFWS in Appendix B of Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005).

Avian Survey
A focused avian survey was conducted on July 6, 2012 by a team of two, which covered the entire survey area. This survey was pedestrian in nature, and timed appropriately to coincide with the peak avian migration season for the area (generally considered to be March through September). In addition to field survey efforts, California State Parks was contacted to acquire recent survey data regarding nesting birds in the coastal dune habitat, immediately adjacent to the survey area. Identification, nomenclature, and taxonomy followed the Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2003).

Wildlife Inventory
All tracks, scat, and sign of wildlife observed on-site were noted during all survey efforts.

Wildlife identification, nomenclature, and taxonomy followed standard reference texts including:

Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003) and Mammals of California (Jameson and Peeters 2004). See Appendix B for a complete species list of all wildlife observed within the survey area.

A desktop analysis including review of existing literature and available technical reports was conducted prior to commencing field surveys to determine which of these regionally occurring special-status species has potential to occur within the survey area (refer to Appendix C). In summary, Terra Verde staff reviewed the following resources:
Aerial imagery of the survey area;
USGS Oceano, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle; Online Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California – Oceano area (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2012);
A USFWS list of federally protected special-status species with potential to occur within the County (USFWS 2012);
A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) list of state and federally protected special-status species with potential to occur within the Oceano, California 7.5-minute quadrangle and the surrounding seven quadrangles (Arroyo Grande NE, Guadalupe, Nipomo, Pismo Beach, Point Sal, Santa Maria, and Tar Spring Ridge) (CDFG 2012); A CNDDB map of state and federally listed special-status species that have been documented within a five-mile radius of the survey area (CDFG 2012) (see Figure 8:

One-mile CNDDB Map);
A California Native Plant Society (CNPS) list of special-status plant species with potential to occur within the Oceano, California 7.5-minute quadrangle and the surrounding seven quadrangles (CNPS 2012);
39 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
The Lower Arroyo Grande Creek and Lagoon Fishery and Aquatic Resources Summary Monitoring Reports for 2004, 2005, and 2010 by Douglas Rischbieter; The Draft Arroyo Grande Creek Channel Waterway Management Program Environmental Impact Report prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2010; Aquatic Survey: Arroyo Grande Creek and Lagoon by Douglas Rischbieter, 2011 (California State Parks); and;
The Natural Resources of the Nipomo Dunes and Wetlands by Kent A. Smith, 1976 (CDFG).

A complete list of all of the regionally occurring special-status species reported in the scientific database queries was compiled for the survey area (see Appendix C). An analysis to determine which of these special-status species have the potential to occur within the survey area was conducted. The habitat requirements for each regionally occurring special-status species were assessed and compared to the type and quality of habitats observed on site during the field surveys. Several regionally occurring special-status species were eliminated due to a lack of suitable habitat within the survey area, elevation, range, lack of soils/substrate, and/or distribution. As previously mentioned, the analysis was also based on a review of resource agency materials, pertinent scientific literature, aerial photography of the survey area, topographic maps of the survey area, surveyors personal knowledge of the area, and other local information. Special-status species determined to have the potential to occur within the survey area are discussed below. Special-status species that were not determined to have the potential to occur within the survey area are not discussed further in this report.

Sufficiency of Biological Data
The field surveys that Terra Verde staff conducted are of sufficient technical detail and biological and botanical expertise. The survey efforts occurred during the appropriate bloom periods for the target sensitive plant species and the survey efforts are both adequate and satisfactory for the purpose of determining the presence/absence of potentially occurring sensitive plant and animal species within the survey area.

RESULTS
This section summarizes the results of the surveys and provides further analysis of the data collected in the field. Discussions regarding the existing site conditions, soils on site, terrestrial, and aquatic habitat types identified on site, the potentially occurring special-status species, and special-status species observed are presented below.

Soils
According to the NRCS online soil survey of San Luis Obispo County, four soil units occur within the survey area (NRCS 2012). These include: Dune land; Mocho fine sandy loam; Oceano sand, 0-9 percent slopes; and Psamments and fluvents, wet and are discussed in greater detail below. Although these soil units do not have any listed hydric components or inclusions that 40 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
meet the hydric soils criteria, open water covers a significant portion of the survey area (see Figure 4).
134 – Dune land (6.93 acres)
Dune Land soils tend to occur in the toeslope and tread of dunes. Within the survey area, this soil type occurs in the foredunes and stabilized sand dunes. 173 – Mocho fine sandy loam, 0-2 percent slopes (12.70 acres) The parent material of this soil type is alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The drainage class of this soil type is well drained, and it is composed of fine sandy loam, silty clay loam, and stratified gravelly sand. Mocho Fine Sandy Loam usually occurs in alluvial flats and fans. This soil type occurs in the middle of the survey area where wetland features are present, such as willow thickets and cattail marsh.
184 – Oceano sand, 0-9 percent slopes (4.77 acres)
The parent material of this soil type is Eolian deposits. The drainage class of this soil type is excessively drained. Oceano Sand usually occurs within the toeslope and tread of dunes. Within the survey area, this soil occurs in a stabilized dune area isolated from the rest of the dune system on site.
193 – Psamments and fluvents, wet, 0-5 percent slopes (3.81 acres) The parent material of this soil type is alluvium, and it is composed of loamy sand. The drainage class of this soil type is very poorly drained. Psamments and fluvents, Wet soils usually occur within the toeslope and talf of basin floors. Within the survey area, this soil type occurs in the northernmost part of the lagoon.

Vegetation Communities
Ten distinct vegetation communities were observed within the survey area, as well as anthropogenic and ruderal areas. Vegetation communities identified include: Arroyo willow thicket, California bulrush marsh, cattail marshes, coastal brambles, Pacific silverweed marshes, ice plant mat, silver dune lupine-mock heather scrub, dune mat, European beach grass swards, and sea lyme grass patch. A total of 155 vascular plant species were identified within the survey area during appropriately timed surveys. Plants observed consisted of 82 (53 percent) native taxa and 73 (47 percent) non-native taxa. The percentage of non-native taxa is nearly equal to that of native taxa, reflecting a high level of disturbance on site.

Six sensitive vegetation communities were identified in the CNDDB as potentially occurring on site. Three of the communities occur within the survey area: central dune scrub, central foredunes, and coastal and valley freshwater marsh.

A map illustrating the extent of the vegetation on site is included for reference (see Figure 5).

Representative photographs of the survey area are presented in Appendix D. 41 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Arroyo willow thicket
Growing as shrubs and trees, the dominant canopy cover throughout the site is Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). It is commonly found in dense stands with other native species such as California wax myrtle (Morella californica), bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.), twin berry (Lonicera involucrata), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) along the water’s edge and in the upland dune complexes and surrounding areas. The canopy and shrub layer is dense, limiting the understory, which is variable and typically composed of horsetail (Equisetum spp.), rush (Juncus spp.), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), non-native grasses, bare ground, or water.

This species composition was used in determining the community classification, which most closely corresponds with the Salix lasiolepis/Rubus spp. Association of the Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance, Arroyo willow thickets, in A Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) classification system (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008).

California bulrush marsh
Immediately adjacent to open waters and forming dense mats, southern bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) is dominant throughout much of the site. This species is tolerant of brackish water and fluctuating water levels, and soils typically have high organic content and are poorly aerated.

It is found growing with other native species such as Olney’s three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus), broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), and Arroyo willow. Giant reed (Arundo donax) eradication has been implemented throughout the site; however, a small island in the northern part of the lagoon (near Memorial Park) supports dense bulrush and giant reed.

This species composition was used in determining the community classification, which most closely corresponds with the Schoenoplectus californicus Herbaceous Alliance, California bulrush marsh, in the MCV classification system (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008).

Cattail marshes
A wetland in the easternmost part of the survey area, with less coastal influence, supports a slightly different species composition than the California bulrush marsh. Broad-leaved cattail is dominant with southern bulrush as co-dominant; however, lower growing herbaceous species such as tall flat sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), broadfruit bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarpum), horsetail, brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus), Pacific silverweed (Potentilla anserina subsp. pacifica), and hedge nettle (Stachys ajugoides) are abundant. Arroyo willow surrounds the marsh forming a thicket. Broad-leaved cattail is common and less tolerant of deep water and high salinity; stands are common in local coastal marshes and lagoons.

This species composition was used in determining the community classification, which most closely corresponds with the Typha (angustifolia, domingensis, latifolia) Herbaceous Alliance, Cattail marshes, in the MCV classification system (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008). 42 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Of the wetland-riparian communities, the California bulrush marsh and cattail marsh communities correspond with the sensitive vegetation community, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, from the CNDDB.

Coastal brambles
A small area at the southern part of the survey area is brambles, dominated by California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), which occur between dense Arroyo willow stands. This community likely has a seral relationship with the neighboring community composed of Arroyo willow, with California wax myrtle (Morella californica) and California blackberry as understory.

This species composition was used in determining the community classification, which most closely corresponds with the Rubus (parviflorus, spectabilis, ursinus) Shrubland Alliance, Coastal brambles, in the MCV classification system (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008).

Pacific silverweed marshes
This community occupies small areas near the lagoon margin that flood seasonally. The dominant species in the herbaceous layer is Pacific silverweed, which occurs with densely growing sand dune sedge (Carex pansa), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), and marsh baccharis (Baccharis glutinosa). Other species characteristic of this community identified on site include common velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), and bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.). The herbaceous layer is continuous, and emergent shrubs and trees are sparse to absent. One area on private property in the middle of the site that is characterized as Pacific silverweed marsh showed evidence of recent mowing to be used as a driveway; however, based on personal communication, it does pond during years of typical rainfall.

This species composition was used in determining the community classification, which most closely corresponds with the Argentina egedii Herbaceous Alliance, Pacific silverweed marshes, in the MCV classification system (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008).

Ice plant mat
Several species collectively called ice plant are present on site, and small parts of the sand dunes are dominated by freeway iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis) and sea fig (C. chilensis), which hybridize. Freeway iceplant has high invasivity, as does the hybrid formed with sea fig. Ice plant outcompetes native plants for water, nutrients, and habitat, and is tolerant of a wide range of soil moisture and nutrient conditions. Emergent shrubs such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) are present in low cover, and due to the density of the mat, the herbaceous layer beyond the iceplant is nearly absent with some annual grasses occurring occasionally. This community provides habitat for nesting birds, small mammals, and other wildlife.

This species composition was used in determining the community classification, which most closely corresponds with the Carpobrotus edulis Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands, Ice plant mats, in the MCV classification system (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008). 43 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Silver dune lupine – mock heather scrub
This community occurs in the stabilized dunes on site and is composed of emergent shrubs with an intermittent herbaceous understory. Dominant shrubs include silver dune lupine (Lupinus chamissonis) and mock heather, with coyote brush as a common to abundant component. The herbaceous layer is composed of both native and non-native species such as telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), ice plant, and annual grasses such as the non-native invasive veldt grass (Ehrharta calycina). Several patches of Blochman’s leafy daisy (Erigeron blochmaniae), which has a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1B.2, one population of Blochmans’ ragwort (Senecio blochmaniae), CRPR 4.2, and California spineflower (Mucronea californica), CRPR

4.2, occur within this community.

This species composition was used in determining the community classification, which most closely corresponds with the Lupinus chamissonis-Ericameria ericoides Shrubland Alliance, Silver dune lupine-mock heather scrub, in the MCV classification system (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008).

Dune mat
This community occurs along the western and eastern boundary of the survey area and is surrounded by willow thicket and dune scrub. The area has sandy soils and shows evidence of disturbance with both native and non-native species present. Vegetation within this community is mostly herbaceous with native shrubs such as silver dune lupine and coyote brush occurring sparsely to occasionally as it transitions into silver dune lupine scrub. Native herbaceous species such as common sand verbena (Abronia umbellata), beach-bur (Ambrosia chamissonis), and California croton (Croton californicus), and non-native species such as veldt grass are dominant and form a sparse herbaceous layer with exposed ground.

This species composition was used in determining the community classification, which most closely corresponds with the Abronia latifolia-Ambrosia chamissonis Herbaceous Alliance, Dune mat, in the MCV classification system (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008).

Of the coastal sand dune scrub communities, the silver dune lupine – mock heather scrub and dune mat communities correspond with the sensitive vegetation community, central dune scrub, from the CNDDB.

European beach grass swards
European beach grass (Ammophila arenaria) is a large, perennial grass that dominates parts of the sand dunes found along the western dunes of the survey area. It grows in dense, monotypic stands and with both native and non-native species, which are typically found on the fringe of this community. Shrubs such as mock heather and coyote brush are present, and poison oak grows as a vine-like shrub within and on other plants in this community. The herbaceous layer is limited or absent due to the density of the beach grass. Successful vegetative reproduction by rhizomes allows this grass to outcompete other species in the shifting sand of the dunes, which, in turn, reduces suitable habitat for many wildlife species. However, this community does provide habitat for nesting birds and other wildlife.
44 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This species composition was used in determining the community classification, which most closely corresponds with the Ammophila arenaria Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands, European beach grass swards, in the MCV classification system (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008).

Sea lyme grass patch
The foredunes bordering the Arroyo Grande Estuary and shoreline in the western-most part of the survey area are transitional and currently support American dune grass (Elymus mollis subsp. mollis) with sea rocket (Cakile maritima), ice plant (Carpobrotus spp.), beach-bur, and other species tolerant to changing and extreme coastal conditions. Commonly referred to as a pioneer dune community, the plants are able to colonize and stabilize the sand carried in from shore. This community is vulnerable to colonization by European beach grass, which is abundant throughout the dunes on site. Vegetation in this community is sparse with low cover and large areas of exposed sand. This community provides habitat for wildlife and nesting birds, including the federally listed western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) and California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni).

This species composition was used in determining the community classification, which most closely corresponds with the Leymus mollis Herbaceous Alliance, Sea lyme grass patches, in the MCV classification system (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2008).

Of the vegetation communities identified on site, the sea lyme grass patch corresponds with the central foredune community from the CNDDB.

Anthropogenic
Within and adjacent to the survey area are residences, a public park, an airport, and various structural elements. Typically these areas are dominated by non-native vegetation/horticultural species or are not vegetated. Cultivated species such as baby sun-rose (Aptenia cordifolia), umbrella plant (Cyperus involucratus), and calla lily (Zantedeschia aethiopica) are found throughout the area. Additionally, there is an active dune restoration project in the western part of the site. Although this community is not natural, it provides habitat for wildlife, such as nesting birds.

Ruderal
The walking trails and roadsides throughout the site are dominated by non-native species with high tolerance to regular disturbances. Herbaceous species such as bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), and non-native annual grasses are common weeds found in this community.

Wildlife
Terra Verde conducted focused field surveys within the entire survey area for fisheries, California red-legged frog, and avifauna. Additionally, general wildlife species observed on site during the 13 combined field surveys were documented and are discussed below. Wildlife observed during the field studies included both invertebrate and vertebrate species. This includes those species seen or detected by tracks, scat, skeletal remains, burrows and/or vocalization 45 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
during the field surveys. Complications in the quantitative assessment of both terrestrial vertebrate and invertebrate populations include:
Many species may occur in the area only for short periods during migrations; many species of amphibians and reptiles become inactive during one or more seasons; and
seasonal or annual fluctuations in climate or weather patterns may confound observations.

Invertebrates
Terrestrial invertebrates observed within the survey area included orb-weaver spiders (family Araneidae) common pillbug (Armadillidium vulgare), honeybee (Apis mellifera), common termite (Order Blattodea) European garden snail (Helix aspersa), grasshopper (Melanoplus sp.), and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus).

Aquatic invertebrates observed within Meadow Creek Lagoon and associated wetland habitat areas included but were not limited to dragonfly (Order Odonata), mosquito larvae (Order Diptera), common water striders (Gerris sp.), water boatman (Corixa sp.), crayfish (Pacifastacus sp.) and freshwater snail (Physa sp.).

Fisheries/Water Quality
Given the historical connectivity with upstream tributaries and convergence with Arroyo Grande Creek, the Meadow Creek Lagoon has the potential to harbor marine, freshwater, and estuarine fishes. The survey efforts resulted in the capture and release of ten distinct fish species of varying abundance and size classes. Fish species identified during surveys included largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), and three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). An abundance of crayfish (Pacifastacus spp.) and bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbiana) were also observed during the fisheries assessment. The presence of non-native fish is thought to be a result of local fishing including past largemouth bass and bluegill stocking events and release of bait fish (Smith 1976).

Species diversity was greatest at the northern-most extent of the lagoon, just south of Pier Avenue. Species more common in coastal lagoon habitats, rather than freshwater lagoons, were observed in the pool just south of the levee flap gate, where the lagoon merges with Arroyo Grande Creek.

Sampling in the northern extent of the survey area (Memorial Park) resulted with catch being dominated by golden shiner and non-native centrarchids including largemouth bass and bluegill.

Given the lack of overhanging perimeter canopy at this location, centrarchids appear to be occupying the deeper, open water habitat and the golden shiner are prevalent along lagoon margins where some protection from predation is afforded by stands of bulrush. Also notable at 46 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
this location was the highest abundance of bull frog captured during the course of the surveys, (see Photo 20 in Appendix D).

Just south of Memorial Park, fish capture continued to be dominated by non-native centrarchids (i.e., large-mouth bass and bluegill). As the Meadow Creek Lagoon becomes more “channelized” moving downstream, golden shiner become sparse and a moderate prevalence of three-spine stickleback emerges. Prickly sculpin and Sacramento sucker were found throughout this area in limited numbers.

The final sampling efforts included locations at the southwest most portions of the Meadow Creek Lagoon. These locations were in close proximity to the levee flap gates. Species assemblage on the north side of the gates was dominated by three-spine stickleback, but in relatively low numbers. No other fish species was noted at this location. Observations during snorkel surveys of the southern reaches of Meadow Creek yielded minimal numbers of individuals and low species diversity. The limited species diversity in this section of the Meadow Creek Lagoon is likely due to several abiotic factors such as temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen levels. A lack of visibility (only two-four feet), and extremely turbid substrate may have also attributed to low numbers of species observed.

Surveys on the south side of the levee flap gates resulted in the identification of Pacific staghorn sculpin, three-spine stickleback, and tidewater goby (federally endangered), fish more characteristic of a coastal lagoon. One Sacramento sucker was also detected at this location. The survey effort south of the floodgates was singular in nature, performed with caution to limit the amount of substrate accumulated during seining, and constituents quickly released upon identification. The purpose of this singular effort was to provide a snapshot of comparison between the two semi-isolated habitats on either side of the levee and associated flap gates.

A brief effort was made using netting to observe fish within the narrow concrete drainage channel adjacent to the Oceano Water Treatment Facility. Depth of the drainage ranged from one to three feet. Western mosquito fish were moderately abundant in the net samples. Based on anecdotal information, these fish were most likely introduced by the County as a means to control the local mosquito population. Bullfrog tadpoles were also present in the net on multiple passes.

