San Clemente City Council
July 18, 2023

ATTACHMENT 7
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers
36 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2023

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION
6C(2) APPROVE WARRANT NOS.
585878 THROUGH 586000, PAID ON
1-20-23, IN THE AMOUNT OF $746,838.48
AQ expressed concern on warrant item 585916 related to Mayor Duncan's travel expenses regarding his trip to Washington D.C. to attend the Mayor's Conference.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Knoblock, second by Councilmember Cabral, CARRIED 5-0, to approve:

Warrant Nos. 585878 through
586000, paid on 1-20-23,
in the amount of
AYE:

NOE:
$746,838.48
Cabral, Enmeier, James, Knoblock and Mayor Duncan
None

7. Public Hearings
A. APPEAL OF MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 22-197, PRIMO FOODS BEER AND WINE, 2801 S. EL CAMINO REAL
Continued Public Hearing to consider a City Council initiated appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit 22-197, Primo Foods Beer and Wine, 2801 S. El Camino Real, which approved beer and wine sales at Primo Foods Market and Deli for off-site consumption, with hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. daily.

The project does not propose changes to the existing market.

Councilmember Cabral disclosed prior to the Council initiated review of the Minor Conditional Use Permti 22-197 that he had shopped at Primo Foods Beer and Wine on two occasions.

Councilmember James disclosed that he has been to Primo Foods Beer and Wine; discussed parking concerns with the developer of the adjacent town homes, David Gutierrez; had a meeting with the applicant, applicants counsel and City staff.

Mayor Duncan disclosed that he has not been to the establishment but has driven past Primo Foods Beer and Wine.

Mayor Pro Tem Knoblock disclosed he has not been to Primo Foods Beer and Wine but has driven past the establishment; had a brief conversation with the

37 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2023 adjacent town home developer, David Gutierrez, regarding parking concerns.

Councilmember Enmeier reported that he has not been to Primo Foods Beer and Wine since it has been open.

Assistant Planner Coury narrated a Powerpoint presentation entitled "Primo Foods Beer & Wine MCUP 22-197" and responded to Council inquiries. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.

Mayor Duncan opened the Public Hearing.

Joseph Stine, counsel for the applicant, and Sam Assi, owner of Primo Foods Beer and Wine, presented on business operations, sales of beer and wine and concerns relating to parking and responded to Council inquiries.

David Gutierrez, San Clemente, expressed concerns regarding parking, distributed photographs to the Council and responded to Council inquiries. A hard copy of the photographs are on file with the City Clerk.

Karen Conley spoke in support of the Minor Conditional Use Permit for Primo Foods Beer and Wine.

Thor Johnson, San Clemente, spoke in support of Primo Foods Beer and Wine.

There being no others desiring to speak, Mayor Duncan closed the Public Hearing.

Following discussion, motion by Mayor Duncan, second by Councilmember Enmeier, FAILED 2-3, to affirm the Zoning Administrator's approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit 22-197, and adopt Resolution No. 23-03 entitled A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 22-197,

PRIMO FOOD BEER AND WINE, A REQUEST TO ALLOW BEER AND WINE SALES FOR OFF-SITE CONSUMPTION LOCATED AT 2801 EL CAMINO REAL.

AYE: Enmeier and Mayor Duncan
NOE: Cabral, James and Knoblock

38 AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 6/20/2023 Agenda Item: 10H
Department: Public Works
Prepared By Ryan Kim, Senior Civil Engineer - Traffic
Subject:

CONSIDERATION OF PARKING MODIFICATIONS ON SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL AND AVENIDA

SAN LUIS REY, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES, 14 CCR SECTION 15301) OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES Summary:

The purpose of this report is to present the findings and recommendations regarding proposed changes to the parking restrictions on South El Camino Real and Avenida San Luis Rey. The proposed changes aim to improve the safety and efficiency of the traffic flow in the area, as well as accommodate the needs of the residents and businesses. Staff hand delivered notices to the residents within 300 feet of the subject area to inform them that the City Council would consider the subject matter at this meeting.

Background:

Per the City’s adopted Traffic Code, no parking is allowed along the entire curb frontage of South El Camino Real between Avenida Santa Inez to Avenida San Luis Rey. Currently, only portions of South El Camino Real along this block are marked as red curb, and vehicles have been utilizing the street parking for several years. On Avenida San Luis Rey, there is also a red curb on the south side from the end of curb return to 6 feet east. In addition, there is a 24-minute parking zone from 9 AM to 7 PM daily for 80 feet on Avenida San Luis Rey between South El Camino Real and the alley behind the commercial market Primo Foods. The alley has NO PARKING signs on both sides. San Luis Ray Park, on Avenida San Luis Rey 300 feet east of South El Camino Real, has public parking spaces available from 6 AM to 10 PM daily. (See Attachment 1.) The parking situation on South El Camino Real and Avenida San Luis Rey, has been a concern for both residents and businesses. Primo Foods, a grocery store at 2801 South El Camino Real, has requested Public Works review modifications to the parking restrictions to accommodate its customers. A resident has also requested some changes to improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety.

Discussion:

Staff recommends the following parking modifications in the area:

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 1 of 3 Printed on 6/15/2023
powered by Legistar™ 1
ATTACHMENT 8
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
39 Meeting Date: 6/20/2023 Agenda Item: 10H

1. Reduction of the red curb on South El Camino Real between Avenida San Luis Rey and Avenida Santa Inez to 50 linear feet;

2. Installation of 60 linear feet of green curb for 20-minute limited term parking on South El Camino Real;

3. Installation of 40 linear feet of red curb at the northeast corner of Calle Del Comercio and Avenida San Luis Rey;

4. Installation of 80 linear feet of green curb for 20-minute limited term parking on the south side of Avenida San Luis Rey between South El Camino Real and the alley; and Reduce the limited term parking from 24 minutes to 20 minutes for the 80 linear feet of curb on the south side of Avenida San Luis Rey between South El Camino Real and the alley.

In addition to the proposed parking modifications that require City Council approval, staff has issued work orders for the following measures to be implemented. (See Attachment 3.) These measures do not require formal authorization by City Council:

1. Repaint the existing 6-foot red curb, which has faded over time on the south side of Avenida San Luis Rey from the end of curb return to east;

2. Place two (2) SAN LUIS REY PARK - PUBLIC PARKING signs on Avenida San Luis Rey to provide wayfinding to the nearby public park and its parking lot. The signs are consistent with other City directional wayfinding signage; and

3. Post one (1) NO PARKING IN ALLEY sign on the alley behind Primo to avoid traffic obstruction.

The proposed parking modifications were reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 7, 2023.

The item was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission for City Council approval with discussion that staff should continue to monitor the area parking and implement additional solutions if other measures could be determined. The Planning Commission also discussed having staff monitor the area and inform Police Services if issues of noncompliance are an ongoing issue.

Council Options:
· Adopt Resolution No. 23-61, approving the parking modification as shown on Attachment 2 and finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA. · Adopt Resolution No. 23-61 with modifications.
· Continue the item and direct staff to provide additional information. · Do not adopt Resolution No. 23-61 and deny the request for parking modifications.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 2 of 3 Printed on 6/15/2023
powered by Legistar™ 402
Meeting Date: 6/20/2023 Agenda Item: 10H
Fiscal Impact:

Yes. The minor cost for painting the curbs and installing new signage (approximately $1000) is available in the City Maintenance Department’s Street Sign Replacement Program, Project No. 21306.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council determine this action to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council approve Resolution No. 23-61, which would take the following actions:

1. Find the project categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines;

2. Approve the parking modifications as illustrated in Attachment 2 of the Administrative dated June 6, 2023;

3. Appropriate the required funds (approximately $1,000) from the Street Sign Replacement Project No. 21306; and

4. Request Police Services to consider increasing parking enforcement near the intersection of South El Camino Real and Avenida San Luis Rey.

Attachment:

1. Location Map

2. Proposed Measures

3. Work Order Improvements

4. Resolution No. 23-61
Notification:

Staff hand delivered notices to the residents within 300 feet of the subject area to inform them that the City Council would discuss the subject matter at this meeting.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 3 of 3 Printed on 6/15/2023
powered by Legistar™ 413
ATTACHMENT 9
42 Law Office of Joseph L. Stine
2173 Salk Ave., Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.jstinelaw.com
July 5, 2023
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
(760) 579-7694
fax: (760) 579-7695
j stine@j stinelaw .com
Re: Primo Foods: Application for Minor Conditional Use Permit Dear Mayor Duncan and City Councihnembers:

As you know, I represent Primo Foods San Clemente ("Primo Foods") in connection with its application for a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) to sell beer and wine for off-site consumption. This application comes to the City Council on an appeal from a Zoning Administrator decision approving the MCUP.

Background
On November 15, 2022, on a motion by former Mayor Gene James, the City Council called the Zoning Administrator's decision on the MCUP for appeal.

On February 7, 2023, at the appeal hearing, the City Council was given and heard substantial evidence in support of the application. This evidence consisted of the following: a staff report and presentation, my January 30 letter to the Council (included in the staff report), an email from OC Sheriffs Officer Jared Streeter, as well as oral statements from me, Primo Foods owner Sam Assi, and two residents.

In opposition, the City Council heard from David Gutierrez and received written report from him. He argued that Primo Foods operates illegally as a "takeout fast-food restaurant" and that parking problems attributable to it create a "public nuisance". He was the only person speaking in opposition to the MCUP.

In response to the evidence presented, a motion to approve the MCUP was made, seconded, but failed on a 2-3 vote.

On March 20, I met for over an hour with Mr. Gutierrez on-site in a good faith effort to address his concerns. The meeting was cordial and productive. 43 At the suggestion of city planning staff, I wrote to Kiel Koger, City Public Works Director, to urge his department to seek City Council authorization to make changes on the streets in the vicinity of Primo Foods to give motorist enhanced parking options and discourage illegal parking in the alley behind the market. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit "A" .

On June 7, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the staff-proposed curb and signage changes in the area around Primo Foods.

On June 20, 2023, the City Council unanimously approved the Planning Commission's recommendation to initiate these curb and signage changes.

The appeal comes before the Council for a final decision in the wake substantial actions taken by Primo Foods and city staff to address Mr. Gutierrez's concerns about parking in and around the market.

Response to MCUP Opposition
a) Primo Foods is a not a fast-food restaurant.

Primo Foods is a neighborhood market, not a fast-food restaurant. It offers meat, fish, produce, beverages, and other food items for purchase and take-home consumption. Like many markets, it also has a kitchen area where customers order sandwiches, burritos, tacos, and other made-to-order foods. There are no dining tables found in fast-food restaurants. There are no public restrooms for customers.

Food is for offered for purchase and off-site consumption.

San Clemente Municipal Code §17.88.030 defines a restaurant as "an establishment which prepares and sells foods and/or beverages for immediate consumption ... " ( emphasis added)
Subsection 3 of Section 17.88.030 further defines a fast-food restaurant as "an establishment that offers quick food service, which is accomplished through a limited menu of items already prepared ... " ( emphasis added) Primo Foods has no resemblance to a Taco Bell, Burger King, Jack-In-TheBox, or other fast-food restaurant. None of them offer meats, fish, produce, or the non-food items of a market. All of them have public restrooms. Customers are invited to sit down and eat at casual dining tables provided on-site. (Some of them also have children's play areas encouraging customers to take their time eating at the restaurant.)
2 44
Primo Foods is a market offering specially prepared items (e.g., ceviche, guacamole), made to order items ( e.g., tacos, sandwiches), and standardized prepackaged foods (e.g., potato chips in bags, honey in jars). Unlike a restaurant, there is no place to sit down and consume any food purchase. Customers are encouraged to consume their purchases at home or other off-site location.

Moreover, separate from its MCUP application, Primo Foods has been lawfully operating as a food market since late 2022. City staff has properly designated its operations as a "grocery/food store" permitted to operate at 2801 South El Camino Real under the City's zoning ordinance.

Accordingly, any suggestion that Primo Foods is a fast food operating illegally at its present location has no basis in fact or law. 1
b) A Council-initiated appeal of Zoning Administrator decision approving a minor conditional use permit is not a public nuisance hearing.

Opposition at the prior hearing suggested that the City Council deny Mr. Assi's MCUP application on the theory that illegal parking in the immediate vicinity of the Primo Foods constitutes a "public nuisance".

This argument flies in the face of relevant law. Nuisance law is designed to stop a lawful use from operating in such a way that it unreasonably interferes with ability of neighbors to comfortably enjoy their lives and properties. (See generally Civ. Code §3479)2
A nuisance action is brought by persons adversely impacted by a lawful use of property or by a governmental entity on their behalf if the annoyance or damage is to a community, neighborhood, or large number of people. (See Civ. Code §3480) The plaintiffs have the burden of proof that a nuisance, public or private, exists.

In the City of San Clemente, local ordinance includes as a "public nuisance" a "land use not in compliance with terms and/or conditions of any City of San Clemente issued permit or approval." (Mun. Code §8.52.030(Y)) City staff is authorized to commence a civil abatement proceeding to stop a public nuisance. 1 Any challenge to Primo Foods right to continue it market operations at its current location would require a hearing separate from the City Council's consideration of appeal of its application to add beer and wine sales for off-site consumption through a MCUP.
2 A classic example of a public nuisance is an airport which, though properly permitted for aircraft landings and take-offs, does so in a manner such that noise and fumes generated by lawful operations, unreasonably compromise the health and well-being of those living in its immediate vicinity. 3 45
The City has not commenced a public nuisance abatement against Primo Foods and there is no evidence which would support conducting such a proceeding.

Since February 7, Mr. Assi has demonstrated a serious commitment to resolve parking concerns at and around Primo Foods.

To date, he has done the following:
1) Had me meet with David Gutierrez to discuss approaches to resolving parking-related issues raised by him at the February 7 City Council hearing. 2) Installed sign.age in and around the market advising customers not to park in the alley behind the market;
3) Installed a video camera to monitor illegal parking in the rear alley; 4) Sent letters to market suppliers advising that their delivery trucks should not illegally park on El Camino Real or the rear alley; 5) Reached out to the owner of property across the alley from the market suggesting the erection of additional "no parking" signage in the alley; and 6) Cleaned up accumulations of trash overflowing trash receptacles at San Luis Rey Park after being alerted of this problem by city staff. 3 7) Urged City Public Works staff to make curb and signage changes to improve vehicle flow and deter illegal parking next to the market.

Although parking issues in and around Primo Foods should not be a litmus test in this MCUP appeal, Mr. Assi has acted responsibly to address all concerns about illegal parking in the immediate vicinity of the market and will continue to monitor these issues in the future.
c) This appeal is hearing is about whether Primo Foods, like other city markets, should be permitted to sell beer and wine for offsite consumption.

Mr. Assi has the right to operate as a food store at Primo's current location.

That right is not at issue in this appeal.

Rather, the Council has before it the narrower issue of the impact, if any, of permitting Primo Foods to add beer and wine sales for off-site consumption to its food and beverage offerings.