The results of the water quality analysis closely correlate with the fisheries assessment data, which shows a greater population density and species diversity in areas of the upper lagoon with a higher percent of dissolved oxygen. Factors that determine the percent dissolved oxygen in an aquatic system include diffusion from the air, wind, and other factors that create turbulence at the surface, and photosynthesis (Horne 1994). The greatest percent of dissolved oxygen was observed in the open water habitat of the upper portion of the lagoon. This is likely due to the wind turbulence observed at this location during surveys and the amount of available sunlight to execute photosynthesis. As the lagoon transitions from deep, open water to a shallow, densely vegetated freshwater marsh, the percent of dissolved oxygen declines, along with the overall density of fish populations. Table 2 below summarizes the data collected during the water quality analysis. See Figure 6 for a review of water quality sampling locations. 47 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Table 2. Water Quality Analysis Data Summary
Sample
Point
Temperature
(°F)
Conductivity
(Siemens per
meter [S/m])
Percent
Dissolved
Oxygen
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/L)
pH
1 71.34 0.931 119.60 10.43 7.96
2 71.82 0.937 116.30 10.11 8.02
3 71.46 0.936 119.80 10.48 8.08
4 71.02 0.933 77.60 6.78 7.82
5 70.69 0.943 43.70 3.83 7.74
6 69.82 0.947 47.70 4.24 7.79
7 69.63 0.953 36.00 3.18 7.67
8 63.23 0.919 13.80 1.32 7.35
9 63.65 0.929 19.00 1.79 7.42
10 62.02 1.026 34.90 3.35 7.21
11 64.21 2.190 45.08 4.38 7.47
Amphibians
Generally, amphibians are concentrated in areas near perennial fresh water, inundated soils, and moist understories of decomposing organic material or low-lying herbaceous vegetation. Such habitat requirements are often found adjacent to riparian corridors, marshes, wet meadows, and springs. Juveniles may disperse beyond the aquatic or bank zones utilizing burrows for refugia in the upland and dispersal habitat. Amphibian species observed in the survey area include a federally protected species, CRLF, American bullfrog, and Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra).

During the first protocol-level survey, an adult CRLF was identified near a footbridge just south of the intersection of Aloha Place and Security Court. A second eyeshine survey conducted on August 1, 2012 resulted in the identification of an adult CRLF along the northern bank of Arroyo Grande Creek, downslope of the levee (see Figure 9: Special Status Species Observations).

American bullfrog and Sierran treefrog were found throughout the survey area with the highest densities observed along the lagoon margins at the northeast extent of the survey area (i.e., Memorial Park).

Reptiles
During survey efforts, Pacific pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) was observed at various locations throughout the lagoon (see Figure 9). Non-native red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans) were also documented below the two traffic bridges spanning over Meadow Creek Lagoon at the northern extent of the survey area. Striped racer (Masticophis lateralis) and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) were also observed on site.

Avian Species
The margins of the lagoon provide contiguous canopy coverage supporting riparian avifauna such as Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), Wilson’s warbler (Cardellina pusilla), and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas). Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Meadow Creek Lagoon provides refuge and feeding grounds for migratory marine birds in 48 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
addition to resident species. In addition to those listed above, avifauna identified in the vicinity of the survey area included, but were not limited to, osprey (Pandion haliaetus) white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; state fully protected), Caspian tern (Hydroprogne caspia), Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus). Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus; federally threatened) and California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni; federally endangered) were not noted during field surveys, but have the potential to occur on site. Known breeding populations of western snowy plover and California least tern have been identified during surveys performed by California State Parks two miles south of the survey area within coastal dune habitat, similar to habitat features that occur on site (Personal communication, Ronnie Glick, September 6, 2012).

A complete list of all avifauna observed during field surveys is located in Appendix C.

Mammals
Understories and margins of riparian corridors can provide mammals with opportunity to forage, access to water, and daytime cover. Passageways such as the Arroyo Grande Creek levee and pedestrian trails throughout the study area allow mammal movement between multiple forage locations. Additionally, thick stands of bulrush on the fringe of open waters and within shallow inundated areas, supply cover for small mammals to seek refuge from predation. American beaver (Castor canadensis) dams were observed throughout the Meadow Creek Lagoon and Arroyo Grande Creek during the surveys. Further, beaver were encountered in the open waters of the lagoon during both night surveys. North American river otter (Lontra canadensis) were observed on several occasions during daytime surveys and numerous access points (i.e., slides) and tracks were observed along the levee into Arroyo Grande Creek. The existing habitat features within the lagoon as well as the abundance of centrarchid fish and crayfish provide a large prey base for river otters within the lagoon area. Other mammals observed during surveys included Audubon’s cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes).

Potential exists for and a variety of small rodents to be present. One bat night roost was discovered under the four-lane traffic bridge along Pier Avenue (see Appendix D: Site Photographs). The species occupying the bridge deck were not identified, but based on size and features that could be observed without capturing the bats, appear to be Mexican free-tailed (Tadarida brasiliensis). A complete list of all mammals observed during field surveys is located in Appendix B.

Sensitive Species
For the purposes of this biological resources assessment, a sensitive species is defined as a species that is of management concern to state and/or federal resource agencies and includes those species that are:
Listed as endangered, threatened, or candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA);
Listed as rare, endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA);
49 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Designated as endangered or rare, pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1901, Chapter 10 – Native Plant Protection Act); Designated as fully protected, pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3511, Section 4700, or Section 5050);
Designated as a species of special concern by CDFG; and Plants that meet the definitions of rare, threatened, or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including plants listed by CNPS to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” (CRPR Lists 1A, 1B, and 2). Local or regional agencies (e.g., County, City) may consider plant species that CNPS believes require additional information (i.e., CRPR List 3) and plant species that have been placed on a watch list (i.e., CRPR List 4) by CNPS.

All occurrences of special-status species and sensitive habitat types previously documented from the CNDDB within a one-mile radius of the survey area were plotted on a map using geographic information systems (GIS) software (see Figure 8).

Terra Verde staff determined that the project area contains or has the potential to support 19 sensitive plants, three sensitive amphibians, four sensitive reptiles, two sensitive mammals, twelve sensitive bird species, and eight sensitive invertebrates. Detailed descriptions of several of these sensitive species are provided below.

Sensitive Plant Species
Blochman’s leafy daisy (Erigeron blochmaniae), California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2 Blochman’s leafy daisy is a perennial herb that occupies sand dunes and hills along the coast of central California. It has a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1B.2: rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere, and it is endemic to California. This species was identified throughout the sand dune scrub habitat of the survey area. The largest stand occurs in the western part of the site with a variety of native and non-native species including silver dune lupine, mock heather, and ice plant (see Figure 9). This species co-occurs with two other sensitive species: California spineflower and Blochman’s ragwort.

California spineflower (Mucronea californica), California Rare Plant Rank 4.2 California spineflower is an annual herb that occurs on sandy soils below 1,000 m. It is listed as CRPR 4.2; limited distribution and is endemic to California. This species was identified on the slopes of the sand dunes in the western part of the site (see Figure 9). It occurs with a variety of native and non-native species including mock heather, European beachgrass, and ice plant. This species co-occurs with Blochman’s leafy daisy.

Blochman’s ragwort (Senecio blochmaniae), California Rare Plant Rank 4.2 Blochman’s ragwort is a subshrub that occupies coastal sand dunes and sandy floodplains along the coast of central California. It is listed as CRPR 4.2; limited distribution and is endemic to California. This species was identified in the dune scrub in the eastern part of the site (see Figure 9). It occurs with other native shrubs including silver dune lupine, mock heather, and coyote 50 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
brush, with veldt grass abundant in the herbaceous layer. This species co-occurs with Blochman’s leafy daisy.

Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus subsp. leopoldii), California Rare Plant Rank 4.2 Southwestern spiny rush is a perennial herb that occupies moist saline wetlands, salt marshes, and alkaline seeps at low elevations in central and southern California. It is listed as CRPR 4.2; limited distribution. This species was identified along the transition from dune scrub to wetland vegetation in the western and southwestern parts of the site (see Figure 9). It occurs with native and non-native vegetation including California blackberry, dock, Arroyo willow, Pacific silverweed, and European beachgrass.

La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium scariosum var. loncholepis) CRPR 1B.1, California Threatened, Federally Endangered
La Graciosa thistle is a biennial or short-lived perennial herb that occupies coastal marshes and dune wetlands in southwestern San Luis Obispo County and northwestern Santa Barbara County.

It is localized in the lower valley of the Santa Maria River approximately 10 miles south of the survey area and is known from fewer than 20 occurrences; it is listed as CRPR 1B.1 rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

Although suitable habitat does occur on site, this species was not observed during appropriately timed surveys.

Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) CRPR 1B.1, California Endangered, Federally Endangered
Marsh sandwort is a perennial herb that occupies wet meadows and marshes at elevations below 300 meters. It is known to occur naturally in Black Lake Canyon and at Oso Flaco Lake, which are approximately 5 miles southwest and south of Meadow Creek Lagoon, respectively. It is listed as CRPR 1B.1; rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

Although there are known occurrences within approximately five miles of the survey area, due to the high level of disturbance and abundance of non-native species, this species is not expected to occur on site. Further, this species was not observed on site during appropriately timed surveys.

Gambel’s water cress (Nasturtium gambelii) CRPR 1B.1, California Threatened, Federally Endangered
Gambel’s water cress is a perennial herb that occupies marshes, streambanks, and lake margins at elevations less than 350 m. It is known in California from only four occurrences, and is considered nearly extinct; however, intermediates with the common water cress species (N. officinale) are known.

Common water cress was observed during appropriately timed surveys downstream of the flap gate at Arroyo Grande Creek and within flood channels around the site; however, Gambel’s water cress was not identified during the surveys. This species is not expected to occur within the Meadow Creek Lagoon area, however it has a low potential to occur within the Arroyo Grande Creek channel.
51 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Sensitive Fish Species
South-central California Coast Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), State Status – Species of Special Concern, Federal Status – Threatened As an anadromous form of rainbow trout, steelhead rear in freshwater for one to three years before migrating to the ocean. Often, immature steelhead remain in coastal lagoons or estuaries for several weeks prior to entering the Pacific Ocean. These crucial nursery areas allow time for necessary physiological changes to occur in developing steelhead prior to entering the saline-rich environment of the ocean. This species reaches maturity between the ages of two and four while in the ocean before migrating upstream to natal spawning grounds. Steelhead migration ranges from several miles to several hundred miles up fresh water streams. In San Luis Obispo County, adult steelhead enter streams between December and March for spawning, where eggs are laid for fertilization in gravel beds. Suitable water depth, velocity, and adequately sized gravel substrate are dominant factors for successful spawning however suitable temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen concentration, and turbidity are also critical for embryonic development and survival (NMFS 2011). Hatching time varies from three weeks to two months. The south-central California coast steelhead occupies rivers from Santa Cruz County south to Santa Barbara County, excluding the Santa Maria River. Steelhead occurrences are documented throughout Arroyo Grande Creek up to the base of Lopez Dam and throughout Pismo Creek (CNDDB 2012). Critical habitat has been designated within Arroyo Grande Creek for protection of this species, which overlaps with the southern-most extent of the survey area. Population declines for this species may be attributed to degraded water quality, often a result of increased surface runoff from commercial and residential development, man-made structural barriers such as box culverts resulting in downstream erosive events, and the spread of non-native vegetation, which can outcompete native vegetation that provides overhead canopy and temperature regulation.

This species as been well documented as occurring within Arroyo Grande Creek and tributary channels (Central Coast Salmon Enhancement 2009, Rischbeiter 2004 and 2007). Further, the Arroyo Grande Creek corridor is located within designated critical habitat for his species.

However, no steelhead were observed during survey efforts. Further, fisheries surveys revealed that the northern extent of Meadow Creek Lagoon has unsuitable substrate for steelhead spawning. Specifically, steelhead require riffle habitat areas with clean, coarse gravels for the purposes of spawning. The lagoon substrate is comprised almost entirely of accumulated fine silts and sediments which is unsuitable for steelhead. Moreover, the abundance of centrarchids and other non-native fish species within Meadow Creek Lagoon further decreases the quality of habitat to support steelhead.

However, due to documented annual occurrences of steelhead in Arroyo Grande Creek, there is a low potential for steelhead to occur within the survey area. Although structural barriers, such as the existing levee flap gates, likely hinder anadromous fish migration up into the Meadow Creek watershed, the potential exists for steelhead to enter the lagoon complex during periods of higher flows in Meadow Creek when the flap gates remain open.
52 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), State Status – Species of Special Concern, Federal Status – Endangered
Tidewater goby generally inhabits lagoons, estuaries, marshes, and coastal streams that are protected from the Pacific Ocean by sand bars creating cool, brackish water conditions, preferably with nearby emergent vegetation. Salinities under 10 parts per thousand (ppt) are favorable although this species has been found in the upper reaches of streams which are tributaries to brackish water. Tidewater goby is known to occur from the mouth of the Smith River in Del Norte County, south to Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County. This species may occur in groups under a dozen or in large aggregations of several hundred. Habitat with sandy bottom substrate is preferred to allow subsurface burrowing by males prior to mate selection. Tidewater goby complete life cycles annually with adults rarely exceeding two inches in length. Threats to the goby include sand bar breaching for tidal flushing, wetland draining, and pollutant accumulation in lagoons. Currently, critical habitat is designated for tidewater goby and new critical habitat is proposed to include state lands within San Luis Obispo County (USFWS 2011). The survey area is not included in designated critical habitat for this species.

A query of the CNDDB located occurrences of tidewater goby within the Arroyo Grande Creek Estuary and Pismo Creek, two miles north of the survey area (CNDDB 2012). Conditions within Meadow Creek Lagoon present suitable habitat for tidewater goby. This species was identified within the survey area immediately downstream of the flap gates during a single seining event (see Figure 9). Furthermore, extensive surveys by California State Parks have revealed tidewater goby to have successfully spawned in the Arroyo Grande Creek Estuary in 2010 and to be present in multiple years over the last decade (Rischbieter 2010). Therefore, the potential exists, however low, for tidewater goby to enter the lagoon complex during periods when the flap gates are open.

Sensitive Amphibian Species
California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii), State Status – Species of Special Concern, Federal Status – Threatened
CRLF are generally found along marshes, streams, ponds, and other permanent sources of water where dense scrubby vegetation such as willows, cattails, and bulrushes dominate and water quality is suitable. Breeding sites occur along watercourses with pools that persist long enough for breeding and larval development. Breeding time depends on winter rains but is usually between late November and late April (Jennings 1986).

This species range currently occurs from Mills Creek in Mendocino County, where it overlaps with the range of the Northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora) to Big Creek in Mendocino County, southward along the coast and Coast Ranges to the southernmost extent in Northern Baja California. The CRLF range extends eastward through northern Sacramento Valley where it’s northernmost population occurs in Shasta County, then southward along the Sierra Nevada foothills and into Fresno County. CRLF are found widespread throughout drainages in Monterey County and San Luis Obispo County, while populations are found to be most dense in San Mateo, Marin, and Monterey Counties. The survey area is located within the current and historic range of CRLF (Stebbins 2003, USFWS 2005).
53 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Population declines have been attributed to loss of habitat and an increase in predator densities.

Habitat loss may stem from a variety of land use practices such as urbanization, agriculture, farming, and livestock grazing (USFWS 2005). Urbanization directly reduces available aquatic and terrestrial habitat through conversion of natural habitat areas to impermeable surfaces (i.e., asphalt and concrete) and imposes impassible movement barriers (e.g., roads, fences, walls, and structures). Impassible barriers to movement tend to isolate breeding populations and alter historic migration patterns. Agricultural operations also present threats to CRLF through direct habitat loss and by decreasing watershed area. CRLF populations have also declined due to the introduction of predators such as American bullfrog, centrarchid fish species (e.g., sunfish, blue gill, largemouth bass, etc.), and crayfish.

There are twelve occurrences of CRLF documented throughout the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed (CNDDB 2012). The Arroyo Grande Creek corridor borders the survey area on the south, and has high habitat suitability for CRLF. Two CRLF were identified at separate locations within the survey area during eyeshine surveys (see Figure 9). Thus, there is a high potential for CRLF to occur within the Meadow Creek Lagoon and surrounding wetland areas and associated flood channels. Although American bullfrog and centrarchid fish populations may limit CRLF distribution throughout the survey area, confirmed presence of CRLF and suitable habitat on site make it highly likely that CRLF will be present.

Coast Range Newt (Taricha torosa), State Status – Species of Special Concern Coast Range newts occupy a variety of terrestrial habitats during non-breeding months, such as wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, rolling grasslands and abandoned animal burrows. Newts may be found underneath areas of woody debris, moist leaf litter, or rock crevices. Adults enter water for reproduction. Breeding sites include ponds, reservoirs, or slow-moving pools within creeks and streams with suitable water quality. Newts have been documented as far as two miles away from suitable breeding habitat and have been noted as being instinctual by returning to the same breeding pools year after year. Breeding typically occurs from December to February, but may extend past February during years of late or extended annual rainfall. Females lay egg masses just below the surface of the water under the protection of submerged rocks, vegetation, and branches. Incubation lasts anywhere from 14 to 52 days with the larval development extending into the summer or fall. Sub-adults leave the water and return to terrestrial environments, where they feed on worms, snails, slugs, and insects. Endemic to California, Coast Range newts are found along the coast and Coast Range Mountains from Mendocino County south to San Diego County. Predators such as crayfish, mosquito fish, and bullfrog prey on the non-poisonous larvae and egg masses.

This species has not been documented within five miles of the survey area (CNDDB 2012), and it was not observed during survey efforts. The closest known occurrence of Coast Range newt is in the upper watershed of Arroyo Grande Creek at the base of Lopez Dam, approximately 15 miles from the survey area. Much of the waters in the survey area support dense populations of centrarchids and predatory mammal species, significantly reducing the potential for survivorship.

Shallow, inundated portions of the survey area with emergent vegetation are likely to be unsuitable for Coast Range newt due to impaired water quality. Due to impaired water quality 54 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
and extreme threat of predation, this species has low potential of occurring within the survey area.

Western Spadefoot Toad (Spea hammondii), State Status – Species of Special Concern Western spadefoot toads generally require grassland, open chaparral, or valley foothill woodland habitats for feeding and aestivation. It also requires aquatic habitats including permanent or temporary wetlands, rivers, creeks, pools in intermittent streams, or stock ponds for breeding.

Western spadefoot toad is a predominantly terrestrial species and enters water only for reproduction. It breeds from January through March, but the breeding season can extend through May in wetter years. Further research is required to determine the dispersal distance of western spadefoot toads from aquatic habitats to upland refugia. Some studies suggest that the dispersal distance can be nearly a quarter mile (368 m). This species occurs throughout the Central Valley from Shasta County south through western Kern County. In the Coast Ranges it occurs from northern San Benito County, south through Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties to the Mexican border. It is known to occur at elevations that range from approximately 0 to 4,470 feet (1,363) m above msl. Population declines for this species are primarily the result of habitat loss.

Specifically, conversion of native habitat to urban or agricultural land eliminates temporary rain pools used for breeding and juvenile development (Californiaherps.com).

This species is often difficult to detect due to extended periods of its life cycle being spent underground. This species has not been previously documented within a five-mile radius of the survey area (CNDDB 2012), and was not observed during field surveys. The survey area contains suitable habitat for spadefoot toad, however potential for occurrence is considered low due to historic site disturbance, abundance of potential predators, and the lack of nearby occurrences.

Sensitive Reptilian Species
Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), State Status – Species of Special Concern Coast horned lizard typically inhabits areas of loose sands or soils with patchy vegetation.

Habitat types can vary from grasslands and foothills at sea level to coniferous forest and chaparral communities up to 8,000 feet (2,438 m) above msl. The primary food source for Coast horned lizard is harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex barbatus), but they will also prey on other small invertebrates. This species can often be found near ant mounds where loose, friable soil conditions exist. Non-native ants, such as Argentine ants (Iridomyrmex humilis), displacing native harvester ants contributes to the decline in food sources for this species. Coast horned lizard occurs along the Pacific coast from the San Francisco Bay to Baja California, but is threatened by land development throughout its historic range (Californiaherps.com).

One occurrence of coast horned lizard is documented within five miles of the survey area along margins of coastal dune habitat near Oso Flaco Lake (CNDDB 2012). No coast horned lizards were observed within the survey area. However, existing dune habitat along the western boundary of the survey area presents suitable habitat. Thus, there is moderate potential for coast horned lizard to occur within the survey area.
55 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Pacific Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata), State Status – Species of Special Concern Pacific pond turtles are commonly found in a variety of freshwater aquatic habitats including ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, and marshes. Preferentially, this species utilizes deeper pools with abundant vegetation and muddy bottoms where it can burrow in the mud to hibernate during winter months or aestivate during summer droughts. Pond turtles are omnivorous, utilizing food sources such as aquatic plants, invertebrates, frog eggs, crayfish, and occasionally fish.