Primo Foods submits that the sale of limited beer/wine offerings will not have a negative impact on people living around the market. 3 Primo staff reports that most of this trash picked up at park was not from purchases at Primo Foods. 4 46
Customers come to Primo Foods for its unique offerings of fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, and specially prepared foods. The reason that people shop there will not change if beer and wine are offered for sale ancillary to its food offerings. The addition of alcoholic beverage sales is not intended to draw new customers to the market; rather, customers arriving to buy tacos, sandwiches, and other foods would be able to buy beer and wine without driving to another store.

Primo Foods is a small neighborhood market which focuses on the sale of meat, fish, and in-house prepared salads, tacos, burritos, ceviche, and other specialty food items. Its principal customer base in San Clemente is people living, working, or recreating in the vicinity of the market. As such, coming to the market on foot or by bicycle is primary and driving there in a motor vehicle is secondary. Few motorists will drive to Primo Foods for the limited purpose of purchasing beer or wine.

In this respect, Primo Foods San Clemente would be like Primo Vista and Primo Oceanside. Both northern San Diego County markets allow customers to make incidental purchases of beer and wine and then take them off-site. Neither market draws customers for its limited beer/wine selection. They are food markets and not liquor stores. People come for ceviche, not Coors! Accordingly, permitting beer/wine sales at Primo Foods.should NOT impact recent actions to improve parking surrounding the market. Out-ofneighborhood customers would have no reason to drive to Primo Foods to purchase name brand beer and wine because they could purchase these beverages much closer to where they live. Customers entering the market to purchase a specialty food item, however, could purchase a six pack of beer or bottle of wine in the same way that they now purchase a soft drink or iced tea.

As such, permitting beer and wine sales for off-site consumption should not impact the volume of motorists needing parking spaces close to Primo Foods.

Summary and Conclusion
Since the February 7 hearing, Primo Foods has taken new measures to address illegal customer and delivery truck parking around the market.

Primo Foods is not a fast-food restaurant and lawfully operates as a "grocery/food" store under the City's zoning ordinance.

An appeal hearing is not a public nuisance proceeding to determine whether Primo Foods has caused or contributed to neighborhood parking problems. 5 47
There is no reason to believe that the addition of beer and wine sale for offsite consumption will create new parking problems in and around the market. The MCUP will permit Primo to better service customers in the neighborhood who largely access the market on foot or by bicycle.

The curb and signage changes recommended approved by the City Council last month should help traffic flow in and around Primo Foods as well as deter illegal parking in the alley behind the market.

For these reasons, Primo Foods requests that the City Council support City staffs recommendation to approve Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) 22- 197 to permit the sale of beer and wine sale for off-site consumption.

If these sales are permitted at Primo, Mr. Assi's staff will diligently monitor them to ensure that customers do not drink on-site or immediately adjacent to the market. Such efforts have been successful in preventing alcohol consumption at Primo markets in northern San Diego County.

Cc: Sam Assi
6 48

EXHIBIT A
49 Law Office of Joseph L. Stine
2173 Salk Ave., Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.jstinelaw.com
April 14, 2023
Kiel Koger
Public Works Director
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
(760) 579-7694
fax: (760) 579-7695
j stine@j stinelaw .com
Re: South San Clemente Street and Alley Enhancements
In and Around Primo Foods San Clemente
Dear Mr. Koger:

I represent Primo Foods San Clemente ("Primo Foods") and its owner Sam Assi. Primo Foods is a small neighborhood market which sells tasty, popular made-to-order foods. Streets around the market have limited and, in certain areas, time restricted curbside parking convenient to market customers.

Primo Foods has applied for a minor conditional use permit (MCUP) to sell beer and wine for off-site consumption. This application is before the City Council on appeal after an administrative decision approving the MCUP. It will return to Council for further deliberations in response to parking-related concerns raised by outspoken citizen David Gutierrez. Mr. Assi is working diligently to respond to these concerns through signage alerting customers that parking is prohibited in the alley to the rear of the market and instructions to delivery trucks not to park in the alley or on El Camino Real in front of the market, I have met several times with City planning staff to discuss ways of curbing illegal parking in the area as well as enhancing curbside parking opportunities close the market.

In addition, I have met on-site with Mr. Gutierrez to brainstorm further ideas for preventing illegal parking burdensome to residents of the area.

In the wake of these meetings, I am writing to request that traffic engineers in your department study, evaluate, and recommend Council approval of the following changes at and in the vicinity of Primo Foods:
50 1) Provide additional curbside parking on El Camino Real by repainting green part of the red-painted curb in front and south of the market; 2) Paint green the curb on San Luis Rey adjacent to Primo Foods to alert drivers that curbside parking is time restricted; and
3) Paint a solid line on the east and west sides of the public alley to support the existing "no parking" signs alerting motorists not to park there.

Mr. Assi hopes that these recommended changes, along with operational changes he is making at the market, will substantially improve legal parking options for delivery truck drivers and customers of Primo Foods to dramatically reduce illegal parking burdensome to the neighborhood surrounding the market.

Please give this request your immediate attention and response.

Thank you.

Cc: Sam Assi
Laura Corey, Planning Dept.

David Gutierrez
2 AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
City Council Meeting
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Meeting Date: 7/18/2023 Agenda Item: 7E
Department: Public Works
Prepared By Kiel Koger, Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject:

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS (USACE) COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT IN SAN CLEMENTE; ADOPTING THE FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND

AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO A STATE LANDS LEASE
Summary:

Coastal erosion is a very significant problem in the City of San Clemente (City) that threatens the public beaches, coastal public access, existing structures, and critical public infrastructure. In July 2001, the City of San Clemente entered into a Federal Cost Share Agreement (FCSA) with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for purposes of collaborating on the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project (Project) Feasibility Study. The Project Feasibility Study was originally authorized under the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2000.

The City has been participating in Project development efforts with Federal and State agency partners for more than 20 years. The State of California, through the State Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways, has been a steadfast partner through the California Public Beach Restoration Act Program since 2000.

The Project is intended to reduce coastal storm damages to property and infrastructure along the study area shoreline for a period of 50-years; improve public safety in the study area by providing a wider sandy beach which serves as a natural wave buffer; and reduce coastal erosion and shoreline narrowing to improve public recreational opportunities for beach users within the City for the next 50 years.

The purpose of this item is to formally complete and conclude the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for the City in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency for the Project.

Specifically, the City Council is asked to conduct a public hearing and, following the public hearing, adopt the Resolution, that would:

1. Approve the Project in San Clemente;

2. Adopt the Final Feasibility Study and certify the joint Final Environmental Impact Statement / Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR) and Supplemental Environmental Assessment CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 1 of 8 Printed on 7/13/2023
powered by Legistar™ 1
Meeting Date: 7/18/2023 Agenda Item: 7E
(SEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI);

3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations;

4. Authorize the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and

5. Authorize entry into a lease with the State Lands Commission.

Taking these actions will enable the beach nourishment project to move forward commencing later this year.

Background:

The Project Feasibility Study was initiated in 2000 to: 1) identify problems and opportunities to reduce storm damages, improve public safety, increase recreation opportunities, and protect the environment; 2) formulate and evaluate an array of alternatives; and 3) identify the most technically feasible and economically beneficial “recommended plan” that addresses the problems while also complying with local, state, and Federal laws and regulations.

The Project study area encompassed the entirety of the City’s shoreline from San Mateo Point in the south at the southern boundary of the City to Dana Point Harbor in the north. The original study area was divided into ten reaches based on locations of development and the condition of the stone revetment that runs along various stretches of the existing railroad tracks. After analysis of each section, the USACE determined that Reach 6 (from Paseo de Cristobal to Linda Lane) had the greatest potential for an economically justified Federal project.

The USACE initially considered a broad range of alternatives, including:
• No Action Alternative (i.e., the Do-Nothing Alternative) • Managed Retreat
• Beach Nourishment
• Revetment
• Seawall
• Groins
• Visible Offshore Breakwater
• Submerged Reef
After reviewing the alternatives, beach nourishment emerged as the optimal alternative being both economically feasible and environmentally acceptable. All other alternatives were dropped from further consideration due to a variety of considerations including cost, potential environmental effects, or lack of local support. The USACE then further evaluated 12 beach width scenarios (from 33 to 115 feet) to assess the expected storm damage reduction benefits and costs associated with each beach width scenario.

USACE policy requires it to identify the National Economic Development (NED) plan which is the alternative that maximizes the potential economic benefits to the Nation. Of the 12 beach width scenarios, the 50-foot wide (i.e., 15-meter) beach fill alternative was identified as the NED plan. The USACE was also required to identify a Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) which is the alternative that has the fewest potential effects and still meets the Project purpose and objectives. Based on this, the USACE also identified the 50-foot beach width alternative as its Recommended Plan, which is the alternative that was forwarded for authorization and funding CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 2 of 8 Printed on 7/13/2023
powered by Legistar™ 2
Meeting Date: 7/18/2023 Agenda Item: 7E
as its Recommended Plan, which is the alternative that was forwarded for authorization and funding by Congress in 2012.

The Project will nourish an estimated length of 3,412 feet of shoreline at a 50-foot width. The beach compatible sand needed for the nourishment will be taken from a designated borrow site located offshore of the City of Oceanside that will be hauled to San Clemente and placed by hopper dredge on the beach. The southern limit of the proposed beach fill is located immediately south of the TStreet overpass and the northern limit immediately north of the City’s Marine Safety Headquarters. A taper would continue an additional 330 feet to the north and south to merge with the existing shoreline.

For the hopper method, sand is combined with seawater until it reaches the consistency of slurry. At the receiver beach, the dredge is attached to a moored floating section of pipeline extending approximately 1,500 feet to the shoreline. The material is re-suspended and discharged through its on-board pumping system to the receiver site. Existing sand at the receiver site can be used to build a berm to anchor the sand placement operations.

When slurry is pumped onto the beach, it is pumped between this berm and toe. This berm reduces ocean water turbidity by allowing all the sand to settle out inside the bermed area while the seawater is channeled just inside the long berm until it reaches the open end where it drains across the shore platform and into the ocean. Temporary dikes within this berm will direct the pumped sand for settlement in designated areas. Once a section of berm is filled in with sand, another berm is created, the pipeline is moved or extended into the new berm area, and the process begins again. As the material is deposited behind the berm, the sand is usually spread using two bulldozers and one frontend loader to direct the flow of the sand slurry and form a gradual slope to the existing beach elevation. The berms will be subject to the forces of the waves and weather once constructed and will eventually settle down to a natural grade for the beach.

Re-nourishment cycles would be performed approximately every 6 years thereafter over a 50-year project life (2023-2073). Sand placement would occur during off-season winter months and would require temporary closure of small sections of the beach (200-300 feet) during sand placement activities to ensure public safety.

At a March 15, 2011 San Clemente City Council hearing, the City expressed its support for the Project recommended by the USACE in the EIR/EIS. The recommendation was based in part on the support from the City’s Beaches, Parks & Recreation Commission and Coastal Advisory Committee.

This milestone set the stage for Feasibility Study and Project approval by the USACE.

The Project was heard by the USACE Civil Works Review Board (CWRB) in Washington DC at a public meeting on May 12, 2011. The Draft EIS/EIR was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and was made available to interested parties for public review and comment pursuant to regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) as well as the State Clearinghouse/Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for a 45-day public review period beginning on August 9, 2011 and ending on September 23, 2011. The Project was assigned a State Clearinghouse (SCH) Number (SCH # 2010084002). Responses to the comments are included in the Final EIR/EIS.

The Project received agency approval from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in November 2011 and a federal Consistency Determination (CD-029-11) was issued for the Project. The USACE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 3 of 8 Printed on 7/13/2023
powered by Legistar™ 3
Meeting Date: 7/18/2023 Agenda Item: 7E
2011 and a federal Consistency Determination (CD-029-11) was issued for the Project. The USACE has designed the Project to be resilient to future sea level rise (SLR) over its 50-year life under various scenarios consistent with the 2018 CCC Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance document which recognizes beach nourishment is a preferred SLR adaptation strategy for developed coastlines.

The USACE Chiefs Report approving the Project was issued on April 15, 2012 and the final NEPA action of publishing the Record of Decision (ROD) occurred on September 6, 2012. These approvals signaled the formal conclusion of the Project’s NEPA process and the “Feasibility Phase” which enabled the Project to progress to the “Pre-Construction Engineering and Design” (PED) phase beginning in June 2018. The Project’s PED Phase concluded in 2020 following the collection of preconstruction baseline data.

During the PED phase for the Project, all required pre-construction monitoring tasks were completed for the purpose of establishing baseline conditions to support Project implementation and postconstruction monitoring.

The Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 2003-0017-DWQ for the Project on November 3, 2022 and filed a CEQA Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse as a CEQA Responsible Agency in November 2022.

The final agency approval for the project is issuance of a land lease for the area offshore of the City below the mean high tide line. The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has scheduled the City’s land lease application for the August 17, 2023 meeting. Obtaining this final approval enables the Project to move to contracting by the USACE and a planned construction start later in 2023.

The action before City Council formally complete and conclude the CEQA process for the City as the CEQA Lead Agency by approving the Project, certifying all the Project environmental documents, and adopting the MMRP and Findings of Fact Statement of Overriding Considerations. This would result in filing a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk following adoption of the Resolution, thus formally concluding the CEQA process for the Project.

The proposed Resolution also authorizes the City Manager to enter into a project lease with the State Lands Commission enabling the lease to be approved by the California State Lands Commission meeting on August 17, 2023. This is the final agency approval needed for the Project and will support the project contracting by the USACE and planned construction start of the Project later this year.

Council Options:
· Adopt Resolution 23-74, approving the Project; certifying all the environmental Project documents; adopting the MMRP and Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; authorizing the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk and thus formally concluding the CEQA process for the Project; and authorizing entry into a state lands lease for the Project.
· Modify and adopt Resolution 23-74.
· Continue the Item and direct staff to provide additional information. Note: Any continuance of this Item will not allow the CSLC enough time to review and approve the land lease application CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 4 of 8 Printed on 7/13/2023
powered by Legistar™ 4
Meeting Date: 7/18/2023 Agenda Item: 7E
this Item will not allow the CSLC enough time to review and approve the land lease application at their August 17, 2023 meeting and would place the Project in jeopardy or, at minimum, delay the Project for at least a year due to the timing of the projects in the Cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach.
· Do not adopt the Resolution and provide alternative direction.

Fiscal Impact:

None at this time. The City has already contributed all required local match funds and passed through the construction grant funding from State Parks to the USACE in support of the Project.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

This Project is subject to both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The USACE is the Lead Agency for NEPA and the City of San Clemente is the CEQA Lead Agency for the Project.

As discussed in the joint FEIS/FEIR, SEA/FONSI, MMRP, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, all potentially significant impacts of the Project can be avoided or reduced to a level below significance by the implementation of mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval as required by the regulatory agencies including the CCC, RWQCB, NOAA/NMFS and USFWS in their project respective conditions of approval with the exception of potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to surfgrass located on rocky vegetated reefs offshore of the City.

Potentially cumulatively considerable impacts of the project may occur to short term air quality and recreation impacts.