Historically, this turtle was distributed along the entire west coast from British Columbia to Baja California, but has become extirpated in much of its southern range as well as highly fragmented north of California (Californiaherps.com).

Pacific pond turtle has been documented in numerous locations within a five-mile radius of the survey area in both naturally-occurring and artificial water bodies (CNDDB 2012). This species was also observed in open water of Meadow Creek Lagoon and basking along bank margins during survey efforts (see Figure 9).

Silvery Legless Lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), State Status – Species of Special Concern Silvery legless lizard requires sandy or loose loamy soils within coastal dune scrub, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, woodland, riparian, or forest habitats. It requires cover such as logs, leaf litter, or rocks and will cover itself with loose soil. Relatively little is known about the specific behavior and ecology of this species, but it is thought to be a diurnal species that breeds between the months of March and July. It gives live birth to young in the early fall. This species occurs from Antioch in Contra Costa County south through the Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular Ranges, along the western edge of the Sierra Nevada, and in parts of the San Joaquin Valley and Mojave Desert to El Consuelo in Baja. Silvery legless lizard is known to occur at elevations that range from approximately 0 to 5,904 feet (1,800 m) above msl. Population declines have been attributed to agricultural development, sand mining, use of off-road recreational vehicles, and habitat loss through spread of invasive, non-native vegetation such as freeway iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis).

This species has been documented approximately 4.5 miles south of the survey area near Oso Flaco Lake (CNDDB 2012). No silvery legless lizard were observed during field efforts, although detection of this species is difficult without disruption of understory duff or excavation within dune habitat. There is a high potential for this species to occur within the survey area due to the presence of suitable habitat (i.e., dune scrub, riparian understory litter, and decomposing matter).

Two-striped Gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii), State Status – Species of Special Concern This highly aquatic species forages primarily in and along stream corridors, preying on fish and amphibians, especially trout and sculpins. The preferred nocturnal retreats of this active diurnal snake include mammal burrows, crevices, and surface objects (Rathburn et al. 1993). During the day, it will often bask on streamside rocks or on densely vegetated stream banks. When disturbed it usually retreats rapidly to water. In milder climates, mammal burrows and surface objects such as rocks and rotting logs serve as winter refuges. Courtship and mating normally occur soon after spring emergence. Live birth occurs in late summer, usually in secluded locations such as under 56 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
the loose bark of rotting logs or in dense vegetation near pond or stream margins (Cunningham 1959, Rossman et al. 1996).

Two-striped gartersnake occurs from the southeastern slope of the Diablo Range and the Salinas Valley south along the South Coast and Transverse ranges to the Mexican border, and on Santa Catalina Island (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Historically common, it is associated with permanent or semi-permanent bodies of water in a variety of habitats from sea level to 7,872 feet (2,400 m).

It is now extirpated from about 40 percent of its historical range (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

This species has not previously been documented within five miles of the survey area (CNDDB 2012). Habitat suitability is moderate to high throughout the survey area. This species was not observed within the survey area, however, potential for occurrence is considered high due to habitat suitability and available prey species.

Sensitive Avian Species
California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), State Status – Threatened The California black rail is found in limited habitat, primarily tidal marshes bordering large bays where it occupies a narrow section between ordinary high tide line and upland habitat where topography is plateaued or gently sloped (Evans 2000). Resident to California, these tidal emergent wetlands where rails can be found are dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica) or in brackish marshes supporting bulrushes (Schoenoplectis spp.) with pickleweed and salt grass . These “high wetlands” are near the upper limits of tidal flooding, not in low wetland areas (Zeiner et. al. 1990). Prey of the California black rail includes isopods, insects, and other arthropods from the surface of mud or other vegetation. Currently, populations are found in San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, and Morro Bay. Historically, California black rails occurred in coastal wetlands from Santa Barbara County to San Diego County, but breeding populations have been extirpated from these areas due to land conversions including construction of levees, dikes, salt ponds, sewage treatment plants, and agricultural operations.

Declines in populations have also been attributed to predators such as domestic cat (Felis catus) and herons (Ardea spp. and Egretta spp.).

A search of the CNDDB revealed documented occurrences of California black rail at Oso Flaco Lake, five miles south of the survey area and in the vicinity of Morro Bay Estuary (CNDDB 2012). Locally, breeding populations appear to be restricted in distribution and are known to occur in Los Osos Creek, Chorro Creek, Sweet Springs, Shark Inlet, and Morro Bay State Park.

Although suitable marsh habitat exists in the survey area, frequent disturbance and a lack of past detection indicate there is a low potential for this species to occur within the survey area.

California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum browni), State Status – Endangered, Federal Status – Endangered
Locally, California least tern is a migratory visitor that utilizes marine and esturarine shores from San Francisco Bay south to Baja California during the breeding season (Natural Resources Agency 2010). This species establishes loose colonies on sandy soils with little vegetation along oceans, lagoons, creek mouths, and bays. Arrival at breeding sites begins in early April and lasts 57 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
into September (Ziener et. al. 1990). Generally, this bird prefers nest sites on open, sandy or gravelly shores near unpolluted, shallow water in estuaries or lagoons where small fish are abundant. Feeding can also occur near shore in open ocean habitat. Nests are formed from shallow depressions lined with shells or other debris. This species will readily abandon nests if disturbed by humans or predators such as domestic cat, herons, crows, or falcons.

One occurrence of California least tern is documented near Oso Flaco Lake, roughly five miles south of the survey area (CNDDB 2012). Personal communication with California State Parks revealed that this species nested two miles south of the survey area in 2012 (pers. comm. R.

Glick, 2012). This species was not observed within the survey area. Nesting potential within the survey area is considered low due to a high level of human disturbance and the presence of multiple known predator species.

Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), State Status – Species of Special Concern while nesting Nesting habitat for this species is primarily in dense stands of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), riparian deciduous, or other forests near streams. This species nests and forages in close proximity to open water or riparian vegetation (Zeiner et. al. 1990). Prey for Cooper’s hawk consists of birds, small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. This species is present in the southern United States and Mexico, from coast to coast. Tolerant to human activity, Cooper’s hawk will nest in relatively close contact to humans and within suburban areas. Declines in California populations can be attributed to loss of habitat through urbanization and development (Reeser 2006).

Cooper’s hawk was not reported within a five-mile radius of the survey area (CNDDB 2012), and was not observed during field surveys. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat are present in the riparian habitat surrounding Meadow Creek Lagoon, therefore, there is a high potential for this species to occur within the survey area.

Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), State Status – Endangered, Federal Status – Endangered
The least Bell’s vireo is a summer resident of southern California (Zeiner et al., 1990). This species primarily occurs in association with low, dense riparian growth in the vicinity of water or dry river bottoms. Nesting usually occurs in shrubs, including low-growing species of willow.

Breeding and nesting for this species primarily occurs in May and June (Zeiner et al., 1990). The historic distribution of least Bell’s vireo ranged from central-northern California through the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and Sierra Nevada foothills and from the south Coast Ranges (including the Santa Clara River watershed) to Baja California (Kus 2002, USWFS 1998). Historic populations have also been documented in Owens Valley, Death Valley, and scattered locations in the Mojave Desert (USFWS 1998, Kus 2002).

Locally, individuals of this species have been reported in the vicinity of Camp Roberts, north of Paso Robles. Potential nesting habitat for this species occurs primarily in association with portions of the Salinas River riparian corridor, in northern San Luis Obispo County. One individual was documented in Los Osos in 2009 (SWCA 2010). 58 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Least Bell’s vireo has not been documented within a five-mile radius of the survey area (CNDDB 2012) and was not observed during any survey efforts. Although suitable riparian habitat exists in the survey area, frequent disturbance and a lack of past detection indicate there is a low potential for this species to occur within the survey area.

Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus), State Status – Species of Special Concern Prairie falcons inhabit grasslands, shrub lands, savannahs, deserts, and other open habitats at elevations up to 10,000 feet (3,048 m) in the western United States. During winter months, prairie falcons may be found in cultivated fields, along lake shores, or in feed lots with large populations of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), which serve as a food source. Mating takes places between February and April with incubation lasting roughly a month. Prairie falcons preferentially nest on cliffs up to 500 feet, but may also be utilize trees, telephone poles, or buildings. Females are extremely protective and territorial of nests and are often identified by their screech before sightings occur.

This species has not been previously documented within a five-mile radius of the survey area (CNDDB 2012) and was not observed within or adjacent to the survey area. Due to lack of suitable foraging or nesting habitat, there is a low potential for this species to occur within the survey area.

Purple Martin (Progne subis), State Status – Species of Special Concern This uncommon species occurs in a variety of habitats including riparian, valley-foothill, hardwood-conifer, and redwood forests during the breeding season. It arrives from South America in late spring and is a resident of California during the summer and sometimes fall.

Generally, nesting occurs in tall, multi-layered open forests, and often within old woodpecker cavities. During winter migration, purple martins may be observed foraging in grasslands, wet meadows, or fresh water wetlands (Zeiner et. al. 1990). Threats to purple martin may be attributed to loss of riparian habitat and competition with European starlings for nesting cavities (Remsen 1978).

Purple martin has not been documented within a five-mile radius of the survey area (CNDDB 2012) and was not observed during survey efforts. Due to a lack of suitable nesting habitat on site, there is low potential for this species to occur within the survey area.

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), State Status – Species of Special Concern during nesting periods
The sharp-shinned hawk inhabits a variety of natural and urban habitat communities, including aspen, pine, and fir forests and urban, rural, and agricultural areas. This species typically nests in conifer trees, 20 to 60 feet above the ground where there is sufficient overhead shading. Peak nesting season for this species is from March to June, but often extends through the summer.

Breeding range for this species typically occurs in colder areas, including high elevation forests in the Rocky Mountains, large areas of Canada, Alaska, and much of the northeastern United States. Breeding grounds also extend into portions of northern California, Nevada, and Washington.
59 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This species has not been documented within a five-mile radius of the survey area (CNDDB 2012) and was not observed within or adjacent to the survey area. Suitable forage and nesting habitat for this species is not present within the survey area and, therefore, is unlikely to occur on site.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), State Status – Endangered The southwestern willow flycatcher is a summer resident, requiring dense riparian habitats with nearby standing water, streams, pools, or saturated soils. This species eats primarily flying insects. Nest territories are set up for breeding, and there is some site fidelity to nest territories.

Southwestern willow flycatchers arrive at breeding grounds in late April and stay as late as September. Degradation and loss of dense riparian habitat is the primary threat to the flycatcher, as well as human disturbance, which may result in nest abandonment at nesting sites (USFWS 2011). Critical habitat has been designated for this species but does not occur within or within the vicinity of the survey area.

This species has not been previously documented within a five-mile radius of the survey area (CNDDB 2012) and there are no documented occurrences of this species breeding within San Luis Obispo County (SWCA 2010). Although riparian vegetation is prevalent throughout the survey area, human-related disturbance in this area is high. Based on the threat of disturbance and the lack of previous documentation of this species breeding in the County, it is unlikely for this species to occur within the survey area.

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), Federal Status – Threatened Western snowy plover is a year-round resident in coastal areas throughout California (Warriner, et al., 1986). Inland snowy plovers may migrate to locations along the coastline but are distinct from the western plover population. Historically, western snowy plover occurs on sandy, gravely beaches along the coast. Nesting locations occur above the high tide lines in flat, open areas with sandy or saline substrates where vegetation and driftwood are sparse or absent (Widrig 1980, Stenzel et. al. 1981), within 100 m of water (Page and Stenzel 1981). The breeding period occurs from early March through late September, with a peak from mid-April to mid-June, and the wintering period is from late October through mid-February. This species forages on small invertebrates in the wet and dry beach sand within low foredune habitat. The historic range spans from coastal Washington to Baja California. However, habitat disturbance as a result of development and recreational activities has attributed to population declines and loss of suitable breeding locations. A 669-acre critical habitat area has been designated for this species, which spans along the wind-blown sand dunes between 0.4 mile north of Mussel Point and Arroyo Grande Creek (Federal Register 2012). The southwest end of the survey area overlaps with the critical habitat area for this species.

A search of the CNDDB revealed documented occurrences of western snowy plover in the coastal dune habitat bordering the western limits of the survey area and extending southward (CNDDB 2012). No western snowy plover were observed in the survey area during field surveys however, 2012 surveys performed by California State Parks located nesting sites approximately two miles south of Meadow Creek Lagoon along coastal foredune habitat (pers. comm., R.

Glick, 2012). Surveys in 2010 found snowy plover nesting north of Grand Avenue (pers. comm., 60 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
R. Glick, 2012). Further communication with Mr. Glick suggested western snowy plover may winter in foredune habitat directly adjacent to the survey area. Due to recent documented occurrences, there is a high potential for western snowy plover occurrence within the western, coastal foredune portion of the survey area bordering the Arroyo Grande Creek Estuary.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Federal Status – Candidate, State Status – Endangered
Habitat requirements for the western yellow-billed cuckoo include dense riparian woodland with well-developed understories for breeding. Roosting and nesting occurs in willows and other deciduous trees and shrubs. During the breeding months, this species is confined to humid microclimates such as river bottoms or along slow-moving creeks and streams (CDFG 2000).

Nest sites are located in dense foliage of deciduous trees or shrubs, between 2 and 2.5 feet off the ground. This species is a rare summer resident in scattered locations in California. Formerly, Western yellow-billed cuckoo was much more common and widespread in lowland valleys of California but habitat loss has caused declines in populations. Current population estimates predict that there are only 50 breeding pairs left in California (Zeiner et. al 1990). Prey items for this species include grasshoppers, cicadas, caterpillars, and other large insects, as well as frogs, lizards, and fruits upon occasion (Bent 1940, Preble 1957).

No records of western yellow-billed cuckoo have been recorded in the CNDDB within a five- mile radius of the survey area (CNDDB 2012) and there are no known breeding locations within San Luis Obispo County for this species (SWCA 2010). This species was not observed during field surveys. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat exists within the survey area, but there is a low potential for this species to occur in the survey area due to its extreme rarity and lack of any recent documented occurrences in San Luis Obispo County.

White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), State Status – Fully Protected The white-tailed kite is a resident to coastal valleys and lowlands of California where it inhabits herbaceous and open stands of various habitats near agricultural operations. Typical prey items include voles and other small diurnal mammals, but it will occasionally feed on birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians (Zeiner et. al. 1990). Nesting occurs within thick, upper canopies of oaks, willows, or other tree stands in close proximity to open foraging area.

White-tailed kite has not been previously reported within five miles of the survey area (CNDDB 2012). This species was observed foraging over dune habitat along the western boundary of the survey area during field surveys, but suitable nesting habitat does not occur within the survey area. Thus, there is low potential for this species to be impacted during any future flood control maintenance activities within Meadow Creek Lagoon.

Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri), State Status – Species of Special Concern during nesting periods
This migratory species is widely distributed throughout North America. In California, populations are predominately in the northern and coastal portions of the State. Yellow warblers generally occupy riparian vegetation in close proximity to water and commonly nest in riparian 61 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
habitats in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties (Lawther et al. 1999). Nesting season is typically from mid-April to late August.

No record of this species has been recorded within five miles of the survey area (CNDDB 2012) and it was not observed during survey efforts. However, there is a high potential for this species to occur in the survey area due to the presence of suitable nesting and foraging habitat.

Migratory Nesting Birds
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Animals, agreements between the United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico, respectively, afford protection for migratory birds by making it unlawful to collect, sell, pursue, hunt, or kill native migratory birds, their eggs, nests or any parts thereof.

Certain game birds have been omitted from this protection. The laws were adopted to eliminate the commercial market for migratory bird feathers and parts, especially those of larger raptors and other birds of prey.

Riparian corridors offer protection from predation for smaller migratory birds, ample foraging grounds, and provide temperature regulation. During avian surveys and other field efforts, numerous migratory birds were observed within the survey area. Although no active nests were observed, there is a high potential for migratory birds to nest in the thick riparian corridors surrounding Meadow Creek, Arroyo Grande Creek, and the Meadow Creek Lagoon.

Sensitive Mammal Species
American Badger (Taxidea taxus), State Status – Species of Special Concern American badger is a non-migratory species that occurs throughout most of California. It occurs in open and arid habitats including grasslands, meadows, savannahs, open-canopy desert scrub, and open chaparrals. It requires friable soils in areas with low to moderate slopes. American badger is known to occur in nearly every region of California except for the North Coast region which includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin counties. This species occurs at elevations that range from approximately 0 to nearly 12,000 feet (3,600 m) above msl.

American badger typically breeds from May through September, but it may not breed every year.

Suitable habitat and typical climate conditions where American badger is found are not present within the survey area. Although this species has been previously documented within a five-mile radius of the survey area (CNDDB 2012), it was not observed within the survey area nor were any potentially active or remnant burrows for this species observed. Potential for American badger occurrence within the survey area is considered low.

Sensitive Bat Species
Bats in California occur at elevations ranging from below sea level to almost 11,000 feet. Bats, like other mammals, have hair, nurse their young, and produce body heat internally. Unlike all other mammals, bats fly, using wings formed by a flexible, leathery skin membrane stretched between highly modified elongated fingers and forearms, leg bones, and the tail. But unlike most small mammals, bats are long-lived (up to 30 years or more for some species), and most species 62 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
produce only one young per year (CDFG 2010). Despite myths about bats being blind, most bats locate food and orient themselves using well-developed eyes and a strong sense of smell. All of California's bat species are insect eaters except the Mexican long-tongued bat (Choeronycteris mexicana), which occurs in the extreme southwestern part of California.

Only 4 of California’s 24 bat species regularly tolerate human presence and are commonly found in buildings: the Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), the Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis, CDFG special animal), the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), and the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). Six additional species are occasionally found in buildings: the western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus, California species of special concern (CSC)), the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus, CSC), Townsend's big eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii, CSC), the longeared myotis (Myotis evotis, CDFG special animal), the fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes, CDFG special animal), and the long-legged myotis (Myotis volans, CDFG special animal).

Suitable night roosting habitat exists for these ten disturbance-tolerant species along the underside of each of the three bridges spanning Meadow Creek Lagoon. An unidentified bat species was observed from watercraft roosting under the traffic bridge along Pier Avenue during nighttime amphibian surveys. Suitable day roosts or maternity roost sites (i.e., large hollow snags or suitable cavities within cottonwood (Populus fremontii) or similarly structured trees) were not observed within the survey area. Although no record of sensitive bat species has been documented within a five-mile radius of the survey area (CNDDB 2012), roosting bats were detected on site during surveys and have the potential to occur within the survey area.

Sensitive Invertebrate Species
Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus), State Status – Special Animal This species is not formally listed as an endangered or threatened species; however, over- wintering monarch butterflies are considered to be a “special animal” by CDFG. Monarch butterfly wintering sites are classified as rare and of restricted range within California. Monarch butterfly will begin migrating to over-wintering sites in early November and December where there are warmer climates in southern California and Mexico. They will fly north for breeding as the milkweed plants come into bloom in the spring. Wintering aggregations of monarch butterflies in California can primarily be found on Monterey pines (Pinus radiata) and in eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) groves (Sakai and Calvert, 1991). Wintering habitat components frequently include sources of moisture such as streams, ponds or abundant morning dew. Other habitat preferences include little direct sunlight, minimal wind, and moist ambient conditions.

There are ten documented occurrences of wintering monarch butterflies within five miles of the survey area, the closest one being less than 0.25 mile north, adjacent to the Meadow Creek corridor (CNDDB, 2012). However, there are no large groves of pine and/or eucalyptus within the survey area, therefore, the likelihood of monarch butterfly wintering within survey area is considered low.
63 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.
64 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

REFERENCES
Baldwin, Bruce G. et al, 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Bent, Arthur Cleveland, 1940. Life histories of North American cuckoos, goatsuckers, hummingbirds, and their allies. United States Government. Washington, D.C..

Bent, Arthur Cleveland, 1942. Life histories of North American flycatchers, larks, swallows, and their allies. General Publishing Company, Ltd. Toronto, Ontario.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2012. California Natural Diversity Database. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/rarefind.asp . July 2012 Data.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Nongame Wildlife Program, 2012. The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of California 2000-2004.

Available online at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/new_te_rpt.html .

Accessed September 2012.

California Herps, 2012. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Available online at: http://www.californiaherps.com/ . Accessed September 2012.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.

Available online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/Accessed September 2012.

Calflora, 2012. Available Online at: http://www.calflora.org/ . Accessed July and August 2012.

Evens, Jules, 1999/2000. Mystery of the marsh: the California black rail. Tideline, Vol. 19, No. 4: 1-3.

Glick, Ronnie, 2012. Personal communication on Sept. 6, 2012 with Calif. State Parks Department regarding nesting snowy plover and California least tern at Pismo Beach.

Goldman, Charles R., and Alexander J Horne, 1994. Limnology, Second Edition. McGraw Hill, Inc. New York, New York.

Harvey, T., 1999. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System: Black Rail. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Available online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=1711 .

Jameson, E.W., Jr. and Peeters, H.J., 2004. Mammals of California, Revised Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
65 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes, 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America:
are bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 20, No. 4:
490-509.

Lowther, P. E., C. Celada, N. K. Klein, C. C. Rimmer, and D. A. Spector, 1999. Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) The Birds of North America. No. 454.

Marschalek, Daniel M., 2011. California Least Tern Breeding Survey, 2010 Season. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Wildlife Branch/ State of California Natural Resources Agency. Available online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentVersionID=59326 . Accessed September 2012.

McGinnis, Samuel M., 2006. Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2011. Biological Opinion SWR/2010/06192.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)/United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2012. Available online at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx . Accessed August 2012.

Polite, C., 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System: White-tailed Kite. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Available online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentVersionID=18135 .

Accessed September 2012.

Preble, Norman A., 1957. Nesting Habits of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 57, No. 2. Northeastern University. Boston, Massachusettes.

Reeser, Terry, 2006. Sensitive Species of the Santa Ana Watershed: Cooper’s Hawk (Accipter cooperii). Santa Ana Watershed Association.

Rigney, M. and S. Granholm, 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System: Least Tern. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Available online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentVersionID=17813 .

Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (RHJV), 2004. The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Available online at: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian.html . Accessed September 2012.
66 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Rischbieter, Douglas, 2011. Aquatic Survey: Arroyo Grande Creek and Lagoon. California State Parks.

Sawyer, John O., Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie Evens, 2008. A Manual of California Vegetation.

Second Edition. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California.

Sibley, D.A., 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Alfred A.

Knopf, Inc. New York, New York.

Smith, Kent A., 1976. The Natural Resources of the Nipomo Dunes and Wetlands. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).

Stebbins, R.C., 2003. Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin.

Boston, Massachusetts.

SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2010. Draft Arroyo Grande Creek Channel Waterway Management Program Environmental Impact Report.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover. Available online at:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E4MaFOzhCwQJ:https://www.f ederalregister.gov/articles/2012/06/19/2012-13886/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife- and-plants-revised-designation-of-critical-habitat-for- the+Snowy+Plover+Critical+habitat&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2012. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office.

Western Snowy Plover, Charadrius nivosus nivosus. Available online at:
http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/WSP/plover.html . Accessed September, 2012.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.

Service Proposes Revised Critical Habitat for Tidewater Goby. Available online at:
http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/fish/Goby/documents/News%20Release- Proposed_Revised_Critical_Habitat_for_the_Tidewater_Goby.pdf. Accessed September 2012.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Available online at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980506.pdf . Accessed September 2012.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). 67 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.
68 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

APPENDIX A: MAPS
69 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

70 ^_Project Location
County Line
0 5 102.5 Miles ¯
Oceano Lagoon Biological Assessment
Figure 1: Project Location
Morro Bay
01 Oct 2012
San Luis Obispo County
Santa Barbara County
San Luis Obispo
71 Survey Area
0 500250Feet ¯
Oceano Lagoon Biological Assessment
Figure 2: Survey Area
01 Oct 2012
Memorial Park
Secur
i
t
y

C
o
u
r
t
Aloh
a

P
l
a
c
e
72 Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Survey Area ¯
Oceano Lagoon Biological Assessment
Figure 3: Topographic Map
01 Oct 2012
0 10.5
Miles
73 0 500250Feet
¯
Survey Area
Dune land
Mocho fine sandy loam
Oceano sand, 0-9% slopes
Psamments and fluvents, wet
Water
Oceano Lagoon Biological Assessment
Figure 4: Soils Map
01 Oct 2012 Soil Data Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey, 201274

Survey Area
Anthropogenic
Ruderal
Bulrush Marsh
Cattail Marsh
Dune Mat
Iceplant Mat
Coastal Brambles
Sea Lyme Grass Patch
Pacific Silverweed Marsh
Silver Dune Lupine Scrub
European Beach Grass Sward
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Open Water 0 500250Feet
¯
Oceano Lagoon Biological Assessment
Figure 5: Vegetation Communities
01 Oct 2012 75

Survey Area
Seine Pull Locations
Hand-Netting Locations
Unsurveyed Pond
Snorkel Survey Route
Water Quality Sample Locations
Tidewater Goby Observed 0 500250Feet
¯
June 15, 2012 (Day 1):

Seine Pulls 1 - 13
June 18, 2012 (Day 2):

Seine Pulls 14 - 23
June 19, 2012 (Day 3):

Seine Pulls 24 - 26
Snorkel Surveys
Hand Netting
*Tidewater Goby Observed
Fisheries Survey Data
01 Oct 2012
This pond was inaccessible for
seine fishing and too turbulent
for snorkel surveys; no surveys
occurred in this pond.

Oceano Lagoon Biological Assessment
Figure 6: Fisheries Assessment &
Water Quality Analysis
76 0 1 2 3 4 50.5
Miles ¯
Oceano Lagoon Biological Assessment
Figure 7: Five-mile CNDDB - CRLF5-mile Buffer
California red-legged frog (CRLF)
01 Oct 2012 77

0 0.50.25
Miles ¯
Oceano Lagoon Biological Assessment
Figure 8: One-mile CNDDB
California red-legged frog
monarch butterfly
mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)
Oso Flaco robber fly
steelhead - south/central California coast DPS
tidewater goby
western snowy plover
beach spectaclepod
Central Dune Scrub
Central Foredunes
coastal goosefoot
Gambel's water cress
La Graciosa thistle
marsh sandwort
San Luis Obispo monardella
surf thistle
01 Oct 2012
One mile buffer
Survey Area
78 0 500250Feet
¯
Survey Area
California spineflower
Blochman's leafy daisy
Blochman's ragwort
Southwestern spiny rush
Oceano Lagoon Biological Assessment
Figure 9: Special Status Species Observations
01 Oct 2012
White-tailed Kite
Tidewater Goby
California Red-legged Frog
Pacific Pond Turtle 79

Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
APPENDIX B: OBSERVED PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES LISTS
80 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.

81 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Meadow Creek Lagoon
Plant Species Observed On-Site

May 9, 25, and 29, and July 06, and 27, 2012

Scientific Name Common Name

AIZOACEAE

FIG-MARIGOLD OR ICEPLANT
FAMILY
Aptenia cordifolia* Baby sun-rose
Carpobrotus chilensis* Sea fig
Carpobrotus edulis* Freeway ice plant)
Conicosia pugioniformis* Narrow-leaved ice plant
Lampranthus sp.* Miniature ice plant
Tetragonia tetragonioides New Zealand spinach

ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY
Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak

APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY
Apium graveolens* Celery
Conium maculatum* Poison hemlock
Foeniculum vulgare Fennel
Oenanthe sarmentosa Water parsley

APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY
Vinca major* Greater periwinkle

ARACEAE ARUM FAMILY
Lemna sp. Duckweed
Zantedeschia aethiopica* Calla lily

ARALIACEAE GINSENG FAMILY
Hedera helix* English ivy
Hydrocotyle verticillata Whorled marsh pennywort

ASPARAGACEAE ASPARAGUS FAMILY
Dracaena sp.** Dragon tree

ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Achillea millefolium Yarrow
Ambrosia chamissonis Beach-bur
Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort
Baccharis glutinosa (B. douglasii) Marsh baccharis
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush
Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle
Centaurea melitensis Tocalote
Cirsium vulgare* Bull thistle
82 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Scientific Name Common Name

Corethrogyne filaginifolia (Lessingia f. var.
filaginifolia) Cudweed aster
Delairea odorata* (Senecio milkanoides) German Ivy
Dimorphotheca sinuata* African daisy
Ericameria ericoides Mock heather
Erigeron blochmaniae+ Blochman's leafy daisy
Erigeron bonariensis* (Conyza b.) Flax-leaved horseweed Helminthotheca echioides* (Picris e.) Bristly ox-tongue Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed
Hypochaeris glabra* Cat's-ear
Isocoma menziesii Menzies' goldenbush
Jaumea carnosa Fleshy jaumea
Lactuca serriola * Prickly wild lettuce
Malacothrix clevelandii Cleveland's dandelion
Matricaria discoidea* (Chamomilla
suaveolens) Pineapple weed
Psuedognaphalium californicum (Gnaphalium
c.) Green everlasting
Senecio blochmaniae+ Blochman's ragwort
Senecio vulgaris Common groundsel
Sonchus asper Spiny sowthistle
Sonchus oleraceus* Prickly sow thistle
Tragopogon porrifolius* Salsify, Oyster plant

BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY
Cryptantha leiocarpa Coast cryptantha
Heliotropium curassavicum Salt heliotrope
Phacelia distans Common phacelia

BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica nigra * Black mustard
Cakile maritima Sea rocket
Hirschfeldia incana Wild mustard
Lobularia maritima* Sweet alyssum
Raphanus sativus Radish

CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY
Lonicera involucrata Twinberry
Lonicera japonica* Japanese honeysuckle

CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINK FAMILY
Stellaria media* Common chickweed

CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Chenopodium californicum Goosefoot
Salicornia pacifica (S. virginica) Pickleweed
83 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Scientific Name Common Name

CONVOLVULAECEAE MORNING-GLORY FAMILY
Convolvulus arvensis* Bindweed
Ipomoea cairica* Morning glory

CUPRESSACEAE CYPRESS FAMILY
Cupressus macrocarpa** Monterey cypress

CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY
Carex pansa Sanddune sedge
Cyperus eragrostis Tall flat sedge
Cyperus involucratus Umbrella sedge
Isolepis cernua (Scirpus cernuus) Low bulrush
Schoenoplectus americanus (Scirpus a.) Olney's three-square bulrush Schoenoplectus californicus (Scirpus c.) Southern bulrush Scirpus microcarpus Panicled bulrush

EQUISETACEAE HORSETAIL FAMILY
Equisetum arvense Common horsetail
Equisetum laevigatum Smooth horsetail
Equisetum telmateia subsp. braunii Giant horsetail

EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY
Croton californicus California croton

FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY
Acacia longifolia** Sydney golden wattle
Hoita orbicularis Round-leaved leather root
Lotus corniculatus* Bird's-foot trefoil
Lupinus arboreus Yellow bush lupine
Lupinus chamissonis Silver dune lupine
Lupinus nanus Sky lupine
Medicago polymorpha* Bur clover
Melilotus indicus* Sourclover
Trifolium hirtum* Rose clover
Vicia sativa var. sativa Spring vetch
Vicia villosa Hairy vetch

FAGACEAE OAK FAMILY
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak
Quercus lobata Valley oak

FRANKENIACEAE FRANKENIA FAMILY
Frankenia salina Alkalli heath

GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY
Geranium dissectum* Cut-leaf geranium

IRIDACEAE IRIS FAMILY
Chasmanthe floribunda** African cornflag
Iris pseudacorus* Iris
84 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Scientific Name Common Name

JUNCACEAE RUSH FAMILY
Juncus acutus subsp. leopoldii+ Spiny rush
Juncus breweri Salt/Brewer's rush
Juncus bufonius Toad rush
Juncus phaeocephalus Brown-head rush

LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY
Stachys ajugoides Hedge nettle

MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY
Malva arborea* (Lavatera a.) Tree mallow
Malva parviflora* Cheese weed
MONTIACEAE MINER’S LETTUCE FAMILY
Claytonia parviflora subsp. parviflora Streambank spring beauty

MYRICACEAE WAX MYRTLE FAMILY
Morella californica (Myrica c.) Wax myrtle

MYRTACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY
Eucalyptus globulus* Blue gum
NYCTAGINACEAE FOUR O’CLOCK FAMILY
Abronia umbellata Common sand-verbena

ONAGRACEAE EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY
Camissoniopsis cheiranthifolia (Camissonia c.) Mustard primrose Camissoniopsis micrantha (Camissonia m.) Miniature suncup Epilobium ciliatum Fringed willowherb
Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri Hooker's evening primrose

PAPAVERACEAE POPPY FAMILY
Eschscholzia californica California poppy

PINACEAE PINE FAMILY
Pinus attenuata** Knobcone pine
Pinus radiata** Monterey pine

PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAIN FAMILY
Plantago coronopus* Buckhorn plantain
Plantago lanceolata* Narrowleaf or English plantain
Plantago major* Common plantain

POACEAE GRASS FAMILY
Agrostis exarata Spike bentgrass
Ammophila arenaria* European beachgrass
Arundo donax* Giant reed
Avena barbata * Slender wild oat
Bromus arenarius Australian brome
Bromus catharticus Rescue grass
Bromus diandrus* Ripgut grass
Cortaderia selloana Pampas grass
85 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Scientific Name Common Name

Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass
Dactylis glomerata Orchard grass
Digitaria sanguinalis Crab grass
Distichlis spicata Salt grass
Ehrharta calycina* Veldt grass
Elymus mollis subsp. mollis American dune grass
Elymus triticoides (Leymus t.) Creeping wild-rye
Festuca myuros (Vulpia m.) Rattail fescue
Festuca perennis* (Lolium multiflorum) Italian ryegrass Holcus lanatus Common velvet grass
Hordeum marinum Seaside barley
Hordeum murinum subsp. leporinum * Hare barley
Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass
Poa annua Annual bluegrass
Polypogon monspeliensis* Rabbits-foot grass
Schismus arabicus Mediterranean grass
Stipa miliacea var. miliacea (Piptatherum
miliaceum) Smilo grass

POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Mucronea californica+ California spineflower
Rumex conglomeratus Clustered dock
Rumex crispus* Curly dock
Rumex salicifolius Willow dock

PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSE FAMILY
Anagallis arvensis* Scarlet pimpernel

RANUNCULACEAE BUTTERCUP FAMILY
Clematis ligusticifolia Virgin's bower

ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY
Potentilla anserina subsp. pacifica Pacific silverweed
Rubus ursinus California blackberry

RUBIACEAE MADDER FAMILY
Galium aparine Goose grass

SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow

SCROPHULARIACEAE FIGWORT FAMILY
Myoporum laetum* Myoporum
Veronica anagallis-aquatica* Water speedwell

SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Solanum douglasii Douglas' nightshade

TYPHACEAE CATTAIL FAMILY
Sparganium eurycarpum Broadfruit bur-reed
86 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Scientific Name Common Name

Typha latifolia Broad-leaved cattail

URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle
* Indicates non-native species.
+ Indicates special-status species.

87 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Meadow Creek Lagoon
Wildlife Species Observed and Potentially Occurring On-Site

May 9, 25, 29, and 30, June 15, 18, and 19, July 6 and 27, August 1 and 16, and September 21, 2012

Common Name Scientific Name Observed
On Site Listing Status
Fish
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X -
Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus - -
Bullhead catfish Ictalurus natalis - -
Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus - -
Coastal prickly sculpin Cottus asper X -
Pacific staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armataus X -
Common carp Cyprinus carpio - -
Large-mouth bass Micropterus salmoides X -
Mosquito fish Gambusia affinis X -
Small-mouth bass Micropterus dolomieu - -
South-central California coast
steelhead
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus
- FT, CSC
Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus - -
Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus - -
Striped bass Morone saxatilis - -
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus X -
Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi X FE, SE
White bass Morone chrysops - -
Golden Shiner Notemigonous crysoleucas X -
Sacramento sucker Catostomus occidentalis X -
Amphibians
Black-bellied slender salamander Batrachoseps attenuatus - - Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeiana X -
California red-legged frog Rana draytonii X FT, CSC
California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense - FT, CSC California toad Anaxyrus boreas
halophilus
- -
Coast Range newt Taricha torosa subsp.
torosa
- CSC
Sierran treefrog Pseudacris sierra X -
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii - CSC
Western toad Anaxyrus boreas - -
Reptiles
Aquatic garter snake Thamnophis aquaticus - -
Black legless lizard Anniella pulchra nigra - -
California kingsnake Lampropeltis getula
californiae
- -
88 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Common Name Scientific Name Observed
On Site Listing Status
Coast garter snake Thamnophis elegans
terrestris
- -
Striped racer Masticophis lateralis X -
Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii - -
Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis - -
Eastern snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina
serpentina - -
Gopher snake Pituophis catenifer - -
Pacific pond turtle Actinemys marmorata X CSC
Red-eared slider Trachemys scripta elegans X -
Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana elegans - -
Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra - CSC
Southern alligator lizard Elgaria multicarinata - -
Striped racer Coluber constrictor - -
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis X -
Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis - -
Western skink Eumeces skiltonianus - -
Western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris - -
Birds
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin - M
American coot Fulica americana X M
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X M
American goldfinch Carduelis tristis X M
American kestrel Falco sparverius - M
American robin Turdus migratorius - M
American wigeon Anas amercana - M
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X M
Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens - M
Band-tailed pigeon Columbia fasciata - M
Barn owl Tyto alba - M
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X M
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon - M
Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii - M
Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri - M
Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax X M
Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus - M
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X M
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea - M
Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea - M
Blue-winged teal Anas crecca - M
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus X M
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater - M
Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis X -
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii - M
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X M
89 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Common Name Scientific Name Observed
On Site Listing Status
Cackling goose Branta hutchinsii X M
California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis - ST, FP, M California gull Larus californicus X M
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris - M, CSC
California least tern Sterna antillarum browni - M, SE, FT California quail Callipepla californica - -
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum - M
California towhee Pipilo crissalis X M
Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia X M
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans - M
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum - M
Chestnut-backed chickadee Poecile rufescens X -
Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera - M
Cliff swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota X M
Common raven Corvus corax - M
Common snipe Gallinago gallinago - M
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X M
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii - M, CSC (nesting)
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae - M, CSC (nesting)
Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis X M
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritis X M
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans X M
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto X M
European starling Sturnus vulgaris X -
Golden crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla - M
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos - BE & GEPA
Great blue heron Ardea herodias X M
Great egret Ardea alba X M
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus X M
Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus X M
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni X M
Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus - M
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus X M
House finch Carpodacus mexicanus X M
House sparrow Passer domesticus X -
House wren Troglodytes aedon - M
Hutton’s vireo Vireo huttoni - M
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus - M
Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus - M
Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena - M
Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria X M
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus - M, CSC (nesting) Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X M
Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris X M
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X M
90 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Common Name Scientific Name Observed
On Site Listing Status
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus - M
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus - M, CSC (nesting)
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X M
Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis X M Northern shoveler Anas clypeata - M
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii X M
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus - M
Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata - M
Osprey Pandion haliaetus X M
Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis X M
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps X M
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus - M
Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus X M
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus X M
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis X M
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X M
Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis X M
Rock pigeon Columba livia X -
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula - M
Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis X M
Rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps - M
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis - M
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya - M
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus - M, CSC (nesting) Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus - M
Snow goose Chen caerulescens X M
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia X M
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus X M
Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus X M
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor X M
Tri-colored blackbird Agelaius tricolor - M, CSC (nesting) Turkey vulture Cathartes aura X M
Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina - M
Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus - M
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana - M
Western gull Larus occidentalis X M
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta - M
Western scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica X M
Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus - M
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus - M, FT
Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana X M
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X M
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus X M, FP
Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla X M
Wood duck Aix sponsa - M
91 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Common Name Scientific Name Observed
On Site Listing Status
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata X M
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata - M
Mammals
Audubon’s cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii X -
Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus - -
Black rat Rattus rattus - -
Black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus - -
Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus - -
Bobcat Lynx rufus - -
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae - -
California ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi - -
California myotis Myotis californicus - -
California pocket mouse Perognathus californicus - CSC
California vole Microtus californicus - -
Coyote Canis latrans - -
Cow Bos taurus - -
Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus - -
Dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes - CSC
Feral cat Felis catus - -
Feral pig Sus scrofa - -
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes - SA
Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus - -
House mouse Mus musculus - -
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus - -
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus - -
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis - SA
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans - SA
Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata - -
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis - -
Muskrat Ondatra zibetheca - -
North American beaver Castor canadensis X -
North American river otter Lontra canadensis X -
Pacific kangaroo rat Dipodomys agilis - -
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus - CSC
Raccoon Procyon lotor X -
Red bat Lasiurus borealis - -
Red fox Vulpes vulpes X -
Ringtail Bassariscus astutus - -
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis - -
Townsend's big eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii - CSC
Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana X -
Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis - -
Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus - -
Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis
californicus
- CSC
92 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Common Name Scientific Name Observed
On Site Listing Status
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis - SA
Invertebrates
Crayfish Pacifastacus spp. X -
Mimic tryonia (CA
brackishwater snail) Tryonia imitator
- SA
Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus X SA
Morro Bay blue butterfly
Plebejus icarioides
moroensis - SA
Oso Flaco flightless moth Areniscythris brachypteris - SA Oso Flaco patch butterfly Chlosyne leanira elegans - SA Oso Flaco robber fly Ablautus schlingeri - SA
Sandy beach tiger beetle
Cicindela hirticollis
gravida - SA
White sand bear scarab beetle Lichnanthe albipilosa - SA Protected Status
FE – Federal-listed Endangered Species
FT – Federal-listed Threatened Species
FPT - Federal-listed Candidate Species
FPT - Federal-listed Candidate Species
SE – State-listed Endangered Species
ST – State-listed Threatened Species
CP – Protected under California Fish and Game Code
CSC – California Species of Special Concern
SA – California Special Animal
BE & GEPA – Bald Eagle & Golden Eagle Protection Act
M – Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species

93 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
APPENDIX C: POTENTIAL SENSITIVE SPECIES LIST

94 Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.