Public notice of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) was posted on the USACE, Los Angeles District on September 30, 2022. The SEA addressed the Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation with NOAA/NMFS on issues related to the potential for green sea turtle effects. The SEA also documented that a Clean Water Act Section 401 water permit from the RWQCB has been obtained for the Project in 2022. Continued consultation under Section 106 with the State Historic Preservation Office was addressed regarding the San Clemente municipal pier which was constructed in 1928. The Project will have no impact on the City’s Municipal Pier. Lastly, the SEA noted a reduction in the dimensions of the borrow site (located on City of Oceanside Granted Tidelands) by narrowing the borrow area and creating a 300-foot offset to the CDFW Oceanside Artificial Reef.

The USACE publicly circulated the SEA and issued a Public Notice on September 30, 2022. The USACE published a notice that the Final SEA and FONSI were available for review to the mailing list recipients included in Attachment A to the SEA/FONSI. The Final SEA/FONSI was published on the USACE LA District website on June 29, 2023 and sent to the State Clearinghouse for publication.

The USACE has received no requests for additional information and no comments were received on the SEA/FONSI.

As the City and the USACE have been in a “Project Partnership Agreement” for more than 20 years for this Project, preparing supplemental documentation for green sea turtles is unwarranted as the process completed by the USACE covers the entirely of the Project for both NEPA and CEQA purposes. The regulatory agencies with jurisdiction for green sea turtles (namely NOAA/NMFS) have already weighed in and issued an incidental take permit for the Project and have signed off on the CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 5 of 8 Printed on 7/13/2023
powered by Legistar™ 5
Meeting Date: 7/18/2023 Agenda Item: 7E
already weighed in and issued an incidental take permit for the Project and have signed off on the adequacy of the environmental documentation prepared to date and provided the measures that are contained within the MMRP to ensure avoidance of impacts to green sea turtles. There are no new significant impacts and previous impact conclusions have remained unchanged from 2011 and the City will rely on the already completed NEPA process for the SEA/FONSI for the green sea turtles pursuant to CEQA §15222, §15223, §15225 and §15226.

The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures are fully described in the FEIS/FEIR and SEA/FONSI. All mitigation measures, project design features and best management practices (BMP’s) also are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that that is included as Attachment 11.

Copies of the Final Feasibility Study, FEIS/FEIR, SEA/FONSI, MMRP, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and other documents and materials that constitute the administrative record of proceedings upon which staff is recommending this decision be based have been available for public review from the custodian of these records, the Department of Public Works at City Hall.

The City Council must independently review, analyze and consider the Final Feasibility Study, FEIS/FEIR, SEA/FONSI, MMRP, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and other documents and materials that constitute the administrative record of proceedings and all public comments, written and oral, received before making a decision.

The City Council is being asked to certify the Final EIS/EIR included as Attachments 2 and 3, incorporating the mitigation measures attached as Attachment 11. The Council is also asked to considering the Final EIS/EIR and in conjunction with making its findings pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines, that approval of the Project has the potential to result in significant effects on the environment; however, the City eliminated or substantially lessened these significant effects where feasible, and can determine that the remaining potentially significant effects are found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 and acceptable under Section 15093.

Attachment 13 (Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations) and Attachment 11 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) provide findings required under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for potentially significant effects of the Project for Council to consider. Attachment 13 (Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations) also provides the findings required under Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines relating to accepting the adverse impact of the Project due to overriding considerations.

The Council is being asked to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against the unavoidable environmental risks that may result and find that the specific economic legal social technological and other benefits outweigh the potential for unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 6 of 8 Printed on 7/13/2023
powered by Legistar™ 6
Meeting Date: 7/18/2023 Agenda Item: 7E
Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT the City Council:

1. Conduct the public hearing: Open the Public Hearing; report any disclosures; receive staff and public comment; close the Public Hearing.

After the public hearing, adopt Resolution No. 23-74, which would:

2. Approve the Project and implement public beach restoration activities placing 251,000 cubic yards of sand on the City’s beaches in 2023/2024 with future beach sand replenishment events over the next 50 years (through 2073/2074);

3. Adopt the Final Feasibility Study and certify the FEIS/FEIR and SEA/FONSI;

4. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;

5. Adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations;

6. Authorize staff to file the CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and

7. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a State Lands Lease with the California State Lands Commission in support of the Project.

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 23-74
Final Feasibility Study & FEIS/FEIR for the USACE Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project

2. San Clemente Final EIS-EIR Vol 1 July 2011

3. San Clemente Final EIS-EIR Vol 2 July 2011
NEPA Supplemental Environmental Assessment & FONSI (Attachments 4-10)

4. San Clemente SEA and FONSI

5. Supplemental Environmental Assessment

6. Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification

7. California Coastal Commission Revised Staff Commendation

8. Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response

9. Department Of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation Letter

10.EJScreen Report (Version 2.11)

11.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

12.USACE Record of Decision

13.Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

14.State Lands Lease
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 7 of 8 Printed on 7/13/2023
powered by Legistar™ 7
Meeting Date: 7/18/2023 Agenda Item: 7E
Notification:

Public Hearing Notice
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Page 8 of 8 Printed on 7/13/2023
powered by Legistar™ 8
ATTACHMENT 1
4890-6752-0111 v4
RESOLUTION NO. 23-74

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING USACE

COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT IN
SAN CLEMENTE; ADOPTING THE FINAL FEASIBILITY

STUDY AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIS/EIR AND
SEA/FONSI; ADOPTING THE MMRP, FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS;

AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
DETERMINATION TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT; AND

AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO A STATE LANDS LEASE
WHEREAS, Coastal erosion is a very significant problem in the City of San Clemente that threatens the public beaches and coastal public access, key public facilities, existing structures, and critical public infrastructure; and WHEREAS, in 2001, the City of San Clemente entered into a Federal Cost Share Agreement (FCSA) with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for purposes of collaborating on the San Clemente Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Feasibility Study Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, the Project was originally authorized under the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2000 and the City has been participating in Project development efforts with Federal and State agency partners for more than 20 years; and WHEREAS, the State of California, through the State Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways, has been a steadfast State partner through the California Public Beach Restoration Act Program; and
WHEREAS, the Project is intended to reduce coastal storm damage to property and infrastructure along the study area shoreline for a period of 50 years; improve public safety in the study area by providing a wider sandy beach which will serve as a natural wave buffer; and reduce coastal erosion and shoreline narrowing to improve public recreational opportunities for beach users within the City for the next 50 years; and WHEREAS, the Project includes construction of a 50-foot-wide beach fill along a 3,412-foot-long stretch of shoreline. The Project would place an initial 251,000 cubic yards of compatible sediment on the beach. Over the 50-year life of the Project, renourishment would occur every 6 years; and
WHEREAS, material for the beach fill will be dredged from a borrow site located within the Oceanside Littoral cell located off the coast south of the Project site; and WHEREAS, the Project is anticipated to be the first entirely new USACE supported public beach restoration project in California in more than four decades and would provide 9 Resolution No. 23-74 Page 2
4890-6752-0111 v4
local coastal storm damage reduction benefits and local, regional, state and federal economic benefits; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been designed to be resilient to future sea level rise over its 50 year life using various sea level rise scenarios and is consistent with the California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance document which recognizes beach nourishment as preferred sea level rise adaptation strategy for developed coastlines; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIS/EIR was issued in 2011 and recommended the “National Economic Development” (NED) plan; and
WHEREAS, at a March 15, 2011 San Clemente City Council hearing, the City expressed its support for the Project recommended by the USACE in the Feasibility Study and evaluated in the EIR/EIS and this milestone set the stage for Project approval by the USACE; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with Federal, Statewide, regional and local shoreline management goals which recognize the importance of public beach restoration along the South Orange County shoreline as the preferred method of addressing the critical coastal erosion problems caused by a lack of sediment supply; and WHEREAS, in the absence of the Project, continued hard shoreline protection is expected to occur; and
WHEREAS, with implementation of the Project, the City, State and USACE will be providing a viable nature based, green, soft solution as a means of advancing natural infrastructure protection; and
WHEREAS, the Project Feasibility Study identifying the recommended Project for San Clemente was approved by the USACE Civil Works Review Board CWRB on May 12, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIS/EIR was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and was made available to interested parties for review and comment pursuant to regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) as well as the State Clearinghouse/Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for a 45-day public review period beginning on August 9, 2011 and ending on September 23, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Project was assigned State Clearinghouse Number 2010084002 and responses to the public comments are included in the Final EIR/EIS; and WHEREAS, the Final EIS/EIR determined that all but two of the potential significant impacts of the Project can be avoided or reduced to a level below significance by the implementation of feasible mitigation measures as outlined in the Mitigation 10 Resolution No. 23-74 Page 3
4890-6752-0111 v4
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and
WHEREAS, in November 2011, the City and the USACE received approval from the CCC when they issued their Consistency Determination (CD-029-11) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the USACE Chiefs Report approving the Feasibility Study Project was issued on April 15, 2012 and the final NEPA action of publishing the Record of Decision (ROD) occurred on September 6, 2012; and
WHEREAS, these approvals signaled the formal conclusion of the Project’s “Feasibility Phase” which enabled the Project to progress to the “Pre-Construction Engineering and Design” (PED) phase beginning in June 2018. The Project’s PED Phase concluded in 2020 following the collection of pre-construction baseline data; and WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 2003-0017-DWQ for the Project on November 3, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the USACE prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (SEA/FONSI) in 2023 to address green sea turtles; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Final Feasibility Study, FEIS/FEIR, SEA/FONSI, MMRP, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and other documents and materials that constitute the administrative record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are and have been available for public review from the custodian of these records, the Department of Public Works at City Hall, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Clemente has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Final EIS/EIR, SEA/FONSI, MMRP and other documents and materials that constitute the administrative record of proceedings and all public comments, written and oral, received before making this decision; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and heard and considered information presented by staff and the public.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente, California, does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct and incorporated herein.

2. That the USACE prepared a Feasibility Study identifying the USACE recommended Project in San Clemente.

3. That the Final EIS/EIR and SEA/FONSI were prepared to evaluate 11 Resolution No. 23-74 Page 4
4890-6752-0111 v4
the potential effects of implementation of the Project, as identified in the USACE Project Feasibility Study, and reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s local CEQA procedures.

4. That substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the decisions in this resolution.

5. That the Final EIS/EIR constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete EIS/EIR in compliance with all legal standards.

6. That the information and analysis contained in the Final EIS/EIR and SEA/FONSI reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental consequences of the Project

7. That the City Council of the City of San Clemente hereby adopts the Final Feasibility Study attached as Exhibit A and certifies the Final EIS/EIR attached as Exhibit B, incorporating the mitigation measures attached as Exhibit C and directs the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk;

8. That of the City of San Clemente hereby certifies the SEA/FONSI attached as Exhibit D.

9. That after considering the Final EIS/EIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City Council hereby finds that pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines, approval of the Project will result in significant effects on the environment; however, the City eliminated of substantially lessened these significant effects where feasible, and has determined that the remaining significant effects are found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 and acceptable under Section 15093.

10. That Exhibit E (Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations) and Exhibit C (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) of this Resolution provide findings required under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant effects of the Project.

11. That Exhibit C of this Resolution provides the findings required under Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines relating to accepting adverse impact of the Plan due to overriding considerations. The City has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Plan against the unavoidable environmental risks that may result, and finds that the specific economic legal social technological and other benefits outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse environmental effects, The City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit D.

12. That, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit C to this Resolution and requires the Project to comply with all of the mitigation measures contained therein. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable on the Project and shall be binding upon the City and affected parties.

13. That the City Council approves the USACE Project in San Clemente.

14. That the City Manager, or his designee, is authorized and directed to enter into a State Lands Lease for the Project with the California State Lands Commission in a form substantially similar to that attached to this Resolution as 12 Resolution No. 23-74 Page 5
4890-6752-0111 v4
Exhibit F or with such changes as are necessary to implement the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

15. That City staff is authorized and directed to take such actions as are necessary or proper to fulfill the purpose and intent of this Resolution and/or proceed with the Project.

16. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 2023.

ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Mayor of the City of San
San Clemente, California Clemente, California

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 23-74 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, _________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorne
13 FINAL

JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Volume I

SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
San Clemente, CA
Prepared for:

Los Angeles District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Resources Branch
915 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90017
Prepared by:

CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750
Santa Ana, CA 92707
(949) 261-5414
in Association with
Noble Consultants, Inc.

July 2011
ATTACHMENT 2
14 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ES - 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR) has been prepared for the Los Angeles District of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the City of San Clemente (Local non-Federal sponsor) to analyze potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and alternatives for providing shoreline protection to approximately 3,412 feet ([ft], 1,040 meters [m]) of the San Clemente shoreline from coastal storms.

The USACE is the Federal lead agency responsible for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4331 (1996)), and the City of San Clemente (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21,000 et seq.), as amended. This Final EIS/EIR has been prepared at the project-level of detail and complies with the requirements of both NEPA and CEQA.

PROJECT AREA
The City of San Clemente is located along the coast of southern California about 60 miles (100 kilometers) south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County near the border of San Diego County. The study area is encompassed within the City of San Clemente and extends approximately 3,412 ft (1,040 m) from Linda Lane to T-Street and is located within the San Clemente 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle in Section 4 of Township 9 South and Range 7 West.

OVERVIEW
Beach erosion is an ongoing problem along the San Clemente shoreline. Over the past 20 years, average beach widths in the City’s beaches have been gradually reduced to about 50 ft (15 m), a reduction of more than 50 percent compared to beach measurements from 1958 and 1981. San Clemente beaches were especially impacted by the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) storms of 1983 and 1998. Bottom elevation surveys conducted since 1981 along the San Clemente Municipal Pier (Pier) indicate that the cross-shore is deepened with a maximum fluctuation of about 15 ft (4.6 m) at various locations. Changes to the beach shoreline caused by erosion have reduced recreational opportunities and are threatening the stability of City facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor.

Running along the entire length of the San Clemente shoreline, a portion of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) railroad corridor, a major passenger rail line linking the coastal cities of southern California, including Los Angeles and San Diego, runs between the beach and the coastal bluffs through San Clemente and is owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). This nationally strategic rail corridor is among the busiest in the country.

Riprap along the seaward side of the rail corridor provides some protection to the tracks. This corridor is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). Loss of shore protection and recreational beach width threatens the railroad and is a continuous problem for the City of San Clemente.
15 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ES - 2
The purpose of the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project (Project) is to provide shore protection through nourishment of the beach at the Pier. Developing and maintaining the beach is needed to prevent the severe beach erosion that results from winter storms and to prevent damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the City. In addition to the above, the loss of sand at the beach would have an impact on beach recreation, which contributes to the local economy, and would reduce the ecological functioning of the sand beach/littoral zone.

The San Clemente Shoreline Reconnaissance Study, a Section 905(b) Analysis of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 86), was prepared as an initial response to the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2000, Public Law 106-60, 29 September 1999, which reads as follows:
“The Committee recommendation includes funds for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance study investigating shoreline protection alternatives for San Clemente, California.”