95 Potential Sensitive Species for Oceano and surrounding 7.5 quadrangles: Arroyo Grande NE, Guadalupe, Nipomo, Pismo Beach, Point Sal, Santa Maria, and Tar Spring Ridge (CNDDB 2012).

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

Community Name

Description

Observed on
Site?

Comments
Central Dune Scrub

Restricted to coastal areas with
stabilized back dunes, slopes, ridges,
and flats. Vegetation consists of
shrubs, subshrubs, and herbs less
than one meter tall. Indicator species
include Lupinus chamissonis.

Yes Coastal sand dunes as described observed on
site. Lupinus chamissonis occurs as a dominant
species and as co-dominant in the shrub layer
with Ericameria ericoides.

Central Foredunes

Adjacent to shoreline with harsh
environmental conditions such as
strong, salt-laden breezes and salt
water inundation. Characterized by
plants that are prostrate; with deep
taproots; fleshy roots, stems, and
leaves; and leaves covered with thick
mats of gray hairs. Often referred to
as pioneer dune community or
coastal strand.

Yes The southwestern part of the site is adjacent to
bare sand and exposed to harsh coastal
conditions and marine influence, such as wind
and salt. Species present within this community
include Elymus mollis subsp. mollis, Cakile
maritima, Ambrosia chamissonis, and
Carpobrotus spp.

Central Maritime Chaparral

Associated with well drained/dry
soils. Exposed upland location with
moderate to high cover. Typically
dominated by Arctostaphylos species
that develop into dense patches of
vegetation.

No This community was not observed, and no
Arctostaphylos species were identified on site.
96 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

Community Name

Description

Observed on
Site?

Comments
Coastal and Valley Freshwater
Marsh

Dominated by perennial, emergent,
and tall monocots that often form
closed canopies. Tend to be Typha-
dominated and permanently flooded
with fresh water which result in deep
peaty soils.

Yes This community is present on site and typically
occurs adjacent to the open water. Both
Schoenoplectus-dominated and Typha-
dominated marshes are present.

Southern Vernal Pool Seasonal, depressional wetlands with impermeable soils that support a
diverse array of plant and wildlife
species. During the wet season,
plants generally grow in concentric
rings and die or go dormant when
conditions are dry.

No This community was not observed; soils on site
are typically well-drained and sandy.

Valley Needlegrass Grassland

Associated with fine textured/clay
soils or moist, water logged soils.

Vegetation dominated by bunches of
Stipa pulchra with other natives and
introduced annuals. Often associated
with oak woodlands.

No This community was not observed; no clay soils
are present, and no Stipa pulchra was identified
on site.

97 PLANTS

Scientific/Common Name

Listing Status

Blooming
Period

Habitat Type

Observed
on Site?

Comments
Agrostis hooveri
Hoover’s bent grass

CRPR 1B.2 April - July Closed-cone coniferous
forest, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, valley and
foothill grassland/usually
sandy. Elevation; < 600 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Aphanisma blitoides
Aphanisma
CRPR 1B.2 March - June Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, and coastal scrub,
with sandy soils. Elevation;
< 100 m.

No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Arctostaphylos luciana
Santa Lucia manzanita
CRPR 1B.2 December -
March
Chaparral, cismontane
woodlands with shale
outcrops. Elevation; 500 -
700 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Arctostaphylos morroensis
Morro manzanita
CRPR 1B.1 December -
March
Chaparral (maritime),
cismontane woodland,
coastal dunes, coastal
scrub/sandy loam soils.

Elevation; < 200 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Arctostaphylos pechoensis
Pecho manzanita

CRPR 1B.2 November -
March
Shale outcrops, chaparral,
coniferous forest. Elevation;
<850 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Arctostaphylos pilosula
Santa Margarita manzanita
CRPR 1B.2 December -
March
Shale outcrops, slopes,
chaparral. Elevation; 300 -
1,100 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.
98 PLANTS
Arctostaphylos rudis
Sand mesa manzanita
CRPR 1B.2 November -
February
Chaparral (maritime),
coastal scrub/sandy soils.

Elevation; 300
m.

No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Astragalus didymocarpus var.
milesianus
Miles’s milk-vetch
CRPR 1B.2 March - June Clay or serpentine soils in
coastal scrub, grassy areas
near coast. Elevation; 0 - 90
m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii
Davidson’s saltscale
CRPR 1B.2 April -
October
Coastal scrub, coastal bluff
scrub, alkaline soils.

Elevation; < 200 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Calochortus obispoensis
San Luis mariposa lily
CRPR 1B.2 May - July Dry serpentine soils or
chaparral environments.

Elevation; 100 - 500 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Calochortus simulans
San Luis Obispo mariposa lily
CRPR 1B.3 April - May Grassland, oak woodland,
pine forest, on sand, granite
or serpentine. Elevation;
< 1100 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Calystegia subacaulis ssp.
episcopalis
Cambria morning glory
CRPR 4.2 April - June Dry, open scrub, woodland,
foothill or grasslands.

Elevation; 0 - 1,640 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Castilleja densiflora ssp.
obispoensis
San Luis Obispo owl’s clover
CRPR 1B.2 March - May Meadows and seeps, valley
and foothill
grassland/sometimes
serpentinite. Elevation; 0 -
328 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.
99 PLANTS
Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii
Congdon’s tarplant
CRPR 1B.2 May - October Valley and foothill
grasslands (alkaline).

Elevation; 0 - 230 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Chenopodium littoreum
Coastal goosefoot
CRPR 1B.2 April - August Coastal dunes, sandy soil.

Elevation; < 200 m. No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Chorizanthe breweri
Brewer’s spineflower
CRPR 1B.3 April -
August
Chaparral, foothill woodland
on serpentine. Elevation;
< 800 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Chorizanthe rectispina
Straight-awned spineflower
CRPR 1B.3 April -
July
Chaparral, dry woodland in
sandy soil. Elevation; 200-
600 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense
Chorro Creek bog thistle
Fed: Endangered
State: Endangered
CRPR 1B.2
February -
July
Serpentine seeps and
streams. Elevation; < 300 m. No No suitable habitat on site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Cirsium rhothophilum
Surf thistle
State: Threatened
CRPR 1B.2
April - June Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes. Elevation; < 60 m. No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Cirsium scariosum var. loncholepis
La Graciosa thistle
Fed: Endangered
State: Threatened
CRPR 1B.1
May - August Coastal dune, scrub,
cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grasslands with
mesic/sandy soils. Elevation;
0 - 220 m.

No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Cladium californicum
California sawgrass
CRPR 2.2 June -
September

Freshwater marsh, swamps,
alkaline sink, wetland
riparian. Elevation; 0 - 600
m.

No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.
100

PLANTS
Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata
Pismo clarkia
Fed: Endangered
State: Rare
List 1B.1
May - July Chaparral (margins,
openings), cismontane
woodland, valley and
foothill grasslands with
sandy soils. Elevation; < 100
m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Deinandra increscens ssp. foliosa
Leafy tarplant
CRPR 1B.2 June -
September
Foothill and valley
grasslands/sandy. Elevation;
300 – 500 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa
Gaviota tarplant
Fed: Endangered
State: Endangered
CRPR 1B.1
May - October Coastal scrub, coastal bluff
scrub, coastal fields, valley
and foothill grassland.

Elevation; < 50 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Delphinium parryi ssp.
blochmaniae
Dune larkspur
CRPR 1B.2 April - May Chaparral and coastal dunes.

Elevation; 0 - 200 m. No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae
Eastwood’s larkspur

CRPR 1B.2 February -
May
Coastal, chaparral
(openings), valley and
foothill grassland,
ultramafic, serpentinite.

Elevation; 75 – 500 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Delphinium umbraculorum
Umbrella larkspur
CRPR 1B.3 April - June Cismontane woodland, moist
oak forest. Elevation; 400-
1,600 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Dithyrea maritima
Beach spectaclepod
State: Threatened
CRPR 1B.1
March - May Coastal dunes, coastal scrub
(sandy). Elevation; 0 - 50 m. No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.
101

PLANTS
Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina
Mouse-gray dudleya
CRPR 1B.3 May - June Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, valley and
foothill grassland/
serpentinite. Elevation; 90 -
400 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Dudleya blochmaniae ssp.
blochmaniae
Blochman’s dudleya
CRPR 1B.1 April - June Open, rocky slopes, often
serpentine or clay soils.

Elevation; 450 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Erigeron blochmaniae
Blochman’s leafy daisy
CRPR 1B.2 July - October Sand dunes and hills.

Elevation; < 30 m. Yes Observed within
coastal dune scrub
communities.

Eriodictyon altissimum
Indian Knob mountainbalm
Fed: Endangered
State: Endangered
CRPR 1B.1

March - June Chaparral (maritime),
foothill woodland,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub/sandstone.

Elevation; 80 - 270 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri
Hoover’s button-celery
CRPR 1B.1 July - August Freshwater wetland,
wetland- riparian, Vernal
pools. Elevation; 3 - 45 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula
Mesa horkelia
CRPR 1B.1 February -
July
(September)
Dry, sandy coastal chaparral.

Elevation; 70 - 810 m. No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea
Kellog’s horkelia

CRPR 1B.1 April -
September
Closed cone conifer forests,
chaparral (maritime), coastal
dune and scrub with
sandy/gravelly openings.

Elevation; 10 - 200 m.

No Marginally suitable
habitat on site. Not
observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Layia jonesii
Jones’s layia

CRPR 1B.2 March - May Open serpentine or clay
slopes. Elevation; < 400 m. No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.
102

PLANTS
Lupinus ludovicianus
San Luis Obispo County lupine
CRPR 1B.2 April - June Chaparral, cismontane
woodland/sandstone or
sandy. Elevation; 50 - 525
m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Lupinus nipomensis
Nipomo Mesa lupine
Fed: Endangered
State: Endangered
CRPR 1B.1
December -
May
Coastal dunes.

Elevation; 10 - 50 m. No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Monardella frutescens
San Luis Obispo monardella
CRPR 1B.2 May -
September
Coastal dunes, coastal scrub
(sandy). Elevation; 10 - 200
m.

No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Monardella undulata ssp. crispa
Crisp monardella
CRPR 1B.2 April - August Coastal dunes, coastal scrub.

Elevation; 10 - 120 m. No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Nasturtium gambelii
Gambel’s water cress
Fed: Endangered
State: Threatened
CRPR 1B.1
April -
October

Freshwater or brackish
mashes. Elevation; 5 - 330
m.

No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata
Coast woolly-heads
CRPR 1B.2 April -
September
Coastal dunes, beaches.

Elevation; < 100 m. No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Nemacladus secundiflorus var.
robbinsii
Robbins’ nemacladus

CRPR 1B.2 April - June Openings in chaparral and
valley and foothill grassland,
dry, gravelly slopes.

Elevation; 200 – 2,000 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Orobanche parishii ssp. brachyloba
Short-lobed broom-rape

CRPR 4.2 April -
October
Coastal dunes, coastal scrub,
coastal bluff scrub, sandy
soil near ocean. Parasitic on
shrubs such as Isocoma
menziesii. Elevation; < 300
m.

No Suitable habitat on site.

Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.
103

PLANTS
Scrophularia atrata
Black-flowered figwort

CRPR 1B.2 March - July Closed cone coniferous
forest, coastal dunes, coastal
scrub, and riparian scrub.

Calcareous (sometimes
diatomaceous) soils.

Elevation; < 500 m.

No Marginally suitable
habitat on site. Not
observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

Symphyotrichum defoliatum
San Bernardino aster
CRPR 1B.2 July -
November

Cismontane woodlands,
meadows, seeps, coastal
scrub, foothill/valley
grasslands near streams,
ditches or springs. Elevation;
< 2,040 m.

No No suitable habitat on
site. Not observed during
appropriately timed
surveys.

104

WILDLIFE

Scientific/Common Name

Listing Status

Nesting/
Breeding
Period

Habitat Type

Observed
on Site?

Comments
Ablautus schlingeri
Oso Flaco robber fly
Special animal Unknown Occurs on sand dunes in the
vicinity of Oso Flaco Lake. No Suitable habitat on site; not observed during
surveys.

Accipiter striatus
Sharp-shinned hawk
Special animal
Watch List
March - June Nests in forests, usually with
conifers. Winters in a variety
of habitats, including urban
and suburban areas.

No No suitable nesting
habitat on site; not
observed during surveys.

Actinemys marmorata
Pacific pond turtle
State: CSC

April -
August
Permanent or semi-permanent
streams, ponds, and lakes,
logs, rocks, and mats for
basking. May enter brackish
water.

Yes Individuals observed at
multiple locations
throughout survey area.

Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander
Fed: Threatened
State: Threatened
State: CSC
December -
February
Found in grasslands, oak
savannah, and edges of mixed
woodland and lower elevation
coniferous forest.

No No suitable habitat on
site; not observed
during surveys.

Anniella pulchra pulchra
Silvery legless lizard
State: CSC

May -
September
Moist loose soil with plant
cover and under leaf litter.

Found in beach dunes,
chaparral, foothill woodlands,
desert scrub, sandy washes,
and stream terraces.

No Suitable habitat on site;
not observed during
surveys.

Areniscythris brachypteris
Oso Flaco flightless moth Special animal Unknown Dunes along the Central Coast of San Luis Obispo.

Larvae eat and are reared on a
variety of dune vegetation.

No Suitable habitat on site;
not observed during
surveys.
105

WILDLIFE

Scientific/Common Name

Listing Status

Nesting/
Breeding
Period

Habitat Type

Observed
on Site?

Comments
Athene cunicularia
Burrowing owl

State: CSC

March - July Open, dry grasslands, often
short grasses without trees.

Relies on ground burrowing
animals for terrestrial habitat.

No No suitable nesting
habitat on site; not
observed during surveys.

Branchinecta lynchi
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Fed: Threatened

Rainy season Vernal pools, depressions, in
grasslands. No No suitable habitat on
site; not observed
during surveys.

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Western snowy plover
Fed: Threatened
State: CSC
Watch List

March -
August
Sandy beaches, salt pond
levees, shorelines of large
alkali lakes. Needs friable soil
for nesting.

No Suitable nesting habitat
on site; not observed
during surveys; CA
State Parks reported
seeing nest sites within
2 miles of project site
this year.

Chlosyne leanira elegans
Oso Flaco patch butterfly
Special animal Unknown Dunes within the Oso Flaco
Lake system. No Suitable habitat on site;
not observed during
surveys.

Cicindela hirticollis gravida
Sandy beach tiger beetle
Special animal Unknown Found in moist sand near
the ocean, for example in
swales behind dunes or
upper beaches beyond
normal high tides.

Adjacent to non-brackish
water near the coast. Clean,
dry light colored sand in
the upper zone.

No Suitable habitat on site;
not observed during
surveys.
106

WILDLIFE

Scientific/Common Name

Listing Status

Nesting/
Breeding
Period

Habitat Type

Observed
on Site?

Comments
Danaus plexippus
Monarch butterfly
Special animal Spring Rely on milkweed and need
protected stands of trees for
roosting. Found in fields,
meadows, weedy areas,
marshes, and along roadsides.

Yes Marginally suitable
habitat on site;
observed during
surveys.

Eucyclogobius newberryi
Tidewater goby
Fed: Endangered
State: CSC

Year - round
(April -
November)
Found in shallow water
lagoons and lower stream
reaches, they need fairly still
but not stagnant water and
high oxygen levels.

Yes One individual
observed within lagoon
during survey efforts.

Falco mexicanus
Prairie falcon
Watch List

February -
April
Primarily inhabits dry
grasslands, woodlands,
savannahs, cultivated fields,
lake shores, and rangelands.

Nests on cliffs, canyons, and
rock outcrops.

No No suitable nesting
habitat on site; not
observed during surveys.

Gila orcuttii
Arroyo chub
State: CSC

Unknown Inhabits sandy and muddy
bottoms of flowing pools and
headwaters of small to
medium freshwater streams;
often found in intermittent
streams.

No Marginally suitable
habitat on site; not
observed during
surveys.

Gymnogyps californianus
California condor
Fed: Endangered
State: Endangered
Watch List
Early Spring
- Summer
Rocky scrubland, montane
coniferous forest, valley and
foothill grasslands, oak
savannah, chaparral,
woodland/ forest habitats.

Nesting on cliffs and trees.

No No suitable nesting
habitat on site; not
observed during surveys.
107

WILDLIFE

Scientific/Common Name

Listing Status

Nesting/
Breeding
Period

Habitat Type

Observed
on Site?

Comments
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
Fully Protected
State: Threatened
Watch List
February -
June
Saltwater, brackish, and
freshwater marshes. No Suitable nesting habitat
on site; not observed
during surveys.

Lichnanthe albipilosa
White sand bear scarab beetle
Special animal Unknown Inhabits coastal dunes of San
Luis Obispo County, in the
vicinity of dune lakes.

No Suitable habitat on site;
not observed during
surveys.

Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
Steelhead – South/Central
California Coast DPS
Fed: Threatened
State: CSC

February -
April
Federal listing refers to runs
in coastal basins from Pajaro
River south to, but not
including, the Santa Maria
River.

No Suitable habitat on site;
not observed during
surveys.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
Coast horned lizard
State: CSC

May -
September
Frequents a wide variety of
habitats, most common in
lowlands along sandy washes
with scattered low bushes.

No Suitable habitat on site;
not observed during
surveys.