PROPOSED PROJECT
Two scales of the Beach Fill Alternative were analyzed; both consist of dredging material from offshore Oceanside, then hauling and placing it at San Clemente Beach. The proposed Project is a 50 foot (15 m) resultant beach width. Beach fill would be 3,412 ft (1,040 m) long with a +17 ft (+5.2 m) crest elevation. The dredge volume is estimated to be approximately 251,000 cubic yards (192,000 m3
). Dredge material gradation is 6 to 12 percent of fines, 5 to 8 percent of gravel/cobbles, and the rest is sand. Material classification assumed is 10 percent fines, 83 percent sand and 7 percent gravel. Maintenance nourishment efforts will occur when the shoreline reaches the 0 ft base beach width (i.e., approximately 35 ft [11 m]) over the project life of 50 years. Maintenance nourishment efforts would return the beach to the design beach width 50 ft (15 m) and would involve up to approximately 251,000 cy (192,000 m3 ) of material.

Construction for initial fill is anticipated to begin in 2012.

Construction Method
The proposed Project will be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. Typical Los Angeles District beach fill projects require large capacity open-ocean capable dredges. A medium-sized hopper dredge (e.g., Sugar Island) would be used. The hopper dredge effective capacity is estimated at 1,700 cy (1,300 m3
) and 3.2 loads per day. The hopper dredge would pump out the dredge material via a 24-inch pipe line at 1,800 cy/hr (1,376 m3
/hr). The hopper dredge will be filled at the designated borrow site approximately one mile offshore of Oceanside and hauled approximately 21 miles (35 km) to San Clemente. At the receiver beach, the dredge will be attached to a moored floating section of pipeline extending 1,500 ft (457 m) to the shoreline. The material would be resuspended and discharged through the on-board pumping system to the receiver site.

The hopper dredge requires a mono buoy to discharge its sand onto the beach. A mono buoy is a floating pipeline connection platform that is moored to the seafloor, and is used to interconnect 16 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ES - 3
with a steel sinker pipeline that carries the slurry along the seafloor to the beach. For this Project, the mono buoy would be anchored in at least 25 ft (7.6 m) of water, between 2,500 and 5,000 ft (762 to 1,524 m) from shore and in the appropriate location in relation to sensitive resources and engineering considerations. From one mono buoy location, sand can be pumped directly onshore and up to approximately 2,000 ft (610 m) alongshore in either direction.

Dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. The proposed Project duration is estimated at 46 working days over the course of 4 months.

Onshore Placement Method
Sand would be combined with seawater until it reaches the consistency of slurry. It then would be conveyed to the beach either via pipeline or a combination of hopper dredge and pipeline, as described above.

Existing sand at the receiver site would be used to build a small, “L”-shaped berm to anchor the sand placement operations. The short side of the “L” would be transverse (crosswise) to the shoreline and would be approximately 50 ft (15 m) long. The long side would be shore parallel at the seaward edge and would be approximately 200 ft (61 m) long. Berm construction may be adjusted from the design requirements during fill placement depending on actual field conditions. The crosswise side of the berm would be constructed to allow alongshore landward beach access for emergency access at all times.

The slurry would be pumped onto the beach between this berm and toe. The berm reduces ocean water turbidity by allowing all the sand to settle inside the bermed area while the seawater is channeled along the berm until it reaches the open end where it drains into the ocean.

Temporary dikes within the berm will allow sand to settle in designated areas. Once a 200 ft (61 m) section of berm is filled in with sand, another 200 ft (61 m) of berm will be created, the pipeline will be moved or extended on the dry beach only into the new berm area, and the process would begin again; the pipeline along the seafloor would not be moved. As the material is deposited behind the berm, the sand would be spread using two bulldozers and one front-end loader to direct the flow of the sand slurry and form a gradual slope to the existing beach elevation. The berm would be subject to the forces of the waves and weather once constructed and will eventually settle down to a natural grade for the beach.

Construction Access and Staging Areas
Beach access for the construction equipment and crew will be split between open space on the beach and a City-owned public parking lot. An open area exists along the beach immediately adjacent and north of the Pier and in the immediate vicinity of the Marine Safety Headquarters.

It is expected this site will be used for the contractors’ office trailer, parking area for heavy earthmoving equipment, and storage area for dredge pipe and other miscellaneous materials.

This site is used extensively for access to the Marine Safety Headquarters and other municipal operations. It poses no new environmental considerations, minimizes disturbance to the environment, and is ideally located for contractor ease of operations. Although access to this 17 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ES - 4
area is controlled by a signal controlled, at-grade railroad crossing, it is anticipated that there will be no significant restrictions on utilization of this portion of the contractors work and storage area.

The contractors’ dredge and vessels will require off-site mooring and berthing space. There is no mooring area available within the City of San Clemente. The nearest suitable mooring area is Dana Point Harbor, a small craft harbor approximately 5 mi (8 km) north.

Public Access
For the beach fill operation, up to 300 ft (91 m) of beach would be inaccessible to the public around the discharge pipeline and berms. In addition, there would be intermittent restrictions on public access for approximately 350 ft (107 m) on either side of this discharge zone. This space would be needed for maneuvering heavy equipment during construction of the temporary berms.

Future Project Beach Profile Monitoring
Long-term shoreline erosional processes create damages through long-term profile translation landward and the increasing potential for wave related damages. The landward advancing shoreline reduces the beach width available for storm damage protection, thereby increasing the probability of wave related damages to facilities and structures. Long-term beach erosion also results in the gradual reduction of the beach surface area available for recreation. The peak erosion rate is –0.7 ft/yr (–0.21 m/yr), the maximum erosion rate is -1.5 ft/yr (–0.46 m/yr), and the maximum accretion rate is +1.24 ft/yr (+0.38 m/yr).

The purpose of this monitoring is to allow the timing and the detailed design of the periodic nourishment to be optimized. Surveying of the beach and seabed morphology is paramount to the monitoring efforts. Changes in beach and seabed morphology will define the sediment transport patterns at the shoreline and ultimately the short-term and long-term beach erosion processes. Alongshore transects will be crucial to determine the effects, if any, the proposed Project has on updrift and/or downdrift shorelines. The monitoring period will be for the 50-year period of Federal involvement. However, not all aspects of the monitoring plan will be conducted each year.

Maintenance nourishment efforts will occur when the shoreline reaches the 0 ft base beach width (i.e., approximately 35 ft [11 m]). Maintenance nourishment efforts would return the beach to the design beach width 50 ft (15 m) and would involve up to approximately 251,000 cy (192,000 m3
) of material. Maintenance nourishment efforts also would be dependent upon available funding at the time of request.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Issues that were found not to be significant for the proposed Project included land use and policy. Issues that were found to be less than significant without the need for mitigation measures were geology and topography, noise, transportation, aesthetics, and public health and safety. The construction and long-term maintenance of the proposed Project would not have a 18 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ES - 5
significant effect on these elements, and the analyses of these issues are detailed in the environmental consequences section.

Although significant impacts to biological resources (i.e., surfgrass) and recreation (i.e., surfing) are not likely to occur due to the footprint and temporary nature of the Project, mitigation measures will be implemented if monitoring demonstrates impacts are significant. If a substantial amount of surfgrass were lost, impacts may not be mitigable to not significant. If adverse impacts to surfgrass beyond those anticipated for the species to recover are observed from the monitoring, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, additional renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass has recovered or a mitigation measure is accepted. A consistently successful method to transplant surfgrass has not yet been devised, although recent experiments may provide new options. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been prepared to address potential mitigation, if necessary. Likewise, if surfing is demonstrated to be significantly impacted, mitigation measures will be implemented; however, creation of an artificial surfing reef has not yet been successful off the coast of California.

Environmental Justice
The construction and long-term maintenance of the proposed Project would not be expected to have any negative effect on minority or low-income populations. In addition, the expansion of the beach width would be a public improvement that would benefit residences and businesses alike.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
The proposed Project would result in the placement of approximately 251,000 cy of dredged beach-compatible fill material along a 3,412 ft long and 50 ft wide beach adjacent to the San Clemente Pier. The Project would nourish the eroded existing beach, which would provide recreational opportunities not only for residents, but also contribute to the regional tourist industry. The proposed action would result in the consumptive use of nonrenewable energy sources and labor required to operate dredges, trucks, pumping equipment, and grading equipment. These commitments of resources could have otherwise been applied to projects other than the proposed action. However, the proposed Project would not result in the use of a substantial amount of resources. Additionally, no natural resources would be permanently destroyed, and beach replenishment would be considered beneficial to the region.

Growth Inducing Impacts
A benefit of the proposed Project would be the enhancement or continuation of the recreational usage of the beach at San Clemente Pier. Protection of the beach shoreline provides an amenity for local residents and tourists. The resulting recreational benefits derived from the additional beach area would not be expected to increase the demand for public services and utilities, nor create a need for additional recreational facilities above current projections. Fewer than 100 workers would be involved in construction of the proposed Project, and they would be expected 19 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ES - 6
to primarily be drawn by the local work force. The San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project would not involve any new development or add any people to the local population. The proposed Project would have no growth-inducing impacts.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives and Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would implement several mitigation measures that would reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The energy requirements for the proposed construction activity would be confined to fuel for the dredge, labor transportation, and other construction equipment. Examples of mitigation measures include use of a diesel oxidation catalytic converter for the dredge and the use of newer, lower-emitting trucks to transport construction workers as well as equipment and material to and from construction sites, such as the use of “low-sulfur diesel for construction equipment and diesel particulate filters for diesel equipment and trucks”. The use of alternative clean fuel, such as electric or compressed natural gas-powered construction equipment with oxidation catalysts instead of gasoline- or dieselpowered engines, is also recommended. However, where diesel equipment must be used because there are no practical alternatives, it is recommended that the construction contractors use lowsulfur diesel. In addition, the proposed Project does not involve the trucking of materials, which would decrease the use of trucking equipment typically associated with a beach nourishment project. The minimal use of pieces of construction equipment and implementation of the mitigation measures recommended would allow impacts to energy to be less than significant.

Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any environmental impacts that would significantly narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks to health, safety, or the general welfare of the public communities surrounding the beach at San Clemente Pier. Rather, the Project would provide for future beneficial beach resources (e.g., recreational activities, sandy shoreline habitat).

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
This Final Joint EIS/EIR will be circulated for a public review period of 45 days to appropriate resource agencies, local interest groups, and individuals. All comments and concerns that are received during the review period shall be incorporated into the final EIS/EIR.

Send Comments to:

Mr. Thomas Keeney, Ecologist/Biological Sciences Manager 915 Wilshire Boulevard, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone (213) 452-3875
20 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1

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

1.1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Project Background ........................................................................................................ 1-4

1.3 Document Organization .................................................................................................. 1-4

2.0 NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED ACTION .............................................. 2-6

2.1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 2-6

2.1.1 Storm Damages ........................................................................................................ 2-6

2.1.2 Threat to the Railroad Corridor ................................................................................ 2-7

2.1.3 Public Safety and Liability....................................................................................... 2-7

2.1.4 Recreation Opportunity ............................................................................................ 2-7

2.2 Project Objective ............................................................................................................ 2-8

2.3 Study Authority .............................................................................................................. 2-8

2.4 Compliance with Applicable Regulatory Statutes and Permit Requirements ................ 2-9

2.4.1 Federal Environmental Regulations ......................................................................... 2-9

2.4.2 State Environmental Regulations ........................................................................... 2-13

2.4.3 Local Environmental Regulations .......................................................................... 2-15

3.0 ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Plan Formulation of Alternatives ................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Screening-level Comparison .................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Measures Eliminated from Further Study ...................................................................... 3-7

3.3 Measures Carried Forward ............................................................................................. 3-7

3.4 Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................. 3-8

3.4.1 No Action ................................................................................................................. 3-8

3.4.2 Beach Fill Alternative .............................................................................................. 3-8

3.5 Comparative Impacts Criteria of Alternative Plans ...................................................... 3-17

3.6 Recommended Plan Alternative ................................................................................... 3-18

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Meteorology and Air Quality ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Climate/Meteorology ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Ambient Air Quality ................................................................................................ 4-2

4.1.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................ 4-5

4.2 Geology and Topography ............................................................................................. 4-11

4.2.1 Offshore ................................................................................................................. 4-11

4.2.2 Onshore .................................................................................................................. 4-12

4.2.3 Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................... 4-13

4.3 Water Quality, Sediments, and Oceanography ............................................................. 4-14

4.3.1 Water Column Physical and Chemical Characteristics ......................................... 4-17

4.3.2 Bacterial Characteristics ........................................................................................ 4-18 21 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ii

4.3.3 Sediments ............................................................................................................... 4-19

4.3.4 Oceanographic Characteristics and Coastal Processes .......................................... 4-25

4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 4-41

4.4.1 Terrestrial Shoreline Habitat .................................................................................. 4-41

4.4.2 Marine Shoreline and Offshore Habitats ............................................................... 4-41

4.4.3 Special Status Listed Species ................................................................................. 4-51

4.4.4 Conservation/Habitat Management Plan ............................................................... 4-57

4.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 4-57

4.5.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................. 4-57

4.5.2 Area of Potential Effects (APE) ............................................................................. 4-59

4.5.3 Cultural Context ..................................................................................................... 4-60

4.5.4 Records and Literature Search Results .................................................................. 4-63

4.5.5 Pedestrian Survey Results ...................................................................................... 4-65

4.5.6 Native American Consultation ............................................................................... 4-66

4.5.7 Section 106 Consultation and Coordination .......................................................... 4-66

4.6 Ground and Vessel Transportation ............................................................................... 4-66

4.6.1 Ground Transportation ........................................................................................... 4-66

4.6.2 Vessel Transportation ............................................................................................ 4-67

4.7 Land Use and Policy ..................................................................................................... 4-67

4.7.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 4-67

4.7.2 Policy ..................................................................................................................... 4-68

4.8 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 4-80

4.8.1 Noise Terminology ................................................................................................ 4-80

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................. 4-82

4.9 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 4-82

4.9.1 Beaches .................................................................................................................. 4-82

4.9.2 Annual Events ........................................................................................................ 4-84

4.9.3 Beaches, Parks and Recreation Department .......................................................... 4-84

4.10 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................. 4-84

4.11 Public Health and Safety ........................................................................................... 4-85

4.12 Socioeconomics/Environmental Justice .................................................................... 4-85

4.12.1 Local Socioeconomic Conditions ....................................................................... 4-85

4.12.2 Onsite Socioeconomic Conditions...................................................................... 4-86

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED ACTION AND
ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Air Quality and Meteorology ......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative ................................ 5-3

5.1.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................ 5-12

5.1.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative .................................................................... 5-17

5.2 Geology and Topography ............................................................................................. 5-17

5.2.1 Significance Criteria .............................................................................................. 5-17

5.2.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative .............................. 5-17

5.2.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................ 5-21

5.2.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative ....................................................... 5-22 22 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
iii

5.3 Water Resources (Water Quality, Sediments, and Oceanography) .............................. 5-24

5.3.1 Significance Criteria .............................................................................................. 5-24

5.3.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative .............................. 5-24

5.3.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................ 5-32

5.3.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative ....................................................... 5-35

5.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 5-35

5.4.1 Significance Criteria .............................................................................................. 5-35

5.4.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative .............................. 5-36

5.4.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................ 5-46

5.4.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative ....................................................... 5-49

5.4.5 Summary of Biological Resources Effects and Issues ........................................... 5-50

5.4.6 Upfront mitigation, endowments, third party agreements and implementation .... 5-62

5.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 5-63

5.5.1 Significance Criteria .............................................................................................. 5-63

5.5.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative .............................. 5-64

5.5.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................ 5-64

5.5.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative ....................................................... 5-65

5.6 Ground and Vessel Transportation ............................................................................... 5-65

5.6.1 Significance Criteria .............................................................................................. 5-65

5.6.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative .............................. 5-66

5.6.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................ 5-68

5.6.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative ....................................................... 5-71

5.7 Land Use and Policy ..................................................................................................... 5-71

5.7.1 Significance Criteria .............................................................................................. 5-71

5.7.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative .............................. 5-71

5.7.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................ 5-72

5.7.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative ....................................................... 5-73

5.8 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 5-73

5.8.1 Significance Criteria .............................................................................................. 5-73

5.8.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative .............................. 5-74

5.8.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................ 5-78

5.8.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative ....................................................... 5-81

5.9 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 5-82

5.9.1 Significance Criteria .............................................................................................. 5-82

5.9.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative .............................. 5-82

5.9.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................ 5-85

5.9.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative ....................................................... 5-87

5.10 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................. 5-87

5.10.1 Significance Criteria ........................................................................................... 5-87

5.10.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative ........................... 5-87

5.10.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ......................... 5-89

5.10.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative.................................................... 5-90

5.11 Public Health and Safety ........................................................................................... 5-91

5.11.1 Significance Criteria ........................................................................................... 5-91

5.11.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative ........................... 5-91

5.11.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ......................... 5-92 23 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
iv

5.11.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative.................................................... 5-92

5.12 Socioeconomics/Environmental Justice .................................................................... 5-93

5.12.1 Significance Criteria ........................................................................................... 5-93

5.12.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative ........................... 5-93

5.12.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ......................... 5-94

5.12.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative.................................................... 5-96

6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Description of Cumulative Projects ................................................................................ 6-1

6.1.1 Dana Point Harbor Maintenance Dredging .............................................................. 6-1

6.1.2 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Kelp Reef Project ..................................... 6-1

6.1.3 Railroad Operations ................................................................................................. 6-3

6.2 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.1 Air Quality and Meteorology ................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.2 Geology and Topography ........................................................................................ 6-4

6.2.3 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 6-4

6.2.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 6-5

6.2.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 6-6

6.2.6 Ground and Vessel Transportation .......................................................................... 6-6

6.2.7 Land Use and Policy ................................................................................................ 6-6

6.2.8 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 6-6

6.2.9 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 6-6

6.2.10 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................. 6-7

6.2.11 Public Health and Safety ...................................................................................... 6-7

6.2.12 Socioeconomics/Environmental Justice ............................................................... 6-8

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS .............................................................................. 7-1

8.0 OTHER NEPA/CEQA REQUIRED ANALYSES ................................................................ 8-1

8.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant ............................................................................... 8-1

8.2 Unavoidable Significant Impacts.................................................................................... 8-1

8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .............................................. 8-1

8.4 Growth Inducing Impacts ............................................................................................... 8-2

8.5 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................... 8-2

8.6 Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ................................................................................ 8-3

9.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ............................ 9-1

9.1 Required Coordination ................................................................................................... 9-1

9.2 Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 9-1

9.2.1 Public Participation .................................................................................................. 9-1

9.3 Interagency Coordination ............................................................................................... 9-2

9.3.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................ 9-2

9.3.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch ................................................ 9-2

9.3.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................... 9-2

9.3.4 National Marine Fisheries Service ........................................................................... 9-3 24 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
v

9.3.5 California Coastal Commission ............................................................................... 9-3

9.3.6 California State Lands Commission ........................................................................ 9-3

9.3.7 California Department of Fish and Game ................................................................ 9-3

9.3.8 California State Historic Preservation Officer/Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ........................................................................................................................... 9-3

9.3.9 Regional Water Quality Control Board ................................................................... 9-4

9.3.10 Other Agencies/Public Interest Groups ................................................................ 9-4

9.4 Required Permits and Approvals .................................................................................... 9-5

10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS .................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Reviewers .................................................................................................................. 10-1

10.1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ........................................................................... 10-1

10.2 Preparers .................................................................................................................... 10-1

10.2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ........................................................................... 10-1

10.2.2 Chambers Group, Inc. ......................................................................................... 10-2

11.0 GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................. 11-1

11.3 Acronyms .................................................................................................................. 11-1

11.4 Chemical Abbreviations ............................................................................................ 11-3

11.5 Units of Measurement ............................................................................................... 11-3

12.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 12-1

13.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ...................................................................................................... 13-1

14.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.......................................................................................... 14-1 25 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 3-1 Comparison of Management Measures to Environmental Evaluation Criteria ........... 3-6 Table 4-1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ................................................................ 4-4 Table 4-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Priority Pollutants ............................................... 4-8 Table 4-3 Attainment Status for the SCAB ................................................................................. 4-9 Table 4-4a General Conformity De Minimis Levels .................................................................... 4-9 Table 4-5 California Ocean Plan Water Quality Objectives ...................................................... 4-16 Table 4-6 San Clemente Shoreline Project – Borrow Area #2 Sediment Composite Sample:

Chemical Results ....................................................................................................................... 4-22 Table 4-7 Tidal Datum Elevations at La Jolla, CA .................................................................... 4-26 Table 4-8 Annual Maximum Wave Heights off San Clemente, 1983-1998 .............................. 4-31 Table 4-9 Sediment Discharge from Rivers and Streams .......................................................... 4-34 Table 4-10 Sediment Budget for Oceanside Littoral Cell (North – San Clemente) in 1000 m 3 /yr
.................................................................................................................................................... 4-35 Table 4-11 Long Term Shoreline Change Rates in San Clemente Area ................................... 4-36 Table 4-12 San Clemente Area Beach Profile Transects ........................................................... 4-37 Table 4-13 Summary of Recent Long Term Shoreline Change Rates ....................................... 4-38 Table 4-14 Summary of Sand Thickness ................................................................................... 4-40 Table 4-15 Summary of Recorded Archaeological Resources within Project Vicinity ............ 4-64 Table 4-16 Summary of National Register Properties within Project Vicinity ......................... 4-64 Table 4-17 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along Local Roadways ........................................... 4-67 Table 4-18 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments ......................... 4-81 Table 4-19 San Clemente Noise Standards ................................................................................ 4-82 Table 5-1 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2 Localized Construction Emissions Concentrations1 ................................................... 5-5 Table 5-3 Required Best Available Control Measures for Fugitive Dust ................................... 5-7 Table 5-4 Contingency Control Measures for Fugitive Dust During High Winds in Excess of 25 MPH ............................................................................................................................................. 5-8 Table 5-5 Comparison of Unmitigated Projected Construction Emissions and Criteria Values for 50 ft Beach Width Alternative ..................................................................................................... 5-9 Table 5-6 Comparison of Mitigated Construction Emissions and Criteria Values for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative............................................................................................................ 5-10 Table 5-7 Comparison of Unmitigated Projected Construction Emissions and Criteria Values for 115 ft Beach Width Alternative ................................................................................................. 5-15 Table 5-8 Comparison of Mitigated Construction Emissions and Criteria Values ................... 5-15 Table 5-9 San Clemente Noise Standards .................................................................................. 5-74 Table 7-1 Summary of design features and monitoring commitments ........................................ 7-1 Table 9-1 List of Federal, State, and Local Project Approvals .................................................... 9-5

26 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1-2 Location Map ............................................................................................................. 1-3 Table 3-1 Comparison of Management Measures to Environmental Evaluation Criteria ........... 3-6 Figure 3-1 – Oceanside Borrow Site .......................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-2 Plan View of 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................................... 3-14 Figure 3-3 Plan View of 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................................. 3-15 Figure 3-4 Beach Access and Staging Areas ............................................................................ 3-16 Figure 4-1 Significant Wave Height Histogram for Waves off San Clemente, 1983-1998 ...... 4-30 Figure 4-2 Significant Wave Height Histogram off San Clemente, Winter Data, 1983-1998 .. 4-31 Figure 4-3 Spectral Peak Period Histogram for Waves off San Clemente, 1983-1996 ............. 4-32 Figure 4-4 Wave Direction Histogram for Waves off San Clemente, 1983-1996 ............... 4-32 Figure 4-5 Major Rivers and Drainage Basins, Oceanside Littoral Cell ................................... 4-34 Figure 4-6 Recent Shoreline Change - MSL Beach Width (m) ................................................. 4-38 Figure 4-7 Cross-Shore Profile of Beach ................................................................................... 4-39 Figure 4-8 Cross-Shore Profile of Armored Shoreline .............................................................. 4-39 Figure 4-9 Historic Kelp Canopy and Reef Map ....................................................................... 4-43 Figure 4-10 Surfgrass Survey ................................................................................................... 4-47 Table 4-15 Special Status Listed Species that May Occur in the San Clemente Pier or Oceanside .................................................................................................................................................... 4-52 Figure 4-11 Overview of San Clemente Municipal Pier (looking west) ................................... 4-65 Table 4-17 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along Local Roadways ........................................... 4-67 Table 5-1 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-5 Comparison of Unmitigated Projected Construction Emissions and Criteria Values for 50 ft Beach Width Alternative ..................................................................................................... 5-9 Table 5-6 Comparison of Mitigated Construction Emissions and Criteria Values for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative............................................................................................................ 5-10 Table 5-7 Comparison of Unmitigated Projected Construction Emissions and Criteria Values for 115 ft Beach Width Alternative ................................................................................................. 5-15 Table 5-8 Comparison of Mitigated Construction Emissions and Criteria Values ................... 5-15 Figure 5-1 SANDAG Oceanside Beach Fill Profiles (Before and After Construction) ............ 5-19 Figure 5-2 Cross Section Profile of the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative .................................... 5-20 Figure 5-3 Cross Section Profile of 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative ............................ 5-23 Figure 5-4 Plan View of T-Street Surf Break Bathymetry ........................................................ 5-29 Figure 5-5 Cross Section of T-Street Surf Break Bathymetry (Distances in Feet) .................... 5-30 Figure 5-6 Historic Aerial Photograph of San Clemente Pier Shoreline ................................... 5-31 Figure 5-7 UC San Diego Nearshore Mapping Program ........................................................... 5-52 Figure 5-8 UCSD Nearshore Program Data 500 Feet From Shoreline ..................................... 5-53 Figure 5-9 UCSD Nearshore Program Data .............................................................................. 5-54 Figure 5-10 San Clemente Shoreline Protection Mitigation Alternatives ................................. 5-60 Figure 5-11 San Clemente Shoreline Protection Mitigation Plans ............................................ 5-60 Figure 6-1 Proximity of Wheeler North Reef to Project Site ...................................................... 6-2 Table 7-1 Summary of design features and monitoring commitments ........................................ 7-1 Table 7-1 Summary of design features and monitoring commitments (continued) ................... 7-2 27 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
viii
Table 7-1 Summary of design features and monitoring commitments (continued) .................... 7-3 Table 7-1 Summary of design features and monitoring commitments (continued) .................... 7-4 Table 7-1 Summary of design features and monitoring commitments (continued) .................... 7-5 Table 9-1 List of Federal, State, and Local Project Approvals .................................................... 9-5 28 Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ix

LIST OF APPENDICES
(Volume I)
Appendix A – 404(b)(1)
Appendix B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan
(Volume II)
Appendix C – Air Quality Analysis Report
Appendix D – Coastal Engineering Report
Appendix E – Geotechnical Report
Appendix F – Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Appendix G – Coordination Act Report
29 Section 1.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR) has been prepared for the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the City of San Clemente (Local non-Federal sponsor) for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project (Project). This Final EIS/EIR analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and alternatives for providing shoreline protection to approximately 3,412 feet ([ft], 1,040 meters [m]) of the San Clemente shoreline from coastal storms.

This joint EIS/EIR is an informational document to advise decision-makers and the general public of the benefits and potential adverse impacts of the Project as well as feasible alternatives.

This document assesses short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts and benefits of the Project. This Final EIS/EIR also is intended to provide information to all agencies whose discretionary approvals must be obtained for Project actions.

The USACE is the Federal lead agency responsible for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4331 (1996)), and the City of San Clemente (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21,000 et seq.), as amended. This Final EIS/EIR has been prepared at the project-level of detail and complies with the requirements of both NEPA and CEQA.

1.1 Study Area
The City of San Clemente is located along the coast of southern California about 60 miles ([mi], 100 kilometers ([km]) south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County near the border of San Diego County (Figure 1-1). The study area is encompassed within the City of San Clemente and extends approximately 3,412 ft (1,040 m) from Linda Lane to T-Street (Figure 1-2) and is located within the San Clemente 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle in Section 4 of Township 9 South and Range 7 West. The communities of Capistrano Beach and Dana Point are located upcoast of the study area; San Onofre State Beach Park and the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP) are located to the south. The study area is in the 48th Congressional District. A borrow area at Oceanside has been identified as the potential source for beach replenishment material.

Along the entire length of the San Clemente shoreline, a portion of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) railroad corridor, a major passenger rail line linking the coastal cities of southern California, runs between the beach and the coastal bluffs through San Clemente and is owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). This nationally strategic rail corridor is among the busiest in the country. Riprap along the seaward side of the rail corridor provides some protection to the tracks. The railroad seaward slope incorporates the conventional ballast construction and has a slope of 1:1 horizontal:vertical (H:V). This corridor is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). Loss of beach width threatens the railroad and is a continuous problem for the City of San Clemente. 30 Section 1.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1-2
Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map
31 1 :200,000
0 1 2 4
Miles
&RP.roximate *
Borrow Site/ .

Uocation
Dee.ans de
0 Section 1.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1-3
Figure 1-2 Location Map
32 Legend
0 Project Baun dary
w{~E 1: 10,000
s
0 250 500 1 ,000
Feet
Section 1.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1-4

1.2 Project Background
The City of San Clemente was founded in 1925, incorporated in 1928, and was originally promoted as “The Spanish Village,” designed to be a residential settlement featuring white stucco homes with red tile roofs sited on wide, meandering streets with ocean views. The San Clemente Municipal Pier (Pier) extends approximately 1,200 ft (400 m) into the Pacific Ocean and is part of the recreational appeal for tourists/visitors of San Clemente City Beach and the 100-acre (40-hectare) State Beach, locally renowned as one of the premier surfing locales in the region.

Prior to urban development in the 1990s, the beaches within the study area remained relatively stable because of a balanced sediment supply delivered from the San Juan Creek to the Oceanside littoral cell. However, documented historical beach widths above the Mean Sea Level (MSL) line between T-Street and Mariposa Point were as narrow as 25 m (82 ft) in the winter months during this time period (USACE-SPL, 1991). As a consequence, storm damages occurred in the past (e.g., 1964, 1983, 1988, and 1993), as the protective buffer beach width was narrow, particularly in the winter season.