Plebejus icarioides moroensis
Morro Bay blue butterfly
Special animal

March - July Found on the immediate coast
of San Luis Obispo and Santa
Barbara Counties. Host plant
is Lupinus chamissonis.

No Host plant present on
site, but habitat is
fragmented, subject to
disturbance, and not
suitable for roosting;
not observed during
surveys.
108

WILDLIFE

Scientific/Common Name

Listing Status

Nesting/
Breeding
Period

Habitat Type

Observed
on Site?

Comments
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
Fed: Threatened
State: CSC

January -
March
Lowlands and foothills in or
near sources of deep water
with dense, shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation.

Breed in permanent or
ephemeral water sources.

Yes Individual observed in
southern part of site.

Spea hammondii
Western spadefoot toad
State: CSC

January -
August
Seasonal/vernal pools in
grassland, coastal scrub,
chaparral, woodland habitat,
and open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils.

No Suitable habitat on site;
not observed during
surveys.

Sternula antillarum browni
California least tern
Fed: Endangered
State: Endangered
Fully Protected
Watch List
April - June Coastal areas, nests on beach
in loose sandy soils. No Suitable nesting habitat
on site; not observed
during surveys.

Taricha torosa
Coast Range newt
State: CSC December -
May
Slow moving streams, ponds,
and lakes with surrounding
evergreen and oak forests,
chaparral, and grasslands
along coast.

No No suitable habitat on
site; not observed during
surveys.

Taxidea taxus
American badger
State: CSC February -
May
Needs friable soils in open
ground with abundant food
source such as California
ground squirrels.

No No suitable habitat on
site; not observed during
surveys.
109

WILDLIFE

Scientific/Common Name

Listing Status

Nesting/
Breeding
Period

Habitat Type

Observed
on Site?

Comments
Thamnophis hammondii
Two-striped gartersnake
State: CSC April -
November
Typically found near pools,
creeks, cattle tanks, and other
water sources, often in rocky
areas, in oak woodland,
chaparral, brush land, and
coniferous forest.

No Suitable habitat on site;
not observed during
surveys.

Tryonia imitator
Mimic tryonia (California
brackishwater snail)
Special animal

Unknown Found in brackish salt
marshes, coastal lagoons and
estuaries; able to withstand a
wide range of salinities.

No Suitable habitat on site;
not observed during
surveys.

110

Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

APPENDIX D: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

111

Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.

112

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

Photo 1. View southwest of roadside drainage ditch that flows into the Lagoon (May 25, 2012).

Photo 2. View northwest of wetland behind residences off Fountain Avenue (May 25, 2012). 113

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

Photo 3. View south of main lagoon, island, and wetland vegetation (May 29, 2012).

Photo 4. View northwest of main lagoon, island, and waterfowl (June 15, 2012). 114

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

Photo 5. View east of northern part of Memorial Park from Pier Avenue (May 29, 2012).

Photo 6. View southwest of wetland vegetation near Security Court and Aloha Place neighborhood. (May 29, 2012)
115

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Photo 7. View northeast of roadside drainage ditch along Aloha Place. (May 29, 2012)

Photo 8. View south of wetland and dune vegetation characteristic of the site (May 29, 2012). 116

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Photo 9. View south of foredunes and Arroyo Grande Creek mouth (May 09, 2012).

Photo 10. View of trail within dense wetland-riparian vegetation in the southeastern part of the site (May 09, 2012).
117

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

Photo 11. View east of ponded water adjacent to the trail in the southeastern part of the site (September 21, 2012).

Photo 12. View north of cleared paths to flap gate near Arroyo Grande Creek mouth (May 09, 2012). 118

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

Photo 13. View east of wetland and dune vegetation characteristic of the site (May 09, 2012).

Photo 14. View southeast of dune mat community in the eastern part of the site (May 9, 2012). 119

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

Photo 15. View east of dune scrub adjacent to Laguna Drive (May 9, 2012).

Photo 16. View southwest of dune colonized by dense European dune grass (May 9, 2012). 120

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Photo 17. View northwest of wetland feature that occurs in a residence driveway off of Lakeside Avenue (May 9, 2012).

Photo 18. Individual California red-legged frog observed near footbridge during night eyeshine survey (May 30, 2012).
121

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

Photo 19. View of bats observed under Pier Avenue bridge during night eyeshine survey (May 30, 2012).

Photo 20. American bullfrog tadpoles caught in seine net (June 15, 2012). 122

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

Photo 21. Seining along the eastern perimeter of Memorial Park (June 15, 2012).

Photo 22. Largemouth bass captured during seining efforts at Memorial Park (June 15, 2012).

123

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Photo 23. California spineflower, a special-status species, was observed in the dune scrub community (May 9, 2012).

Photo 24. Blochman’s leafy daisy, a special-status plant, was found in several areas throughout the site (July 6, 2012).
124

Oceano Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
Photo 25. Blochman’s ragwort, a special-status plant, was observed in the stabilized dunes in the eastern part of the site (September 21, 2012).

Photo 26. Southwestern spiny rush, a special-status plant, was observed growing among bulrush and other wetland species in several areas throughout the site (September 21, 2012). 125

Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
APPENDIX E: CNDDB CALIFORNIA NATIVE SPECIES FIELD SURVEY FORMS

126

Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment

APPENDIX F: FIELD SURVEY FORMS

135

Meadow Creek Lagoon
Biological Resources Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.

136

AQUATIC SURVEY DATA FORM

DATE: 05/30/2012

PROJECT: Oceano Lagoon
SURVEY BIOLOGIST(S): Halden Peterson, Brian Dugas

Time Start:___2030______

Time End:__2330____________

Survey Duration:__3 hours__

Unit-Effort:__Lagoon team_

LOCATION

City/County _Oceano/San Luis Obispo______________________; _____ ¼; _____ -¼ Section ______ Township ______ Range ______

Latitude _35°6’27”N___________ Longitude _120°37’36”_______; Quadrangle _____________; Elevation______12 feet_________

**ATTACH MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)**

TYPE OF SURVEY
 Day Night;  Breeding  Non-Breeding; Survey Number: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Brand name/model of light used: MagLite LED Brand/model/power of binoculars used: Nikon 10x40

WEATHER CONDITIONS AT START OF SURVEY

Air Temperature __60.6__oF (3”); Water Temperature_69___oF; Wind Speed:__0___mph; Wind Direction__NA___; Cloud Cover__0____%

Precipitation __0___in.; Humidity__60__%; Moon Phase _waxing gibbous_(60%)____; Visibility Conditions clear

AQUATIC HABITAT TYPE
River  Stream  Swale  Ditch  Lake  Natural Pond  Stock Pond  Impoundment  Vernal Pool  Marsh/Wetland Hydrogeomorphology Class:  Depression  Slope Riverine

HYDROPERIOD
Permanent  Intermittent  Ephemeral

STREAM MORPHOMETRY/FEATURES

River/Creek Name _ ____________________________________ River Mile ___ Stream Order ________ Hydroperiod:  Permanent  Intermittent  Ephemeral Reach Length __ __ Right Bank Height _ __ Left Bank Height _ Top Bank Width ________ Stream Width __ __ Channel Width @ OHWM ________ Right Bank Slope ________ Left Bank Slope ________ Water Depth_____ Sinuosity Index __________ Stream Gradient __________ Flow Velocity __________ Wetted Perimeter ___________ Water Clarity:  Clear  Turbid Water Color:  Clear  Stained (Color _ _) Instream Structure:  Riffles  Pools (max. depth _____)  Glides  Undercut Banks  LOD (jams/snags)  Other _ _ Channel Condition:  Terracing  Bank or Bed Degradation

LAKE/POND MORPHOMETRY/FEATURES

Pond/Lake Name: __Oceano Lagoon and unnamed associated wetland features_________________ Hydroperiod: Permanent  Seasonal Area: _**See map__________ Maximum Width _______________ Maximum Length _______________ Maximum Depth _______________ Shore Line __________ Shoreline Development __________ Width of Drawdown Zone _______________ Water Clarity:  Clear  Turbid Water Color:  Clear  Stained (Color __green/brown_____) Instream Structure:  Shoals  Undercut Banks  LOD (jams/snags  Other ____vegetation, footbridge_________________ 137

AQUATIC SURVEY DATA FORM

SUBSTRATE (Percent)
Silt Sand Gravel  Cobble  Boulder  Bedrock  Other:

STREAM/POND VEGETATION

Canopy Cover(mid-day):__10%__; Emergent Vegetation:__40%____; Floating Vegetation__3%_____; Open Water__50%____ Dominant Species: Schoenoplectus spp., Typha latifolia, Salix lasiolepis, herbsalong shore and in understory

ADJACENT COVER TYPE(S)
 Woodland  Shrub  Savanna  Grassland  Wetland  Agriculture  Developed  Other

SPECIES AND NUMBERS OBSERVED
Species Egg
Masses
Larvae Metamorphs
(w/legs)
Juvenile Adult Detection Method
Rana draytonii 1  Visual Call  Capture  Spotlight  Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight

Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native fish predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons:

bullfrogs observed near survey area

DIAGRAM

NOTES
Survey was conducted on foot with chest waders within and along the main lagoon and associated wetland features 138

139

140

AQUATIC SURVEY DATA FORM

DATE: 05/30/2012

PROJECT: Oceano Lagoon
SURVEY BIOLOGIST(S): Brooke Langle, Jessica Adinolfi

Time Start:___2030______

Time End:__2330____________

Survey Duration:__3 hours__

Unit-Effort:__AG Creek team_

LOCATION

City/County _Oceano/San Luis Obispo______________________; _____ ¼; _____ -¼ Section ______ Township ______ Range ______

Latitude _35°6’27”N___________ Longitude _120°37’36”_______; Quadrangle _____________; Elevation______12 feet_________

**ATTACH MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)**

TYPE OF SURVEY
 Day Night;  Breeding  Non-Breeding; Survey Number: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Brand name/model of light used: MagLite LED Brand/model/power of binoculars used: Alpen Shasta Ridge 10x42

WEATHER CONDITIONS AT START OF SURVEY

Air Temperature __60.6__oF (3”); Water Temperature_69___oF; Wind Speed:__0___mph; Wind Direction__NA___; Cloud Cover__0____%

Precipitation __0___in.; Humidity__60__%; Moon Phase _waxing gibbous_(60%)____; Visibility Conditions clear

AQUATIC HABITAT TYPE
 River  Stream  Swale  Ditch  Lake  Natural Pond  Stock Pond  Impoundment  Vernal Pool  Marsh/Wetland Hydrogeomorphology Class:  Depression  Slope Riverine

HYDROPERIOD
Permanent  Intermittent  Ephemeral

STREAM MORPHOMETRY/FEATURES

River/Creek Name _Arroyo Grande Creek____________________________________ River Mile _0.5 – 0.75__ Stream Order __1°______ Hydroperiod:  Permanent  Intermittent  Ephemeral Reach Length __700 ft__ Right Bank Height _6 ft__ Left Bank Height _8 ft____ Top Bank Width ________ Stream Width __60 ft__ Channel Width @ OHWM ________ Right Bank Slope ________ Left Bank Slope ________ Water Depth__≤ 5 feet___ Sinuosity Index __________ Stream Gradient __________ Flow Velocity __________ Wetted Perimeter ___________ Water Clarity:  Clear  Turbid Water Color:  Clear  Stained (Color _green - brown_) Instream Structure:  Riffles  Pools (max. depth _____)  Glides  Undercut Banks  LOD (jams/snags)  Other _beaver dam_
Channel Condition:  Terracing  Bank or Bed Degradation

141

AQUATIC SURVEY DATA FORM

LAKE/POND MORPHOMETRY/FEATURES

Pond/Lake Name: _________________________________________________________ Hydroperiod:  Permanent  Seasonal Area: ___________________ Maximum Width _______________ Maximum Length _______________ Maximum Depth _______________ Shore Line __________ Shoreline Development __________ Width of Drawdown Zone _______________ Water Clarity:  Clear  Turbid Water Color:  Clear  Stained (Color _______) Instream Structure:  Shoals  Undercut Banks  LOD (jams/snags  Other ________________________________________________

SUBSTRATE (Percent)
 Silt Sand Gravel  Cobble  Boulder  Bedrock  Other:

STREAM/POND VEGETATION

Canopy Cover(mid-day):__10%__; Emergent Vegetation:__2%____; Floating Vegetation__3%_____; Open Water__85%____ Dominant Species: Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), mostly open water with majority of veg along bank

ADJACENT COVER TYPE(S)
 Woodland  Shrub  Savanna  Grassland  Wetland  Agriculture  Developed  Other

SPECIES AND NUMBERS OBSERVED
Species Egg
Masses
Larvae Metamorphs
(w/legs)
Juvenile Adult Detection Method
Pseudacris sierra X  Visual Call  Capture  Spotlight  Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight
 Visual  Call  Capture  Spotlight

Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native fish predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons:

Raccoon observed during survey, bullfrogs observed near survey area

142

AQUATIC SURVEY DATA FORM
Page-2

DIAGRAM

NOTES
Survey was conducted on foot with chest waders along stream bank and within channel 143

144

145

146

147

REPORT OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS

3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102  San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Project: Oceano Lagoon Bio Assessment Date: 6/15/2012 M T W T F S S Client: SLO County Activity: Fisheries Inventory
Location: Oceano, CA Weather: Water-68F, Wind 2-3mph, Air-54F, low fog cover early, fog lifted as temps increased
Observer: Brian Dugas, Nick Fernella, Pete Giles,
Rhett Blanton
Observation Period Start: 0930 Stop: 1530

Description: 13 sampling attempts were performed from the shoreline to approximately 40 feet off shore along the eastern bank of the lagoon at Oceano Memorial Park. Results of the sampling were as follows:

Pull
#
Large-
mouth
bass
Mosquito
fish
Roach Tidewater
goby
Sacramento
sucker
Pacific
staghorn
sculpin
Bluegill Golden
Shiner
Surf
Perch
Prickly
Sculpin
Crayfish 3-spine
stickleback
Bullfrog
(tad/meta)
1 43 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - -
2 28 - - - - - - 95 - - - - -
3 34 - - - - - - - 1 2 - - -
4 8 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - -
5 64 - -- - - - - 121 4 - - - -
6 12 - - - - - 300+ 5 - - - -
7 6 - - - - - - 86 18 - - - -
8 15 - - - - - - - - 1 - - -
9 24 - - - - - - - 4 - 12 1 50+
10 5 - - - - - - - 67 - - - -
11 2 - - - - - - - 30 - - - -
12 - - - - - - - - 20 - - - -
13 4 - - - - - - - 9 1 - - -
Total 244 1 0 1 603 159 4 12 1 50+

148

REPORT OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS

3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102  San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Project: Oceano Lagoon Bio Assessment Date: 6/18/2012 M T W T F S S Client: SLO County Activity: Fisheries Inventory
Location: Oceano, CA Weather: Water-68F, Wind 0-2 mph, Air-66F, high fog present early
Observer: Brian Dugas, Nick Fernella, Pete Giles,
Rhett Blanton
Observation Period Start: 0945 Stop: 1545

Description: 10 sampling attempts were performed from the shoreline to approximately 40 feet off shore from the northern channel bank located at the back of the trailer park, the second location (pulls 18-23) were approximately 500 feet west of location 1. Results of the sampling were as follows:

Pull
#
Large-
mouth
bass
Mosquito
fish
Roach Tidewater
goby
Sacramento
sucker
Pacific
staghorn
sculpin
Bluegill Golden
Shiner
Surf
Perch
Prickly
Sculpin
Crayfish 3-spine
stickleback
Bullfrog
(tad/meta)
14 12 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - -
15 6 - - - - - 11 - - - - 2
16 1 - - - 1 - 44 3 - 1 - - -
17 5 - - - - - 12 1 - - - - -
18 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - -
19 12 - - - 1 - 2 - - 1 - - -
20 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - -
21 6 - - - - - 7 - - - - - -
22 8 - - - - - 10 1 - - - - -
23 - - - - - - - - - - - 23 -
Total 50 0 0 0 2 0 88 6 0 2 1 23 2

149

REPORT OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS

3765 S. Higuera St., Suite 102  San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Project: Oceano Lagoon Bio Assessment Date: 6/19/2012 M T W T F S S Client: SLO County Activity: Fisheries Inventory
Location: Oceano, CA Weather: Water-59F, Wind 0-1 mph, Air-66F, high fog present early, cleared by 1130
Observer: Brian Dugas, Nick Fernella, Pete Giles,
Rhett Blanton
Observation Period Start: 0930 Stop: 1330

Description: 3 sampling attempts were performed of the lagoon at the flap gates. Pull 24 and 25 were from the north east side while pull 26 was done on the backside of the gates (Arroyo Grande Creek side). Results of the sampling were as follows:

A hand held net was used to sample the drainage swale in front of the water treatment facility and 300 feet downstream, 2 mosquito fish and 3 bullfrog tadpoles were observed during this effort. During snorkel surveys numerous crayfish and one Pacific pond turtle was observed.

150

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
Letter 3
COMMENTER: Jeff Edwards and Julie Tacker
DATE: July 7, 2023
Response 3.1
The commenter provides a summary of the project’s history and expresses concern regarding the motivation and need for the project, the status of land acquisition for the project, the implementation timing for the project, and the potential for advanced purified water produced by the project to be beneficially used.

This comment is noted. This comment does not pertain to the environmental impact analysis contained in the Draft Addendum but will be considered by decision makers. No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.2
The commenter quotes an excerpt from the Association of Environmental Professionals’ CEQA Portal Topic Paper - Project Description and provides a summary of the Modified Project components as compared to the Original Project components. The commenter expresses an opinion that the changes included in the Modified Project are substantial enough that additional impacts or more severe impacts beyond those already analyzed in the Final EIR would occur. The commenter suggests the Modified Project triggers the requirement for preparation of a subsequent environmental document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The commenter expresses concern that the location and number of injection and monitoring wells as well as the location, depth, and quantity of water that would be injected in each injection well continues to change. The commenter also expresses concern that MW-NCMA North A/B/C and MW-NCMA South A/B/C would require an underground creek crossing that would result in additional environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the Draft Addendum.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the requirement for preparation of Subsequent EIR is not predicated on whether substantial changes to the project have occurred. Rather, a Subsequent EIR is only required if substantial changes proposed in a project would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to 1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects or 2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Draft Addendum to the Final EIR contains a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project and determines that, based on substantial evidence, the changes included in the Modified Project would not result in new significant environmental effects and would not substantially increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the Final EIR. The commenter does not specify what new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the Modified Project that were not previously identified in the Final EIR.

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
components that have occurred since certification of the Final EIR in 2021 have been incorporated into the Modified Project, which is analyzed in the Draft Addendum.

Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, installation of MW-NCMA North A/B/C and MW-NCMA South A/B/C would not require an underground creek crossing. Each monitoring well is an independent facility at which water quality data can be monitored via readings at the well site and/or remotely. Installation of monitoring wells does not involve installation of pipelines because no water is being conveyed to or from each well. Given that no pipelines or underground creek crossings would be required for these two monitoring wells, the Draft Addendum adequately analyzes their potential environmental impacts.

No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.3
The commenter expresses concern that recent presentations regarding the Modified Project have stated varying numbers of injection wells would be included in the Modified Project and that uncertainty with regard to the receipt of approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may result in future changes to the location of IW-5A and IW-5B. The commenter notes the Modified Project includes a change in the range of injection depths and questions why the change in depth is necessary. The commenter expresses concern that a shallower depth of discharge could result in greater potential for advanced purified water and/or groundwater to surface. The commenter expresses concern that if fewer injection wells are constructed and the same amount of advanced purified water is produced, the potential for advanced purified water and/or groundwater to surface would be greater. The commenter states an opinion that neither the Final EIR nor the Draft Addendum address this potential scenario.