Since the 1990s, the project area has experienced chronic, mild, long-term erosion. Shoreline retreat is a result of the decrease of fluvial sand supply resulting from the concreting of creeks and rivers, upstream dams, and urban development. Continued future shoreline retreat is expected to result in storm waves breaking directly upon the railroad ballast, which significantly threatens the operation of the rail corridor. Continued future shoreline retreat also will subject public facilities to storm wave-induced damages. These facilities, maintained by the City of San Clemente, include the Marine Safety Building, public restroom facilities located on the beach, lifeguard stations, parking areas, and paving near the pier.

The railroad is a vital transportation link for passenger and freight service between cities in San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles counties. The Department of Defense has designated this rightof-way as a Strategic Rail Corridor with great significance to National defense. Due to chronic beach erosion, the railroad corridor between the bluff and the beach is threatened by undermining. Metrolink has been randomly placing riprap along the segment between North Beach and the Marine Safety Building to reduce wave energy impacts on the railroad tracks.

Train service has been delayed during winter storm events in order to provide extra precautionary measures to allow trains to move safely through the area. Crews are dispatched during high tide and storm conditions to visually inspect for track damage that could potentially cause derailments. The impact of riprap placement over the years has resulted in a cumulative decrease of lateral beach access.

1.3 Document Organization
This document is organized to assist the reader through the various steps taken by the USACE and the City to thoroughly and adequately analyze the environmental consequences of this Project. In general, this document defines the problem, presents possible solutions, and describes the existing conditions and the consequences of each alternative on baseline 33 Section 1.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1-5
conditions. Through this analysis, and other economic analyses, a preferred alternative was selected as the proposed action.

The purpose, need, and the objectives associated with protection of the San Clemente shoreline are described in Section 2.0 of this joint EIS/EIR. Alternatives are described in Section 3.0.

Baseline environmental conditions are described in Section 4.0, and the environmental consequences associated with each alternative are discussed in Section 5.0. Different aspects of impact assessment, such as cumulative impacts, unavoidable significant impacts, and mitigation measures, among others, are discussed in Sections 6.0 through 9.0. Other NEPA and CEQA required analyses are presented in Section 10.0. Public and interagency involvement is described in Section 11.0. The preparers and reviewers of the joint EIS/EIR are listed in Section 12.0.

References are provided in Section 13.0. The appendices provide background data and supporting documentation and analyses.
34 Section 2.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2-6

2.0 NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Purpose and Need
The purpose of this Project is to provide shore protection through nourishment of the beach at the City of San Clemente Pier. Developing and maintaining the beach is needed to prevent the severe beach erosion that results from winter storms and to prevent damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the City. In addition to the above, the loss of sand at the beach would have a negative impact on recreation, which supports the local economy, and would reduce the ecological functioning of the sand beach/littoral zone.

A number of public concerns were identified during the course of the reconnaissance study.

Initial concerns were expressed in the study authorization. Additional input was received through coordination with the City and other agencies. The public interest related to the establishment of planning objectives and planning constraints are:

1. To reduce the potential for storm damages to the LOSSAN Rail Corridor rail facilities and rail line operations, located along the beaches of the City of San Clemente;

2. To reduce the potential for storm damages to public beach facilities;

3. To restore the recreation beach along the Pacific Coast of the City of San Clemente;

4. To preserve the nearshore ecosystem that supports commercial lobster, fisherman, and snorkeling activities;

5. To preserve and enhance opportunities for surfing along the San Clemente coast; and

6. To improve public access and safety to the recreation beach areas of the City of San Clemente.

2.1.1 Storm Damages
Prior to the 1990s, the beaches within the study area were marginally stable as sufficient sediment was supplied from San Juan Creek to the Oceanside littoral cell. This was prior to upland urban development that deprived the sand supply resulting from the damming and concreting of creeks and rivers, and urban development. As a result, the beaches provide minimal protection against storm-induced damages to the railroad and public facilities. The documented historical beach width above the Mean Sea Level (MSL) line between T-Street and Mariposa Point was as narrow as 25 meters (82 ft) in the winter months (USACE-SPL, 1991).

As a consequence, storm damages occurred in the past (e.g., 1964, 1983, 1988, and 1993), as the protective buffer beach width was narrow, particularly in the winter season.

The narrowing of the beaches along the shoreline has subjected the public facilities to waveinduced damages. These facilities include the Marine Safety Building, public restrooms, lifeguard stations, parking areas, and concession stands. The meteorological conditions of El Nino occurred in the years 1983, 1988, and 1998. The majority of repairs in the years of 1983 and 1988 were due to damages to the San Clemente Pier. The City spent $2,109,000 in Pier 35 Section 2.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2-7
repairs in 1983 and $2,305,000 in 1988. In addition, repair costs for a revetment in the community of Capistrano Shores totaled $288,000. In addition, the City is spending $5,000 per year to use a tractor to reduce the steepness of the shoreline.

2.1.2 Threat to the Railroad Corridor
Due to chronic beach erosion, the railroad corridor between the bluff and the beach is threatened by undermining. In response, OCTA has been randomly placing riprap stones along the most critical segment between North Beach and the Marine Safety Building to reduce wave impacts on the railroad tracks. This maintenance practice of adding additional stones to the existing under-designed revetment has cost OCTA an average of $200,000 to $300,000 every three years.

If the loss of sand continues as expected, the cost to protect the tracks with riprap will increase.

The cumulative impact of stone placement over the years has resulted in a reduction of lateral beach access. This railroad is a vital transportation link for passenger and freight service. In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) has designated this right-of-way as a Strategic Rail Corridor with great significance to National defense. During winter storm events, train service has been delayed in order to provide extra precautionary measures to move the trains safely through the area. Crews are dispatched during high tide and storm conditions to visually inspect for track damage that could cause derailments. Continued erosion along the San Clemente shoreline will lead to further disruption of rail service.

2.1.3 Public Safety and Liability
As a result of the continued beach erosion throughout the City’s shoreline, a number of public safety concerns have surfaced. Public restrooms are located on the beach, seaward (west) of the railroad tracks; continued damages to these facilities may require their relocation to the landward side (east) of the railroad tracks. This would result in beachgoers continually crossing the tracks to use the restrooms. Depending on the location of construction of restrooms, if necessary under managed retreat, crossing the tracks may be dangerous if beachgoers decide to do so rather than use the designated pedestrian crossings. There currently are safe pedestrian crossings for beachgoers to cross the tracks and access the beach. A public safety issue may create because it is expected that many will cross the railroad tracks in an unsafe manner. Furthermore, the loss of sand within the active nearshore profile has exposed underlying hard substrate. A public safety issue is created because the exposed material, in many cases, remains underwater and hidden from sight, posing a number of potential dangers to unwary recreational swimmers. The City is liable for accidents resulting from exposed man-made structures. The adverse economic impact associated with the City’s liability has the potential to be substantial.

2.1.4 Recreation Opportunity
San Clemente has an annual tourist visitation of about two million people, or approximately 60 percent non-residents. Continuous shoreline retreat will further degrade the City’s beaches and significantly impact beach recreation, tourism, and economic benefits. 36 Section 2.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2-8

2.2 Project Objective
The objective of the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project is:

1. To reduce the potential for storm damages to facilities located along the coast of the City of San Clemente, including recreation beach facilities and the LOSSAN Rail Corridor, and

2. To restore and maintain recreation use along the Pacific Coast of the City of San Clemente.

These objectives were accomplished by formulating and evaluating an array of feasible alternatives and identifying the one that most effectively reduces storm-related risks and damages while complying with Local, State, and Federal environmental laws and regulations.

The scope of this Final EIS/EIR describes the physical, environmental, and socioeconomic baseline conditions and identifies the environmental consequences of the alternatives, including future without Project conditions (No Action Alternative).

2.3 Study Authority
The San Clemente Shoreline Reconnaissance Study, a Section 905(b) Analysis of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 86), was prepared as an initial response to the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2000, Public Law 106-60, 29 September 1999, which reads as follows:
“The Committee recommendation includes funds for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance study investigating shoreline protection alternatives for San Clemente, California.”
In addition, Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 states:
“The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized and directed to cause surveys for flood control and allied purposes, including channel and major drainage improvements, and floods aggravated by or due to wind or tidal effects, to be made under the direction of the Chief of Engineers, in drainage areas of the United States and its territorial possessions, which include the localities specifically named in this section…Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California to determine advisability of protection work against storm and tidal waves.” This Final EIS/EIR supports the USACE feasibility study for the Project; the feasibility study incorporates the conclusions of this EIS/EIR. Since storm damage risk management is an output with a high budget priority, and preventing storm damages is the primary output of the alternatives to be evaluated in the feasibility phase, there is a strong Federal interest in participating in the proposed Project. Long-term erosion can reasonably be expected to undermine and increase the flood potential of existing public and private structures along the San Clemente shoreline. As the width of the sandy beach decreases over time, winter storm damages 37 Section 2.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2-9
will have a greater impact on the public transportation corridor and residential communities. The proposed Project construction would be dependent upon authorization by Congress.

2.4 Compliance with Applicable Regulatory Statutes and Permit Requirements Federal and State environmental requirements considered in the preparation of this Final EIS/EIR are briefly reviewed in this subsection. The City shall use the environmental analysis included in this Final EIS/EIR to support permit applications and other required compliance activities pursuant to the respective laws, orders, and regulations.

2.4.1 Federal Environmental Regulations

2.4.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) as amended

This Final EIS/EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the NEPA of 1969 (42 USC 43221, as amended) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500- 1508), dated 1 July 1988. NEPA requires that agencies of the Federal Government shall implement an environmental impact analysis program in order to evaluate "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”. A "major federal action" may include projects financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by a federal agency.

NEPA regulations were followed in the preparation of this EIS.

2.4.1.2 ER-200-2-2, 33 CFR 230, March 1988
This engineer regulation (ER) provides guidance for implementation of the procedural provisions of the NEPA for the Civil Works Program of the USACE. It supplements CEQ regulations 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, November 29, 1978, in accordance with CEQ regulations. Wherever the guidance in this regulation is unclear or not specific, the reader is referred to the CEQ regulations. This regulation is applicable to all the USACE responsibility for preparing and processing environmental documents in support of civil works functions.

2.4.1.3 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and California Coastal Act of 1976 The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) preserves, protects, develops, and, where possible, restores or enhances the Nation’s coastal zone resources for this and succeeding generations.

This Final EIS/EIR shall act as the Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), in satisfaction of CZMA requirements, Section 106(d), to certify consistency to the maximum extent practicable with an approved State Coastal Zone Management Plan. The USACE shall submit the Final EIS/EIR to the CCC for their review and approval. The USACE has determined that the Project is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the CZMA. The USACE shall obtain concurrence from the CCC prior to construction.
38 Section 2.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2-10

2.4.1.4 Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) governs discharge or dredge of materials in the waters of the United States, and it governs pollution control and water quality of waterways throughout the U.S. Its intent, in part, is to restore and maintain the biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.

The goals and standards of the CWA are enforced through permit provisions.

Section 404 outlines the permit program required for dredging or filling the Nation’s waterways.

The USACE does not issue itself a permit for civil works projects. Therefore, a Section 404(b)(1) analysis has been prepared. USACE has determined that full compliance with CWA Section 404 is met and thus may invoke, if needed, CWA 404(r), once the project is authorized by Congress. Section 404(b)(1) addresses project-related impacts to the waters of the U.S. and provides appropriate mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Section 230.10(a) of the 404(b)(1) guidelines requires consideration of a “practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences”. Section 230.10(a)(2) states that “an alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.” Section 230.10(a)(4) states “for actions subject to NEPA, where the Corps of Engineers is the permitting agency, the analysis of alternatives required for NEPA environmental documents, including supplemental Corps NEPA documents, will in most cases provide the information for the evaluation of alternatives under these Guidelines.” The City must follow all the environmental commitments identified in the EIS/EIR where applicable. The USACE shall continue to coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) throughout the CWA process and construction activities.

2.4.1.5 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable waters of the United States, and authorizes the USACE to regulate all activities that affect the course, capacity, or coordination of waters of the U.S. Navigable waters of the U.S. are defined in 33 CFR Part 329 as those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. USACE has complied with River and Harbors Act in the development of this Final EIS/EIR.

2.4.1.6 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-624, 16 USC 661-666(c)) The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) protects fish and wildlife from Federal actions that result in the control or modification of a natural stream or water body. The FWCA requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), all of which has been coordinated with during the initial and current stages of planning, development of the proposed alternatives, environmental commitments, and potential mitigation measures. The USACE shall continue to coordinate with 39 Section 2.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2-11
NOAA Fisheries throughout the NEPA process and construction activities. The Final Coordination Act Report (CAR) is included as Appendix G.

2.4.1.7 Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) protects endangered and threatened species by prohibiting Federal actions that would jeopardize the continued existence of such species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. Coordination with respect to Federal endangered and threatened species has occurred with both USFWS and NOAA Fisheries in the development of this Final EIS/EIR. NOAA Fisheries provided conservation recommendations during the public review period and these recommendations are addressed in Section 14.0 of this Final EIS/EIR. Federally endangered or threatened species that inhabit the Project area are listed and discussed in Section 4.0.

Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies must consult with Federal resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, NOAA Fisheries) and prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) if listed species and/or critical habitat are present in an area to be impacted by Project activity. The USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries then would prepare a Biological Opinion (BO) on how the action would affect the species and/or its critical habitat, and would suggest reasonable and prudent measures to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species or adversely modifying its critical habitat. If prior to and/or during construction it is determined that Federal endangered and threatened species would be adversely impacted, the USACE would initiate Section 7 consultation.

2.4.1.8 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act, as amended 1996 (Public Law 104-267)
Federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on actions that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as those “waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity”. NOAA Fisheries encourages streamlining the consultation process using review procedures under NEPA, FWCA, CWA, and/or ESA, provided that documents meet requirements for EFH assessments under Section 600.920(g).

EFH assessments must include (1) a description of the proposed action, (2) an analysis of effects, including cumulative effects, (3) the Federal agency’s views regarding the effects of the action on EFH, and (4) proposed mitigation, if applicable. The description and evaluation of EFH for the coastal zone is included in this Final EIS/EIR in Section 5.4.

2.4.1.9 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) protects marine mammals and establishes a marine mammal commission to regulate such protection. The requirements of this act were considered in the evaluation of environmental consequences of the proposed Project and alternatives.
40 Section 2.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2-12

2.4.1.10 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended (16 USC 703-711) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), as amended, provides legal protection for almost all breeding bird species occurring in the United States by restricting the killing, taking, collecting, and selling or purchasing of native bird species or their parts, nests, or eggs. Certain game bird species are allowed to be hunted for specific periods determined by Federal and State governments. The intent of the MBTA is to eliminate any commercial market for migratory birds, feathers, or bird parts, especially for eagles and other birds of prey. The MBTA was considered in the evaluation of environmental consequences of the proposed Project and alternatives.

2.4.1.11 Executive Order 11990
This order requires that governmental agencies, in carrying out their responsibilities, provide leadership and “take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands”. This order was considered in the development of the proposed Project and alternatives.

2.4.1.12 Executive Order 11991
This order is related to the protection and enhancement of environmental quality. Section 1 of this order directs the CEQ to issue guidelines to Federal agencies for implementing procedural provisions of NEPA (1969). The guidelines recommend early EIS preparation and impact statements that are concise, clear, and supported by evidence that agencies have made the necessary analyses. These guidelines (ER 200-2-2, 33 CFR 230 March 1988) were followed in the preparation of this Final EIS/EIR.

2.4.1.13 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 479) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which is a master list of historic properties of national, State, and Local significance. Under Section 106, agencies are required to consider the effects of their actions on properties that may be eligible for or are listed in the NRHP. The NRHP established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to comment on Federally licensed, funded, or executed undertakings affecting National Register properties. Regulations of the ACHP (36 CFR 800, 1997) provide guidance for Federal agencies to meet Section 106 requirements. This process involves consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the ACHP, and other interested parties, including Native American Tribes, as warranted.

2.4.1.14 Clean Air Act of 1972
The Clean Air Act (CAA) regulates emissions of air pollutants to protect the nation’s air quality.

The CAA is applicable to permits and planning procedures related to the disposal of dredged materials onshore and in open waters within 3 mi (4.8 km) of the nearest shoreline. Section 118 of the CAA (42 USC 7418) requires all Federal agencies engaged in activities that may result in 41 Section 2.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2-13
the discharge of air pollutants to comply with Federal and State laws, and interstate and local requirements regarding control and abatement of air pollution. Section 176(c) requires all Federal projects to conform to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approved or promulgated State Implementation Plans (SIPs). This act was considered in the evaluation of environmental consequences of the proposed Project and alternatives. In addition, the Project has been coordinated with the Off-Road Inventory and Assessments Section of the ARB regarding the method of determining effects of the daily rail activity. A CAA Conformity Analysis was prepared for this Project.

2.4.1.15 Executive Order 12088
This order requires Federal compliance with applicable pollution control standards concerning air and water pollution, and hazardous materials and substances. Federal agencies are directed to consult with State and Local agencies concerning the best techniques and methods available for the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution. This order was considered in the development of the proposed Project and alternatives.

2.4.1.16 Executive Order 12898
This executive order requires that the joint EIS/EIR analyze the impacts of federal actions on minority and low-income populations and provides opportunities for input on the joint EIS/EIR by affected communities. The alternatives developed for the Final EIS/EIR were based on a set of criteria that did not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The proposed Project would not have an impact on minority communities or low-income populations.

2.4.1.17 Executive Order 13045
This order addresses “Environmental Health and Safety Risks to Children”. This order is designed to focus Federal attention on actions that affect human health and safety conditions that may disproportionately affect children. The proposed Project would not disproportionately impact children in the region of influence.

2.4.1.18 Federal Water Project Recreation Act (Public Law 89-72), July 9, 1965 This act requires that any Federal water project must give full consideration to opportunities afforded by the project for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. The proposed Project would provide opportunity for recreational activities by development of beach, including recreational use areas, which would be primarily passive in nature.

2.4.2 State Environmental Regulations

2.4.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000- 21177)
CEQA requires that State and Local agencies consider environmental consequences and project alternatives before a decision is made to implement a project requiring State or Local 42 Section 2.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2-14
government approval, financing, or participation by the State of California. In addition, CEQA requires the identification of ways to avoid or reduce environmental degradation or prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. This joint EIS/EIR was prepared in accordance with this regulation.

2.4.2.2 California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended
The act specifies basic goals for coastal conservation and development related to protection, enhancement, and restoration of coastal resources, giving priority to “coastal-dependent” uses and maximizing public access to California residents and visitors. The act defines the “coastal zone” of California, which generally extends 3.0 mi (4.8 km) out to sea and inland generally 1,000 yards ([yd], 914 m). It may be extended further inland in certain circumstances. It also is less than 1,000 yd (914 m) wide in some urban areas. Each city and county in California on the coast must prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for all areas within the coastal zone. The LCP includes Land Use Plans (LUPs), zoning ordinance amendments, and map changes to reflect the Coastal Act and LCP goals and policies at the local level. This act was considered in the preparation of this joint EIS/EIR.

2.4.2.3 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1966 (California Water Code §§ 13000-13999.10)
This act mandates that activities that may affect waters of the State shall be regulated to attain the highest quality. The RWQCB provides regulations for a “non-degradation policy” that are especially protective of waters with high quality. This act was considered in the evaluation of consequences of the proposed Project and alternatives.

2.4.2.4 California State Lands Commission
The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has regulatory authority to administer, sell, lease or dispose of the public lands owned by the State or under its control, including not only school lands but tidelands, submerged lands, swamp and overflowed lands, and beds of navigable rivers and lakes (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 6216). The CSLC created the California Coastal Sanctuary, which includes all State waters subject to tidal influence, such as the study area. California PRC Section 6303 requires that a Lease Agreement for Utilization of Sovereign Lands be issued prior to initiation of any project that occurs on State-owned lands.

2.4.2.5 California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050- 2116)
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) parallels the Federal ESA. As a responsible agency, the CDFG has regulatory authority over State-listed endangered and threatened species.

If a proposed Project may affect species that are listed as threatened or endangered under both the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, then such Project is subject to CEQA and NEPA review, and the CDFG shall participate to the greatest extent practicable in the Federal endangered species consultation. The State legislature encourages cooperative and simultaneous 43 Section 2.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2-15
findings between State and Federal agencies. Further, the General Counsel for the CDFG has issued a memorandum to CDFG regional managers and division chiefs clarifying the CESA consultation process wherein, if a Federal BO has been prepared for a species, the CDFG must use this BO in lieu of its own findings unless it is inconsistent with CESA. CDFG Code Section 2095 authorizes participation in Federal consultation and adoption of a Federal BO. By adopting the Federal BO, the CDFG need not issue a taking permit per Section 2081 of the State Code. If the BO is consistent with CESA, the CDFG will complete a 2095 form in finalizing the adoption of the BO. If the Federal BO is found to be inconsistent with CESA, the CDFG will issue its own BO per Section 2090 of the State Code and may issue a 2081 take permit with conditions of approval. The proposed Project would comply with this act.

2.4.3 Local Environmental Regulations
The City of San Clemente is responsible for compliance with and executing local actions with a number of regional environmental regulations.

2.4.3.1 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
The SCAQMD is intended to provide compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act. Essentially, it incorporates mechanisms to reduce source and mobile pollutants. To facilitate compliance with the SCAQMD requirements, San Clemente is participating as a member of a countywide Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee which is responsible for the identification of applicable local implementation mechanisms and model ordinances.
44 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-1

3.0 ALTERNATIVES
This section presents the process used to formulate alternative plans and evaluation criteria leading to the recommendation of the Proposed Action for implementation. Under NEPA, reasonable alternatives are those that are practical or feasible from a technical or economic perspective and based on common sense (46 Federal Register 18026, as amended, 51 Federal Register 15618). Under CEQA, reasonable alternatives are those that would feasibly attain most of the project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (California Code Regulations, Title 14, § 15126.6(a)). Factors used to determine feasibility include site suitability, economic limitations, consistency with local plans and policies, other plan or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries.

3.1 Plan Formulation of Alternatives
Plan formulation begins with a large array of management measures and then screens these measures through a series of increasingly focused analysis and comparison. A management measure is a feature or activity at a site addressing one or more of the planning objectives.

Management measures should address planning objectives, which represent desired positive changes, as well as planning constraints, which represent restrictions that should not be violated.

A preliminary screening of the measures eliminates those that prove unacceptable or infeasible.

Measures passing this initial screening are developed and screened further until a final array of measures is selected. Any implementable combination of these measures may be considered a separate alternative. Each final alternative receives equal development, analysis, and comparison.

Alternatives were formulated to maximize storm damage reduction and minimize cost and were recommended when their benefits exceeded their costs. Improvements to safety and recreational opportunities resulting from any alternative were considered incidental to the main objective of reducing storm damages. All alternatives were analyzed under both the NEPA and the CEQA review processes.

3.1.1 Evaluation Criteria
In general, the planning process needs to consider measures to avoid or mitigate any significant adverse impacts associated with the planning constraints. The planning constraints for this study are the following:
a. Preserve the nearshore ecosystem that supports commercial lobster and fishing industries and snorkeling activities;
b. Preserve the opportunities for surfing along the Pacific coast of the City of San Clemente; c. Preserve any critical habitat that supports Federal or State threatened and endangered species;
d. Preserve water quality characteristics along the coast and near shore areas of the City of San Clemente;
45 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-2
e. Preserve cultural and historic features located in the study area; f. Preserve air quality conditions within the study area.

A wide variety of measures were considered and assessed, some of which were found to be infeasible due to technical, economic, or environmental constraints. Measures that were considered feasible during the plan formulation process were screened and developed into project alternatives for full analysis.

3.1.2 Screening-level Comparison
Alternatives to address the reduction of potential storm damages were developed considering different scopes of plans by varying levels of protection, such as protecting only against frequent minor storm events as compared to protecting against the less frequent major storm events.

Previous consideration was given to protecting several reaches or the entire study area (i.e., entire San Clemente coastline) as compared to certain reaches of the study area. For the planning objective involving restoration of beach area for recreation use, consideration also was given to different levels of restoration involving very wide beaches that may be needed on the highest peak use days only, compared to narrower beaches that may be used more frequently on average peak use days. Alternatives for this objective also were looked at by study reach, where some reaches may have minimal use for recreation. Screening of these alternatives was considered based on the evaluation criteria stated above, including economic costs and benefits, environmental impacts, and significant impacts to the planning constraints. Mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts were incorporated into the alternative plans, as necessary.

The descriptions and results of the evaluations of the measures considered in this study are presented below. The detailed accounts of the comparisons between project alternatives are included in the San Clemente Shoreline Final Feasibility Report.

3.1.2.1 Non-structural Measures Considered
Anything that achieves the Project objectives without a structure is considered a non-structural alternative.

Managed Retreat
Managed retreat is a term commonly used to describe a policy that restricts or opposes efforts to control long-term retreat of the shoreline. It has been used to describe policies ranging from complete removal of all shore protection structures to simply not allowing new structures to be built.

For this Project area, managed retreat of coastal development would include relocation of the railroad and beach facilities due to the continued erosion of the recreation beach area. At this time, most of the public beach facilities are located along the backshore in the Project area.

Continued erosion and storm wave attack would likely eliminate any beach area available for recreation use and may eliminate the need for facilities or relocate some facilities (e.g., restrooms) to the landward side of the railroad. The relocation of the railroad would be 46 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-3
extremely costly, and any decision for such relocation is beyond the scope and intent of this study. Managed retreat is not considered a viable non-structural measure.

3.1.2.2 Structural Measures Considered
Structural measures considered include revetments, sheet pile seawalls, breakwaters, offshore reefs, and groins.

Beach Fill
For the purpose of this document, beach fill or nourishment was the only soft structure measure considered viable for this area. Beach nourishment involves placement of compatible sand from a borrow area to effectively widen the beach. The beach fill material acts as a buffer, dissipating storm waves and run-up over the wider profile.

The beach fill design parameters were determined by considering various combinations of beachfill widths and different replenishment cycles. Each option had one combination of an initial beach width and a repetitive duration for the subsequent renourishment cycles. The optimal option was the one that yielded the maximum net benefit. The Los Angeles District coastal engineering section developed the WENDY Model for Simulating Shoreline Change, which was used to predict the shoreline morphology over multiple years as waves redistribute sand after it is placed mechanically on the beach. The optimization consisted of finding the beach width and replenishment period for both segments that maximized the net benefits while avoiding impacts to known sensitive nearshore habitat.

Beach nourishment may use offshore or onshore borrow sites. In the study area, offshore sources have historically been used for several reasons. Prior offshore studies of the area conducted by the USACE have identified potential sources of sand suitable for an offshore borrow site. The potential offshore borrow sites in the study area were investigated for beachcompatible sand located by previous investigations off Oceanside by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG 2000) and USACE (1993).

For this Project, offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternative. Available offshore borrow sites exist, and sand would be delivered to the beach fill sites using hopper dredges with pumpout or large cutter suction dredges. For the hopper dredge with pumpout, temporary nearshore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 30 ft (9 m) depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore.

Revetments and Seawalls
Revetments are “flexible” structures (i.e., not locked in concrete) made of placed quarry stone.

They are typically built of 3- to 5-ton stone over a layer of smaller stone over a layer of fill designed to stop shoreline retreat and to protect landslide improvements from damage by wave action. Revetments are generally effective if maintained, but they encroach significantly onto the beach. The seawall structural measure typically requires less spatial area and maintenance. 47 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-4
Sheet pile walls are steel or precast concrete panels vertically placed in the ground to form continuous seawalls for protecting back beach improvements.

Offshore Reefs and Breakwaters
Offshore reefs or submerged breakwaters would protect the shoreline against direct wave attack and reduce the transmitted wave energy to less damaging levels along the beach. Breakwaters are concrete or rock walls built roughly parallel to the shore just beyond the breaker zone to absorb wave energy by stopping transmission or breaking the wave before it hits the beach.

They can be permeable or solid, depending on desired amount of wave energy absorption versus reflection.

Submerged artificial reef type designs for the purpose of sand retention and storm damage reduction come in many forms, but may be simplified into "soft" and "hard" designs. In the soft designs, nearshore sand berms are constructed of dredged sand placed parallel to the beach in shallow water. The "soft" breakwater reduces incident wave height, and gradual onshore migration of the sediment can contribute to renourishment of the adjacent shoreline, providing the berm itself is stable enough to withstand the wave environment. “Hard” submerged breakwaters, which include “artificial reefs”, reduce wave energy through breaking and dissipation. They are generally not as effective as surface piercing breakwaters at retaining sand, but do not generally have the adverse effects on surfing conditions that surfacevisible structures do and may enhance surfing conditions if designed for dual purpose.

Although much theoretical research has been conducted, real world data on the performance of artificial reefs as sand retention structures is only now becoming available because few reefs have been built. In addition, most of these reefs were built in either Florida or Australia, where conditions differ greatly from the Southern California coastline. Pratte’s Reef was constructed off of El Segundo, California out of large geotube sand bags as an experimental surfing reef to mitigate impacts from construction of a groin, but was ultimately too small (200 thirteen-ton bags within an area of approximately 244 ft by 92 ft) and too far offshore to have any noticeable impact on the shoreline (M&N, SANDAG 2000). An artificial reef with the purpose of sand retention would require to be constructed on a much larger scale to be effective along the entire Project length.

Shore Perpendicular Structures
Cross-shore sand retention structures, such as groins and jetties, are constructed perpendicular to the shore to form fillets that can slow beach erosion by trapping littoral sediment. Most of the littoral drift occurs inshore of the normal breaker line under prevailing wave conditions (about the 7- to 10-ft (2- to 3-m) depth contours on the Pacific coast). Hence, extension of sand retention structures beyond about MLLW is generally uneconomical (USACE 1984).

The shore perpendicular structures are generally utilized to preserve a minimum berm width and slow erosion rates so that renourishment volumes may be smaller and episodes less frequent.