The Draft Addendum evaluates the installation of up to seven injection wells at five sites over the course of two project phases (Phase I and Phase II) and thus provides a comprehensive assessment of potential project impacts. The June 19, 2023 presentation at the Central Coast Blue Regional Recycled Water Joint Powers Authority meeting provided an overview of the Draft Addendum, which evaluates installation of four wells during Phase I and three injection wells during Phase II, as stated on page 18 in Section 2, Background and Project Description, of the Draft Addendum. This project proposal is consistent with the presentation given at the June 5, 2023 Joint Council meeting, which summarized the results of groundwater modeling that validated the efficacy of operating four injection wells during Phase I. However, in an effort to minimize the construction cost of Phase I and reduce temporary construction impacts to the Oceano community, efforts are ongoing to evaluate whether construction of any project components can be deferred from Phase I to Phase II while still achieving project benefits. Specifically, at the June 14, 2023 presentation to the Oceano Community Services District Board of Directors, it was noted that the project team was evaluating whether one of the injection wells could be deferred to Phase II, potentially reducing the number of Phase I injection wells from four to three. Should fewer injection wells be installed during Phase I of the project, the environmental impacts of Phase I would be reduced as compared to those evaluated in the Draft Addendum, and the City would evaluate whether increasing the number of injection wells installed during Phase II would necessitate preparation of subsequent CEQA documentation.

CEQA does not require a project proponent or applicant to obtain all required approvals prior to preparing a CEQA document. The project team has been coordinating with the FAA through the County with regard to the permanent airport utility easements that would need to be granted by the County and approved by the FAA for the proposed pipelines through the airport property, and 152

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
responses from the FAA have been supportive to date. In addition, the project will be required to comply with the FAA requirement to submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration due to the height of the drill rig necessary for construction activities for IW-5A and IW-5B as well as other project components within 2,500 feet of the Oceano County Airport runway. This notification will be submitted to the FAA once design documents are finalized and a construction date has been determined.

The estimated well depths for the Original Project were based on preliminary assumptions available at the time of development of the Draft and Final EIRs. The Modified Project includes updated assumptions and incorporates more recent information obtained during preliminary well design, the modeled lithology at each of the modified well locations, and the varying depth of the target aquifers for injection across the Modified Project area. The range in depth of target aquifers and their confining layers varies throughout the Modified Project area and the range of injection well depths has been updated to reflect those conditions. The Modified Project involves injection of advanced purified water into confined deep aquifers (see Attachment 1), and although the estimated depth of injection was updated in the Draft Addendum, the same confined aquifers as those contemplated in the Final EIR are proposed for injection of advanced purified water. In addition, the proposed injection wells have been designed using data obtained from the pilot injection well as well as groundwater modeling to confirm that injection of advanced purified water would not result in surfacing of water. Furthermore, the Modified Project includes installation of controls that would monitor groundwater levels and adjust injection rates accordingly to prevent surfacing. To clarify these items, the following revisions have been made to the text in Section 2.2, Modified Central Coast Blue Project, of the Draft Addendum:

Under the Modified Project, the advanced purified water would be injected at a depth of approximately 160 to 680 feet below ground surface, which is slightly different than the depth range of 200 to 600 feet originally anticipated for the Original Project. Although the range of injection depths has changed, the Modified Project involves injection of advanced purified water into the same confined deep aquifers as those contemplated in the Final EIR for the Original Project. The Modified Project would result in injection of similar quantities of advanced purified water into the groundwater basin under Phases I and II as compared to the Original Project. In addition, the Modified Project includes provisions to monitor groundwater levels that would facilitate adjustment to injection rates accordingly to prevent surfacing of advanced purified water and/or groundwater.

The actual injection capacity of each well will vary among the wells and will be determined during construction based on the local hydrogeology encountered. The Draft Addendum evaluates a maximum operational injection rate for each well rather than an average injection rate to capture the reality that flow to each well would vary over time and may be higher or lower depending on Advanced Treatment Facility (ATF) operations, injection capacity of each well, the number of operational wells, and other factors. If fewer injection wells are operational, a higher average injection rate would be used at each well, but this average injection rate would still be dependent on local hydrogeologic conditions and ultimately would be lower than the maximum injection rate evaluated in the Draft Addendum.

Response 3.4
The commenter states that no easements, licenses, encroachment permits, or other agreements for most of the injection well and monitoring well locations have been acquired. The commenter 153

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
expresses that if such agreements cannot be obtained, the location of project components may continue to be modified.

CEQA does not require a project proponent to obtain all required easements, licenses, encroachment permits, or other agreements prior to preparing a CEQA document. Instead, Public Resources Code Section 21080 requires compliance with CEQA prior to public agencies carrying out discretionary projects and/or issuing discretionary approvals for a project, such as certain discretionary land use permits. The need for approvals to be issued by several public agencies was outlined in Section 2.10, Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required, in Section 2, Project Description, of the Final EIR.

Nevertheless, all well sites located in public rights-of-way have been reviewed with the appropriate authorities responsible for encroachment permits to confirm feasibility. Encroachment permit applications will be submitted once design documents are finalized and construction dates are identified for each relevant component. In addition, property negotiations are ongoing for the IW- 2A/IW-2B site, and the locations of these project components have been coordinated with the property’s developer. In case negotiations are not successful, a viable alternative for this site in the public right-of-way has been identified, and this site is evaluated in the Draft Addendum as IW- 2A/IW-2B Alternate. Furthermore, the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) has been consulted regarding design of IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW-5A/5B/5C, and an agreement will be pursued once design documents are finalized. Lastly, both the California Department of Transportation and Union Pacific Railroad have been consulted on the design of project components within their rights-of-way/property, and permit approvals and agreements are in various stages of review and approval. Furthermore, completion of this Addendum to the Final EIR is a key step in the permitting process and will inform the public agencies issuing permits and approvals of the environmental impacts of the Modified Project.

The project description included in the Draft Addendum reflects the most current project engineering proposal and is consistent with the project description that will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as part of the project’s Coastal Development Permit application, which represents the primary land use permit governing the Modified Project. Should it become necessary to modify the location of project components in the future, the City will review the proposed modifications and determine whether subsequent environmental documentation is necessary to satisfy the requirements of CEQA.

No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.5
The commenter expresses an opinion that the Modified Project is significantly different from the Original Project and that the changes should not be considered minor or minimal. The commenter expresses concern that a statement on page 21 of the Draft Addendum is conclusory because the project description is fluid and the increase in severity of significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the certified EIR has not been determined or analyzed and cannot be until there is a fixed project description.

As stated in Response 3.2, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the requirement for preparation of a Subsequent EIR is not predicated on whether changes to the project are minor or minimal. Rather, a Subsequent EIR is only required if substantial changes proposed in a project would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to 1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects or 2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant 154

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
effects. The Draft Addendum to the Final EIR contains a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project that provides substantial evidence to support the statement on page 21 of the Draft Addendum that “the environmental impacts of the Modified Project are substantially similar to those analyzed in the certified EIR for the Original Project. The modifications between the Original Project and the Modified Project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of significant environmental impacts beyond those which have already been identified and characterized in the certified EIR.”
As stated in Response 3.4, the project description included in the Draft Addendum reflects the most current project engineering proposal and is consistent with the project description that will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as part of the project’s Coastal Development Permit application, which represents the primary land use permit governing the Modified Project. As a result, the project description is accurate, finite, fixed, and stable and provides an adequate basis for analyzing the environmental impacts of the Modified Project in the Draft Addendum.

No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.6
The commenter quotes an excerpt from the Association of Environmental Professionals’ CEQA Portal Topic Paper – Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs and Streamlining. The commenter expresses an opinion that the decision to prepare an Addendum rather than a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR was not based on substantial evidence. The commenter expresses an opinion that it is not possible to fully assess the likely cumulative environmental effects of the Modified Project due to the inability to fully quantify impacts.

The Draft Addendum to the Final EIR contains a comprehensive and thorough analysis of environmental impacts of the Modified Project, including quantification of air quality, energy, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts, as compared to the Original Project. The analysis contained in the Draft Addendum provides substantial evidence to support the City’s determination that an Addendum is the appropriate document to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Modified Project as compared to a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. The commenter does not provide an explanation as to why it is not possible to fully quantify the environmental impacts of the Modified Project and does not provide evidence that the quantification of the Modified Project’s air quality, energy, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts in the Draft Addendum is insufficient. The commenter also does not specify what the likely cumulative environmental effects of the Modified Project are.

No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.7
The commenter quotes an excerpt from the Association of Environmental Professionals’ CEQA Portal Topic Paper – Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs and Streamlining. The commenter expresses an opinion that CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(1) has been triggered.

As stated in Response 3.2, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(1), preparation of a Subsequent EIR is only required if substantial changes proposed in a project would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to 1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects or 2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Draft Addendum to the Final EIR contains comprehensive and thorough analysis of the Modified Project 155

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
as compared to the Original Project and determines that, based on substantial evidence, the changes included in the Modified Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the Final EIR. The commenter does not specify what new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the Modified Project that were not previously identified in the Final EIR.

No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.8
The commenter questions whether a piezometer was used in project component areas to determine depth to groundwater and whether a soils investigation was performed. The commenter expresses a concern that project impacts related to encountering groundwater during construction are understated. The commenter expresses concern that the Barca and Pike Basins would not be adequate locations to discharge groundwater produced during construction. The commenter questions how much water each of the 72 trucks would carry for disposal of groundwater produced during construction dewatering. The commenter expresses an opinion that construction dewatering would result in significant traffic impacts at the ATF site and at the detention basin locations. The commenter questions how long dewatering would continue at the ATF site after construction is complete.

Depth to groundwater at the locations of project components was measured as part of geotechnical investigations. A truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig extended exploratory borings to depths of up to 50 feet below ground surface. Soil samples were collected from each boring, and groundwater levels were determined based on extending a sounding device within each boring or by noting changes in soil saturation. The borings were backfilled and restored with the exception of two borings that were completed as temporary monitoring wells. Groundwater levels within the two temporary monitoring wells are being monitored during design from Solinst Level Loggers installed in each well. Groundwater levels will continue to be monitored during construction to provide information during dewatering. The two geotechnical reports that have been prepared for the project are included as Attachment 2.

The ultimate locations of groundwater disposal during construction would be determined by the construction contractor’s means and methods. For the purposes of the Draft Addendum, the City has conservatively estimated the volume of water that would be dewatered and comprehensively evaluated the environmental impacts of multiple potential methods that may be used for disposal, including the Barca Basin, Pike Basin, and Mentone Drainage Basin. However, at this time, the primary method of discharge is anticipated to be through a connection to the existing Pismo Beach outfall pipeline that runs below State Route 1, which is also evaluated in the Draft Addendum.

Dewatering at the ATF site would not be necessary following the completion of construction activities because the ATF structures would be designed to resist uplift from buoyancy forces and prevent seepage in or out of the structures. To clarify this point, the following revisions have been made to the text in Section 2.2, Modified Central Coast Blue Project, of Draft Addendum:

No changes in operation and maintenance characteristics would occur under the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project. As with the Original Project, dewatering at the ATF site would not be necessary following the completion of construction activities under the Modified Project because the ATF structures would be designed to resist uplift from buoyancy forces and prevent seepage in or out of the structures. 156

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
Response 3.9
The commenter expresses an opinion that any discharge to the sanitary sewer would require the wastewater treatment plant to increase treatment volumes, which would impact plant operations, and that discharging produced groundwater to a storm sewer or ocean outfall is a waste of water.

The commenter suggests the dewatering plan include a statement that the primary option for discharging produced groundwater is to land and that the land disposal locations should be identified and analyzed for environmental impacts.

Prior to discharging groundwater produced during construction to the sanitary sewer system, the project team would be required to obtain a determination from SSLOCSD that adequate capacity is available for treatment and disposal of the anticipated volume of water. The purpose of the Addendum is not to evaluate the merits of various design and construction alternatives for the Modified Project but rather to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Modified Project as proposed. The Draft Addendum evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed methods of disposal, which are stated on page 19 in Section 2.2, Modified Central Coast Blue Project, of the Draft Addendum. These methods consist of disposal via connections to the existing Pismo Beach outfall pipeline that runs below State Route 1, timed release to the sanitary or storm sewer, and trucking up to one mile for percolation into a storm retention basin such as the Mentone Basin Park (i.e., land disposal). The environmental impacts of the first option were evaluated in the Final EIR, and the Draft Addendum includes an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the latter two options.

No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.10
The commenter expresses concern that there is a discrepancy between the project’s objective of mitigating seawater intrusion and the proposed construction-phase dewatering may exacerbate this condition.

Dewatering for construction of the project would be short-term (i.e., six months or less for each project component) and localized, and the quantity of water pumped from shallow groundwater aquifers during construction dewatering would be of a different magnitude as compared to the groundwater pumped from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin for municipal, agricultural, and other uses. In addition, seawater intrusion is a threat to the deeper confined municipal drinking water aquifers, not the shallow alluvial aquifers that would be encountered during construction.

No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.11
The commenter requests information on the groundwater quality at the proposed ATF site and expresses a concern that past uses at the site may have resulted in ground surface and/or groundwater contamination. The commenter expresses an opinion that the Draft Addendum does not analyze or address any cleanup activities that may be required to use the site for the ATF. The commenter also expresses a concern that the method and responsibility for disposal of the existing vehicles on-site as well as the environmental impacts of such activities are not specified in the Draft Addendum. In addition, the commenter states an opinion that the Final EIR and Draft Addendum do not include an analysis of the quality of the groundwater that will be dewatered at the ATF site and what the method of treatment and disposal of this groundwater will be. 157

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) were prepared for the 980 Huber Street property (i.e., the ATF site) in 2019 prior to the acquisition of this property by the City of Pismo Beach (see Attachment 3).1, 2 The Phase I ESA identified that former agricultural use of the property, current use of the property for automobile/truck/RV/boat/trailer/equipment storage, and adjacent automobile repair facilities and towing/vehicle storage yards may have impacted soil beneath the property. As a result, a Phase II ESA was conducted to determine whether on-site soils were impacted by contamination from former, current, and adjacent uses. As indicated in the Phase II ESA, none of the soil samples at the property exceeded the environmental screening levels for residential or commercial soil for total petroleum hydrocarbons, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides, or metals except for arsenic and thallium. Concentrations of arsenic exceeded the residential and commercial environmental screening levels but were within the naturally-occurring background range for arsenic in California soils and therefore were determined to not pose a concern for site use. Concentrations of thallium exceeded the residential screening level but not the commercial screening level. Because the property is not proposed for residential use, this exceedance does not pose a concern for site use as an ATF. Therefore, no cleanup or disposal of contaminated on-site soils is anticipated to be necessary as part of the Modified Project.

The current tenant of the ATF site is a towing company who uses the site as a storage yard and who will be responsible for removing the vehicles off the site prior to the start of construction.

As indicated on page 67 in Section 4.8, Hydrology/Water Quality, of the Draft Addendum, discharge of groundwater produced during construction would be required to comply with the water quality standards outlined in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System No. CAG993002 (Order No.

R3-2016-0035 for discharges of highly treated groundwater). The proposed methods of groundwater disposal are stated on page 19 in Section 2.2, Modified Central Coast Blue Project, of the Draft Addendum. These methods consist of disposal via connections to the existing Pismo Beach outfall pipeline that runs below State Route 1, timed release to the sanitary or storm sewer, and trucking up to one mile for percolation into a storm retention basin such as the Mentone Basin Park (i.e., land disposal).

No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.12
The commenter expresses a concern that the Draft Addendum does not reference a 2012 Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) prepared for Meadow Creek Lagoon, which identified Pacific pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) and California red legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF) in the vicinity of the SSLOCSD WWTP, Meadow Creek, and Oceano Airport. The commenter suggests the results of this report would add to the understanding of biological resources in the project area and expresses an opinion that the potential impacts of the proposed pipelines included in the Modified Project to biological resources in this area, in particular these two species, were not analyzed in the Draft Addendum.

The biological resources analysis included in the Draft Addendum is based on the project-specific 2023 BRA that relies on the most up-to-date information on known special-status species

1 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Approximately 1.5 Acre Parcel, Huber Street, Grover Beach, California. June 21, 2129.
2 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2019. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of Approximately 1.5 Acre Parcel, Huber Street, Grover Beach, California. July 22, 2019.
158

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
occurrences and current site conditions, including presence of suitable habitat for special status species. As stated on pages 38 and 39 in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft Addendum and further described in the 2023 BRA included as Appendix B to the Draft Addendum, CRLF has potential to occur within the Modified Project site. The Modified Project would potentially result in significant direct and indirect impacts to individuals of CRLF as well as direct impacts to CRLF habitat during construction and ground-disturbing maintenance activities associated with IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-5A/5B/5C, the pump station at the SSLOCSD WWTP, and pipeline locations. As a result, as indicated in the Draft Addendum, Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(b) from the Final EIR are applicable to the Modified Project to address these impacts. Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) applies to project components near native vegetation communities, such as arroyo willow riparian habitat, and Mitigation Measure BIO-1(b) applies to project components within the SSLOCSD WWTP and those within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek.

Pacific pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle (Emys marmorata) are interchangeable names for the same species of turtle. (Both turtle species included in the genus Actinemys are sometimes also included in the genus Emys.) As stated on pages 38 and 39 in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft Addendum and further described in the 2023 BRA included as Appendix B to the Draft Addendum, southwestern pond turtle has potential to occur within the Modified Project site. The Modified Project would potentially result in significant impacts to southwestern pond turtles through harassment, injury, and mortality of individuals; destruction of nest sites; general habitat disturbance or removal and disruption of foraging or breeding activities that could impact the reproductive success of the local and regional population, specifically at the locations of IW-5A, IW- 5B, MW-5A/5B/5C, and the pump station at the SSLOCSD WWTP adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek as well as along portions of the pipeline alignments. As a result, as indicated in the Draft Addendum, Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) from the Final EIR is required for the Modified Project to address these impacts. Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) applies to project components within the SSLOCSD WWTP and those within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek.

Therefore, the 2012 BRA provided by the commenter provides no new information that was not considered in the Draft Addendum and its supporting 2023 BRA, and the Draft Addendum adequately analyzes impacts to biological resources under CEQA, including to CRLF and southwestern pond turtle (also known as Pacific pond turtle). No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.13
The commenter expresses a concern that the Draft Addendum does not mention the use of sound walls as construction noise mitigation measures for any of the proposed injection and monitoring wells. The commenter expresses an opinion that employees at the SSLOCSD WWTP are sensitive receptors whose work may be disrupted by continuous noise. The commenter suggests that if sound walls would be included in the project, their impacts to aesthetics and transportation should be analyzed as part of the project.

Mitigation Measure N-1, outlined on pages 83 and 84 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft Addendum, includes a requirement for the installation of temporary sound barriers/blankets of varying heights during certain phases of construction for the injection, production, and monitoring wells, including those located at the SSLOCSD WWTP property (IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW-5A/5B/5C). These temporary sound barriers would be installed within the footprint of the project site and would not result in any additional lane or roadway closures beyond those already evaluated in the Draft Addendum for the Modified Project. As stated on page 92 in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the Draft Addendum, 159

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
“Similar to the Original Project, construction of Modified Project would result in temporary access restrictions along public roadways throughout the Modified Project area that could conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system as well as result in inadequate emergency access. Mitigation Measure T-1 would continue to apply to construction activities for the Modified Project and would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.” Under CEQA, the evaluation of aesthetic impacts is focused on the impairment of scenic vistas, the damage of scenic resources within view of a state scenic highway, conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas, and the creation of new sources of substantial light and glare. As indicated in Section 4.12, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, of the Final EIR, scenic views in the project area include views of the ocean to the west and views of the foothills north of U.S. Highway 101. In addition, State Route 1 is officially designated as a state scenic highway throughout the entire length of San Luis Obispo County. Based on the locations of injection, monitoring, and production wells and the presence of intervening topography, vegetation, and development, temporary sound barriers/blankets would not have the potential to block public views of the ocean or foothills or damage scenic resources within view of State Route 1. In addition, the visual appearance of temporary sound barriers/blankets is not subject to zoning regulations and would therefore not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality. Lastly, temporary sound barriers/blankets installed during construction would not include sources of light or glare.

Therefore, temporary sound barriers/blankets would not result in significant secondary impacts related to aesthetics. To amplify the analysis contained in the Draft Addendum, the following revisions have been made to the text in Section 4.12, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, of the Draft Addendum:

Similar to the Original Project, underground components of the Modified Project, such as pipelines, would not be visible after construction, and aboveground components under the Modified Project would be low-profile and similar in height to existing development such that they would not impede scenic vistas. There are no Modified Project components within potential view of SR 1, an officially designated scenic highway, with the exception of IW-3, located in the public right-of-way of Monroe Drive to the west of SR 1, and the existing MW- 3A/3B and IW-4, which are located in the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground. All of these components have small footprints and are either at-grade or have a low height profile. As with the Original Project, Modified Project components would not be visible from U.S. Highway 101, which is an eligible state scenic highway (Caltrans 2018). Modified Project components would continue to be consistent with the underlying zoning designations and would not result in impacts related to visual character or scenic quality due to zoning conflicts. In addition, the Modified Project would introduce similar types of lighting and glare sources as those included in the Original Project.

Based on the locations of injection, monitoring, and production wells and the presence of intervening topography, vegetation, and development, the temporary sound barriers/blankets required under Mitigation Measure N-1 for the Modified Project would not have the potential to block public views of the ocean or foothills or damage scenic resources within view of State Route 1. In addition, the visual appearance of these temporary sound barriers/blankets is not subject to zoning regulations and would therefore not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality. Lastly, temporary sound barriers/blankets installed during construction pursuant to Mitigation Measure N-1 would not include sources of light or glare. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, aesthetic impacts under the Modified Project would be less than significant. As such, the Modified 160

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
Project would not result in new significant impacts related to aesthetics and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.

As noted on page 71 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft Addendum, noise-sensitive receivers in the Modified Project area include residential neighborhoods, schools, hotels, motels, nursing homes, libraries, museums, parks, playgrounds, public assembly and entertainment venues, office buildings, restaurants, and Arroyo Grande Community Hospital. As shown in Table 4.10-3 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Final EIR, the municipal codes of the Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande and the County do not include workers at industrial facilities in their definitions of noise- sensitive receivers. Therefore, employees at the SSLOCSD WWTP are not considered noise-sensitive receivers. The noise level limits established by the City of Grover Beach and the County are applicable only to noise-sensitive receivers (County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element Table 3-2; San Luis Obispo County Code Sections 22.10.120[B-C], 23.06.044, and 23.06.046; City of Grover Beach General Plan Noise Element Table 3; Grover Beach Municipal Code Sections 3120.8 and 3120.9) and do not apply to employees at the SSLOCSD WWTP. Therefore, for the purpose of determining whether the Modified Project would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance under CEQA, construction noise impacts to employees at the SSLOCSD WWTP are not evaluated because no such standards exist.

No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.14
The commenter expresses a concern that the partner agencies have not resolved how and where to use the advanced purified water produced by the project. The commenter expresses an opinion that the project-level and cumulative environmental impacts of the project cannot be fully analyzed and mitigation measures cannot be developed until the project can be described in sufficient detail. The commenter also suggests that the Draft Addendum does not include substantial evidence to support its findings and should not be adopted.

The purpose of the Addendum is not to evaluate the feasibility of the Modified Project but rather to provide an unbiased analysis of the physical impacts of the Modified Project on the environment as proposed. More specifically, the purpose of the Addendum is to explore environmental impacts that could not have been considered in the original environmental document (Friends of College of San Mateo, Supra, at 949-950). The project description provided in Section 2, Background and Project Description, of the Draft Addendum indicates how and where the advanced purified water will be used. The project description is also detailed, comprehensive, accurate, finite, and stable and reflects the most current project engineering proposal. Therefore, the project description provides an adequate basis for analyzing the project-level and cumulative environmental impacts of the Modified Project in the Draft Addendum. The Draft Addendum to the Final EIR contains a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project that provides substantial evidence to support its findings, and the commenter has not provided specific evidence to the contrary. No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 3.15
The commenter recommends acquiring the necessary agreements to ensure the desired land is part of the project and to allow the project description to become fixed. The commenter suggests that 161

City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Responses to Comments on the Draft Addendum

Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
once this is complete, subsequent environmental documentation can be prepared for that version of the project. The commenter also suggests partner cities and their respective councils review project documents to inform their decision making.

As noted under Response 3.4, CEQA does not require a project proponent to obtain all necessary real estate agreements prior to preparing a CEQA document. The project description included in the Draft Addendum reflects the most current project engineering proposal and is accurate, finite, and stable. As such, the project description is adequate to use as the basis for the comprehensive and thorough environmental impact analysis contained in the Draft Addendum. The commenter’s suggestion to partner cities and their respective councils does not pertain to the environmental impact analysis contained in the Draft Addendum but will be considered by decision makers. No revisions to the Addendum are warranted in response to this comment.

162

Attachment 1
Lithology for IW-5A and IW-5B

21 Aquifers
(Layer #)
OCSD Well #8
IW-5BIW-5AStratification
Lower Careaga (10)
Upper Careaga (8)
Lower Paso (6)
Upper Paso (4)
CCB
Phase 1
CCB
Phase 2

Attachment 2
Geotechnical Reports

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

CENTRAL COAST BLUE ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT PROJECT
972 HUBER STREET

GROVER BEACH, CALIFORNIA

CONVERSE PROJECT NO. 21-31-323-01
Prepared For: CAROLLO ENGINEERS
Mr. Vincent Roquebert, PE, PMP
Senior Design Manager
3150 Bristol Street, Suite 500
Costa Mesa, California 92626

Presented By: CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
717 South Myrtle Avenue
Monrovia, California 91016
626-930-1200
June 15, 2022

Converse Consultants
Geotechnical Engineering, Environmental & Groundwater Science, Inspection & Testing Services June 15, 2022
Mr. Vincent Roquebert, PE, PMP
Senior Design Manager
Carollo Engineers
3150 Bristol Street, Suite 500
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project
972 Huber Street, Grover Beach, California
Converse Project No. 21-31-323-01
Dear Mr. Roquebert:

Converse Consultants (Converse) is pleased to submit this geotechnical investigation report to assist with the design and construction of the Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project (hereinafter the "Project"), located at 972 Huber Street, in the City of Grover Beach, San Luis Obispo County, California. This report was prepared in accordance with our proposal dated December 9, 2021.

Based upon our field investigation, laboratory data, and analyses, the proposed project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Carollo Engineers and City of Grover Beach.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at 626-930-1275.

Sincerely,

CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
Siva K. Sivathasan, PhD, PE, GE, DGE, QSD, F. ASCE
Senior Vice President / Principal Engineer
Dist: 1 to Addressee via Email
SKS/MBS/PA/BA:jjl
��rES51p,��
6I _� refCkY
;sdo.2708
Exp 6-30-eg/ �� J
\� J '61`br CHN�GP�
EOF Cgl�iF�%
717 South Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, Califomia 91016
Telephone: (626) 930-1200 ♦ Facsimile: (626) 930-1212 • www.converseconsultants.com

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project
Grover Beach, Califomia
June 15, 2022
Page ii

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
This report has been prepared by the following professionals whose seals and signatures appear herein.

The findings, recommendations, specifications and professional opinions contained in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geologic principles and practice in this area of Southern California. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied.

Mark B. hluter, P , CEG,-C-HG
Senior ' ngineering Geologist
Iv
Siva K. Sivathasan, PhD, PE, GE, DGE, QSD, F.ASCE \* Exp 6.30- J )1, I �
Senior Vice President / Principal Engineer .s 1‘o g›- Pf Converse Consultants
K:\31-Geotech\2021\21-31-323, Carollo, Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment\Report121-31-323 GIR (01) Grover Beach 6-15-22 FINAL.docx

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project
Grover Beach, California
June 15, 2022
Page iii

Converse Consultants
K:\31-Geotech\2021\21-31-323, Carollo, Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment\Report\21-31-323 GIR (01) Grover Beach 6-15-22 FINAL.docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following is a summary of our geotechnical investigation, conclusions and recommendations, as presented in the body of this report. Please refer to the appropriate sections of the report for complete conclusions and recommendations. In the event of a conflict between this summary and the report, or an omission in the summary, the report shall prevail.

 The proposed advanced water treatment system will have a new building with dimensions of 161 feet x 111 feet. Pump wet wells will be 24 feet deep from building finished floor elevation to top of tank floor. The proposed building will house the following equipment:

o New purified water pump station
o New UV reactor
o New CIP and BW equalization tanks
o 3 - RO train and 4 - MF train
o Chemical containment area and tanks

 We understand that the proposed treatment facility building will be supported on shallow footing and reinforced concrete slab-on-grade foundation. CO2 and chemical tanks will be constructed outside of the building within the project area.

 The proposed Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project is located at 972, Huber Street in Grover Beach, San Luis Obispo County, California. The proposed project site is bounded by Huber Street on the East, Barca Street and South 4th Street along the West, Calvin Court on the South and by an existing building and parking lot on the North. Existing ground surface elevations range from approximately 20 to 22 feet above mean sea level.

 Five exploratory borings (BH-1 to BH-5) were drilled on May 13, 2022, to investigate the subsurface conditions at the site. The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with an 8-inch diameter hollow stem auger. The borings were drilled and sampled to 51.5 feet below existing ground surface (bgs).

Percolation tests were performed in borings PT-1, PT-2, PT-3, and PT-4, drilled on July 6, 2022, up to depth of 6 feet below existing ground surface.

 The project site is located along the central California coast on a coastal plain in Grover Beach approximately 0.45 miles from Pacific Ocean. The site is in a coastal marine environment due to its close proximity to the Pacific Ocean. The project site is underlain by existing fill soils placed during previous site grading that consists of silty sands and sands. The fill soils are underlain by marine and non- marine alluvial sediments that have gradually filled the coastal basin over time to form a broad coastal plain.

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project
Grover Beach, California
June 15, 2022
Page iv

Converse Consultants
K:\31-Geotech\2021\21-31-323, Carollo, Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment\Report\21-31-323 GIR (01) Grover Beach 6-15-22 FINAL.docx

 The native alluvial sediments consisted of silty sands, sandy clays, and poorly graded sands with variable amounts of silt. The alluvial sediments consisted of medium stiff to very stiff clays and dense to very dense sands and sands with silt to the maximum explored depth of 51.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Some layers and lenses of gravels and small cobbles were encountered in the alluvial sediments.

 Groundwater was encountered at shallow depths during drilling in three of the deeper the exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet. Groundwater was encountered in Boring No. 1 at 11 feet, in Boring No. 2 at 13 feet, and in Boring No. 3 at 13.8 feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered in Boring Nos. 4 and 5 drilled to depths of 11.5 feet below ground surface. Historic highest groundwater level was interpreted to be approximately 5 feet below ground surface.

 Groundwater is expected to be encountered during deeper construction of pump wet wells for the project. Since ground water encountered approximately 11 feet below ground level and proposed structures may be constructed below 10 feet below ground level, dewatering will be required during construction.

 The site is not located within a current California Geologic Survey (CGS) mapped potential liquefaction zone. The Oceano Quadrangle has not been mapped by the California Geologic Survey for geologic hazards and liquefaction potential. The potential for liquefaction and associated seismic settlement at the site based on the Boring No. 2 liquefaction analyses is 0.6 inches. Dry sand settlement is negligible.

 The project site is not located within a currently designated State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones) for surface fault rupture.

 The topography at the project site and in the immediate vicinity of the site is relatively flat, with no significant nearby slopes or embankments. Under these circumstances, the potential for lateral spreading at the subject site is considered low.

 The sulfate contents of the sampled soils correspond to American Concrete Institute (ACI) exposure category S0 for these sulfate concentrations. No concrete type restrictions are specified for exposure category S0. A minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi is recommended. The chloride contents of the sampled soils correspond to American Concrete Institute (ACI) exposure category C1 (concrete is exposed to moisture, but not to external sources of chlorides). For exposure

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project
Grover Beach, California
June 15, 2022
Page v

Converse Consultants
K:\31-Geotech\2021\21-31-323, Carollo, Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment\Report\21-31-323 GIR (01) Grover Beach 6-15-22 FINAL.docx

category C1, ACI provides concrete compressive strength of at least 2,500 psi and a maximum chloride content of 0.3 percent.

 The measured value of the minimum electrical resistivity of the sample when saturated was 12,225 ohm-cm. This indicates that the soils tested are corrosive to ferrous metals in contact with the soil. The site is in a coastal marine environment.

Converse does not practice in the area of corrosion consulting. If needed, a qualified corrosion consultant should provide appropriate corrosion mitigation measures for any ferrous metals in contact with the site soils.

 Prior to the start of construction, all existing underground utilities and appurtenances should be located at the project site. Such utilities should either be protected in-place or removed and replaced during construction as required by the project specifications. All excavations should be conducted in such a manner as to not cause loss of bearing and/or lateral support of existing utilities.

 Footing subgrades founded on native soils (alluvium) should have at-least 3 feet of compacted fill below the bottom of footings compacted at least to 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. All over-excavations should extend laterally at least 3 feet or equal to the depth of over-excavation, whichever is greater, outside the entire level portions of the building pad area.

 The surface and subsurface soil materials at the site are expected to be excavatable by conventional heavy-duty earth moving and trenching equipment.

 Excavated on-site earth materials cleared of deleterious matter and oversize rock materials can be moisture conditioned and re-used as compacted fill.

 All fill placed at the project site should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry densities as determined by ASTM Standard D1557 test method unless a higher compaction is specified herein.

 Footings should be at least 18 inches in width and embedded to at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The footing dimensions and reinforcement should be based on structural design. Continuous and isolated footings can be designed based on an allowable net bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.

 Mat foundation recommendations are presented in the Section 10.2 Mat Foundation Design Parameters.

 The total settlement of shallow footings from static structural loads and short-term settlement of properly compacted fill is anticipated to be 1 inch or less. The differential settlement resulting from static loads is anticipated to be 0.5 inches or less over a horizontal distance of 30 feet.

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project
Grover Beach, California
June 15, 2022
Page vi

Converse Consultants
K:\31-Geotech\2021\21-31-323, Carollo, Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment\Report\21-31-323 GIR (01) Grover Beach 6-15-22 FINAL.docx

• Based on our liquefaction analyses, liquefaction settlement is 0.6 inches for the subject site. Dry sand settlement is negligible. If the proposed development will be constructed 20 feet below ground level, then liquefaction settlement can be negligible.

 Recommendations for temporary sloped excavations are provided in the text of this report.

 Shoring and dewatering may be needed for construction of wet well.

 Buoyancy force on the wet well below water table should be considered in the design.

 Percolation test results are presented in Appendix D of this report.

Based on our investigation, it is our professional opinion that the project is suitable for construction of the project, provided the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this geotechnical investigation report are considered in the planning, design and construction of the project.

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project
Grover Beach, California
June 15, 2022
Page vii

Converse Consultants
K:\31-Geotech\2021\21-31-323, Carollo, Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment\Report\21-31-323 GIR (01) Grover Beach 6-15-22 FINAL.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

4.0 SCOPE OF WORK............................................................................................................................... 2

4.1 DOCUMENT REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 2

4.2 PROJECT SET-UP ............................................................................................................................... 2

4.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................... 2

4.4 LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................................................... 3

4.5 ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION ................................................................................................ 3

5.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 3

5.1 PHYSICAL TESTING ............................................................................................................................ 3

5.2 CHEMICAL TESTING - CORROSIVITY EVALUATION ................................................................................. 4

6.0 SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................. 4

6.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................................................ 5

6.2 SUBSURFACE PROFILE ....................................................................................................................... 5

6.3 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................. 5

6.4 EXCAVATABILITY ................................................................................................................................ 6

6.5 SUBSURFACE VARIATIONS .................................................................................................................. 6

7.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 6

7.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 6

7.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 6

8.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................................................. 7

8.1 SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF NEARBY FAULTS .................................................................................. 7

8.2 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................................................... 8

8.3 SECONDARY EFFECTS OF SEISMIC ACTIVITY ...................................................................................... 12

9.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 14

9.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................................... 14

9.2 REMEDIAL GRADING ......................................................................................................................... 15

9.3 OVER-EXCAVATION AND RE-COMPACTION .......................................................................................... 15

9.4 FILL MATERIALS ............................................................................................................................... 16

9.5 COMPACTED FILL PLACEMENT .......................................................................................................... 17

9.6 SITE DRAINAGE ................................................................................................................................ 17

9.7 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL ................................................................................................................ 17

10.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 20

10.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS .............................................................................. 20

10.2 MAT FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS ...................................................................................... 21

10.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS ............................................... 21

10.4 SETTLEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 23

10.5 SOIL PARAMETERS FOR PIPE DESIGN ........................................................................................... 23

10.6 BEARING PRESSURE FOR ANCHOR AND THRUST BLOCKS............................................................... 24

10.7 SOIL CORROSIVITY ....................................................................................................................... 24

10.8 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT .................................................................................................................... 25

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project
Grover Beach, California
June 15, 2022
Page viii

Converse Consultants
K:\31-Geotech\2021\21-31-323, Carollo, Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment\Report\21-31-323 GIR (01) Grover Beach 6-15-22 FINAL.docx

10.9 RIGID PAVEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 26

11.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 27

11.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................... 27

11.2 TEMPORARY SLOPED EXCAVATIONS ............................................................................................. 27

11.3 SLOT CUT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 28

11.4 SHORING DESIGN ......................................................................................................................... 28

12.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION .......................................................... 31

13.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................................... 31

14.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 33

FIGURES
Following Page Number
Figure No. 1, Site Location Map .................................................................................................. 1 Figure No. 2, Approximate Boring Location Map ......................................................................... 1 Figure No. 3, Regional Geologic Map ......................................................................................... 5 Figure No. 4, Southern California Regional Fault Map ................................................................ 8 Figure No. 5, Epicenter Map of Southern California Earthquakes (1800-1999) ........................... 8 Figure No. 6, Site Specific Design Response Spectrum per ASCE 7-16 and 2019 CBC ........... 11 Figure No. 7, Tsunami Hazard Map .......................................................................................... 14

TABLES
Page Number
Table No. 1, Summary of Regional Faults ................................................................................... 8 Table No. 2, 2019 CBC Seismic Design Mapped Parameters ..................................................... 9 Table No. 3, 2019 CBC Mapped Acceleration Parameters .......................................................... 9 Table No. 4, Probabilistic Response Spectrum Data ................................................................. 10 Table No. 5, Probabilistic MCER Spectral Acceleration (g) ........................................................ 11 Table No. 6, Site-Specific Response Spectrum Data ................................................................ 11 Table No. 7, Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................. 12 Table No. 8, Over-excavation Depths ....................................................................................... 15 Table No. 9, Recommended Foundation Parameters................................................................ 20 Table No. 10, Active and At-Rest Earth Pressures .................................................................... 22 Table No. 11, Soil Parameters for Pipe Design ......................................................................... 23 Table No. 12, Correlation Between Resistivity and Corrosion ................................................... 25 Table No. 13, Flexible Pavement Structural Sections ................................................................ 25 Table No. 14, Rigid Pavement Structural Sections .................................................................... 26 Table No. 15, Slope Ratios for Temporary Excavations ............................................................ 28

APPENDICES

Appendix A ........................................................................................................ Field Exploration Appendix B ....................................................................................... Laboratory Testing Program Appendix C ......................................................................... Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis Appendix D .................................................................................................... Percolation Testing

Geotechnical Investigation Report
Central Coast Blue Advanced Water Treatment Project
Grover Beach, California
June 15, 2022

Page 1 ends

Pismo Beach City CouncilSeptember 5, 2023

Pismo Beach City Council
September 5, 2023