The amount of sand trapped by the structure depends on the permeability, height, and length of 48 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-5
the structure and the amount of sand in the littoral system. As material accumulates on the updrift side of the structure, supply to the downdrift side is reduced. This results in local beach accretion on the updrift side of the structure and erosion for some distance downshore. After the beach near the structure adjusts to an “equilibrium” stage in accordance with the wave conditions, all littoral drift either will pass the structure directly over it or diverted around the seaward end of the structure. Because of the potential adverse effects on downdrift beaches, groins and similar structures should be used only after careful consideration of the factors involved.

3.1.2.3 Comparison of Management Measures to Evaluation Criteria Ultimately, the alternative plans identified in this study should follow the general guidelines listed below. Therefore, the management measures that become the alternative plans also must follow the following guidelines.

Technical Feasibility - The recommended plan presented should be complete and sound, and in sufficient detail to allow development of engineering plans and specifications.

Economic Feasibility - Any potential project that is in the Federal interest must display feasibility by satisfying benefit-cost (B/C) criteria. Generally, this ratio must be greater than one to allow Federal participation in continued study and any project proposal. In addition, the sponsoring agency is required to show their ability and willingness to fund their share of any recommended project as required by the Principles and Guidelines.

Environmental Impacts - Applicable environmental requirements must be met for a feasibility level study. Environmental acceptability must be ascertained; and adverse impacts should be avoided if possible or minimized if avoidance is not possible. The screening of alternatives based on environmental acceptability limitations are conducted with respect to Federal environmental statutes. Federal examples include the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). The California Coastal Commission currently interprets the CZMA in a manner that favors almost any type of shore protection over rock revetments and/or seawalls, especially in areas where there is a lot of public beach use and recreation. A revetment of the size necessary at this site would have very little chance of obtaining a Coastal Consistency Determination.

Public Acceptability - The alternative options and plans should be acceptable to the local residents, agencies, organization, and the non-Federal sponsor(s), as well as the interested State and Federal agencies. The local sponsor has indicated that they are severely constrained by public opinion and cannot support any recommendation that meets with severe public opposition. Unacceptable plans include any visible offshore structure and any structure that significantly impedes beach access, such as rock revetments.

Table 3-1 compares the management measures to the evaluation criteria. 49 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-6
Table 3-1 Comparison of Management Measures to Environmental Evaluation Criteria Management Measure Meets Purpose
and Need
Technically
Feasible
Economically
Feasible
Environmental
ly Acceptable
Acceptable to
Public
Beach fill Yes Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Managed Retreat Maybe Yes No No Maybe
Revetment Maybe Yes Maybe No No
Seawall No Yes Yes No No
Groin Yes Maybe No No No
Visible Offshore
Breakwater Maybe Yes No No No
Submerged Reef Maybe No No Maybe Maybe
Beach nourishment is highly effective at protecting the coastline as long as the beach is maintained. A wide beach berm resulting from beach fill can effectively provide a buffer against storm wave attack and improve recreational safety and opportunities significantly. Beach fill would address all of the problems and concerns.

Revetments and sheet pile walls would effectively address storm damage concerns; however, they do not address beach recreation concerns. Seawalls and revetments are placed parallel to the shoreline as a last line of defense to protect adjacent land areas from direct wave attack, flooding, and erosion. As such, they often provide the most reliable form of shoreline protection; however, they do nothing to increase beach width and can impede public access to the beach.

Revetments are the most economic structural measures. Revetments are less aesthetically pleasing than beach replenishment or seawall. Revetments are difficult and hazardous for pedestrians to cross, and they severely impede access to the beach. In addition, they take up a significant portion of the beach width and impede alongshore access, constituting a significant impact to public access. Revetments would extend seaward up to 33 ft (10 m), which would result in no beach in the winter and would severely limit available beach space in the summertime.

The California Coastal Commission currently interprets the Coastal Act in such a way that favors almost any type of shore protection over rock revetment, especially in areas with high public beach use and recreation. The size of this Project would be a constraint. Local, well-organized, and well-funded citizens groups, including Surfrider Foundation, have expressed strong opposition to revetments both in public meetings and in litigation. Any proposed project including revetment would encounter severe opposition from these groups.

Groins are cross-shore retention structures that act as a barrier to alongshore sediment transport.

Offshore breakwaters are effective at retaining sand, but are expensive and require a healthy source of littoral sand to perform their sand trapping function. 50 I I I I I I I
Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-7

3.2 Measures Eliminated from Further Study
After reviewing the possible alternatives that were considered for the Project, only the beach fill alternatives were carried forward into the final array. Although all of the screening criteria were deemed important, the primary screening criteria included potential permanent and temporary impacts on Essential Fish Habitat, inconsistencies with the Coastal Zone Management Act, and project costs. Construction footprints for either breakwaters or groins would potentially have a permanent impact on Essential Fish Habitat. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act was a criterion for eliminating breakwaters, groins, and revetments. The high cost of implementing the remaining alternatives, compared to beach nourishment, would not maximize NED benefits and achieve the Planning Objectives.

The cost for beach nourishment will depend on the sand volume required for reconstruction, the need for retention structures, and the frequency of renourishment. Revetments would be the least costly alternative, but they have limited benefits addressing problems associated with San Clemente’s sand loss. The only consideration of a seawall is as a protective measure used by the railroad to protect their tracks and is not carried forward as a separate alternative.

Visible breakwaters were considered, however they were screened out of the final analysis due to public safety issues, extremely high cost, impact on down-coast littoral transport, impact on surfing, impact on aesthetics, and most importantly, and lack of support from the local sponsor and local community. Soft breakwaters and submerged reefs are generally not suited for the type of wave environment in the study area because the relatively small grain sizes of available sand would not be stable when subject to the wave-induced bottom currents. Therefore, soft submerged berms were not carried into the final analysis.

Groins would entail extremely high costs, lack of public/sponsor support, severe impact on lateral beach access, potential impacts to downdrift beaches, and concerns regarding effectiveness because groins have not been very effective in similar areas with limited sand supply. This measure was screened out of the final analysis.

3.3 Measures Carried Forward
Beach nourishment is highly effective at protecting the coastline as long as the beach is maintained. A wide beach berm resulting from beach fill can effectively provide a buffer against storm wave attack, and improve recreational safety and opportunities significantly. Beach fill is the only measure that met all the environmental evaluation criteria mentioned above. 51 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-8

3.4 Description of Alternatives

3.4.1 No Action
The USACE is required to consider the No Action, or Future without Project, Alternative to comply with the requirements of NEPA. The No Action Alternative assumes that no project would be implemented by the Federal government to achieve the planning objectives. For the purposes of the initial screening, the No Action Alternative assumes the SCRRA’s existing maintenance plan will continue to be implemented, which may result in potential damage to the railroad ballast and tracks, but without any measures implemented by the City to address continued erosion of the recreation beaches near the San Clemente Pier. With the No Action Alternative, the erosion-prone beaches are assumed to be further depleted and storm damages would be expected to increase in severity, increasing the threat to the railroad corridor. Public safety and liability problems would not be resolved, and recreational activity on the beaches would be degraded, resulting in a loss of associated economic benefits.

Due to chronic beach erosion in recent years that resulted in storm wave attack directly against the railroad corridor, the SCRRA and OCTA have constructed un-engineered riprap revetment segment by segment in the San Clemente area where the railroad ballast and tracks are vulnerable to storm wave-induced damages. The SCRRA has been side-dumping riprap stones in a random but controlled manner along the most critical segment between North Beach and the Marine Safety Building to mitigate wave-induced impacts on the railroad tracks. The cumulative impact of stone placement over the years has been a curtailment of lateral beach access. SCCRA is in the process of modifying the existing maintenance practices in response to evolving California Coastal Commission policies. In order to avoid and minimize any possible service disruption, it may become necessary or mandatory for the SCRRA to construct an “engineered” seawall.

3.4.2 Beach Fill Alternative
The Beach Fill Alternative consists of dredging material from offshore Oceanside (Figure 3-1), then hauling and placing it at San Clemente Beach. The borrow site (Borrow Area 2) is approximately 940 acres, with a 128 acre area instead the borrow site (Borrow Area 2A) that contains the more desirable material. The beach fill design parameters were determined by considering various combinations of beach-fill widths (i.e., between 10 m and 60 m at 5 m intervals) and different replenishment cycles. These combinations are scales (e.g., 10 m, 15 m, 20 m, etc. beach width) of the same alternative (i.e., beach fill). Two beach widths have been chosen that reasonably represent the scales that were modeled (i.e., 15 m and 35 m), but were expected to have apparent differences in environmental impacts based on preliminary screening.

The 15 m beach width was chosen to represent the smallest scale beach width that met the project objectives. The 35 m beach width was chosen to represent the largest scale beach width that met project objectives. Although it is recognized that these two widths are scales of the same alternative, they are addressed in this document as two separate alternatives. 52 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-9

3.4.2.1 Common Design Elements of Action Alternatives
The following design elements were determined to optimize the effectiveness of the beach nourishment alternative. The model outputs are principally economic values, annual net benefits, and benefit cost ratio (BCR). According to USACE planning guidelines, an economically justified plan satisfies the conditions of BCR greater than 1.0 and annual net benefits greater than 0. Unique features of the two alternatives are described in Section 3.4.2.2.

Alongshore Length
Approximately 3,412 ft (1,040 m) of shoreline within the City are recommended for nourishment. The area is approximately centered about the Pier; the south limit is located immediately south of the T-Street overpass, while the north limit is located immediately north of the Marine Safety Headquarters. A taper continues an additional 330 ft (100 m) to the north and south to merge with the existing shoreline.

Berm Crest Elevation
The design berm elevation for this study has been set at +17 feet (+5.2 m) MLLW. This elevation matches the height of the natural berm of adjacent healthy beaches, which has been established by numerous surveys over the years. Historical beach profiles measured over the years indicate natural, stable berm elevations are approximately +17 feet (+5.2 m) MLLW. A design berm lower than the natural berm will form a ridge along the crest, which when overtopped by high water will produce flooding and ponding on the berm. A design berm higher than the natural berm will produce a beach face slope steeper than the natural beach and may result in formation of scarps that interfere with recreational use and other environmental uses.

Foreshore Slope
The design foreshore slope is established at 8H:1V. This slope matches the natural foreshore slope of adjacent beaches that has been established by numerous surveys and measurements over the years. Direct measurements obtained by the City of San Clemente indicate natural, stable foreshore slopes range between 4-18H:1V, with 8H:1V as the most common value. This slope has been shown to be a stable mean value between the seasonal variations.

The construction foreshore slope is established at 13H:1V. Los Angeles District beach fill construction experience with standard earthmoving equipment indicates that slightly flatter foreshore slopes are easier to construct. The post-construction foreshore is expected to evolve through an adjustment process known as equilibration. Natural foreshore processes would redistribute a portion of the original fill volume throughout the profile.

Sediment Quantity
The volume of beach compatible sand for the different alternatives is provided in Section 3.4.2.2.

The recommended quantity was derived from consideration of the planform (i.e., plan view) area and volume/area relationships. The volume/area value of 1.5 yd3 /ft2 (12.3 m3/m2) was used in
53 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-10
the present study; a value of 0.5 yd3
/ft2 (4.1 m3/m2) has been shown to result in rapid erosion of the fill while the range of 1.0-1.5 yd3/ft2 (8.2-12.3 m3/m2) typically yields more realistic estimates of sediment requirement per surface area. Engineering practice in southern California indicates volume/area relationships are the most reliable predictor for fill quantities. It is expected that this quantity will have the greatest in-place stability.

A fill quantity is provided for each alternative to fill the design prism, including additional overfill requirements. The volume of sand represents a geometric area equivalent to the respective beach width. The construction profile is initially overfilled with the expectation that equilibration process will result in the design profile. Dredge material gradation is 6 to 12 percent of fines, 5 to 8 percent of gravel/cobbles, and the rest is sand. Material classification assumed is 10 percent fines, 83 percent sand, and 7 percent gravel.

Berm (or Beach) Width
The berm width for the different alternatives considered is provided in Section 3.4.2.2. Berm width in this study is defined as that portion of the beach between the foreshore berm contour and a fixed location on the backshore, or the “dry” portion of the beach not subject to erosion. In this study, the seaward edge of the railroad revetment is considered the fixed point on the backshore. Several scales (e.g., 10 m, 15 m, 20 m, etc.) of berm width were originally modeled to determine the optimal width for the proposed Project. Two of these berm widths were considered for further analysis.

Similar to the fill quantity, in order to achieve the design intent, an additional width of beach is required. This material is placed to offset expected beach fill losses due to anticipated winnowing and equilibration of the construction profile. At the time of construction, the actual immediate post-construction width will be more than the equilibration or resultant beach width.

The initial fill profile is expected to evolve through an adjustment process known as equilibration. Natural foreshore processes will re-distribute a portion of the original fill volume throughout the profile. The overfill material has been added to the design quantity to account for the equilibration process.

Nourishment Interval
A periodic nourishment interval is not optimized explicitly, but is a result of the sacrificial beach width optimization. The sacrificial beach width represents a period of time between successive nourishments. The sacrificial beach width divided by the mean long-term erosion rate will yield an approximate value for the nourishment interval. For example, a 66 ft (20 m) sacrificial beach width divided by 13 ft/yr (4.0 m/yr) long-term erosion rate approximately equals a 5-year periodic nourishment interval. Therefore, optimization of the sacrificial beach width will yield the periodic nourishment interval.
54 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-11
Figure 3-1 – Oceanside Borrow Site
55 OCEANSIDE HARBOR RESTRICTED &

OFFSHORE BORROW AREAS
c:zl Restricted Area 334.900 (U.S. Coast Pilot 7)
m Restricted Area 334.910 (U.S. Coast Pilot 7)
Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-12

3.4.2.2 Unique Features of Action Alternatives
50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative
The design berm width for this alternative is approximately 50 ft (15 m). At the time of construction, the actual immediate post-construction width is expected to be approximately 76 ft (23 m). The recommended plan will require approximately 251,000 cy (192,000 m3 ) of beach
compatible sand. In other words, approximately 251,000 cy (192,000 m3 ) in-place will create an
immediate post-construction dry beach width of 76 ft (23 m) (Figure 3-2). It is expected that up to 26 ft (8 m) of dry beach width will be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete. 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative
The design berm width for this alternative is approximately 115 ft (35 m). At the time of construction, the actual immediate post-construction width is expected to be approximately 171 ft (52 m). The recommended plan will require approximately 586,000 cy (448,000 m3 ) of
beach compatible sand. In other words, approximately 586,000 cy (448,000 m3) in-place will create an immediate post-construction dry beach width of 171 ft (52 m) (Figure 3-3). It is expected that up to 56 ft (17 m) of dry beach width will be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 108 working days to complete.

3.4.2.3 Construction Method for Action Alternatives
The proposed Project, regardless of the action alternative chosen, will be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. Typical Los Angeles District beach fill projects require large capacity open-ocean capable dredges.

A medium-sized hopper dredge (e.g., Sugar Island) would be used. The hopper dredge effective capacity is estimated at 1,700 cy (1,300 m3
) and 3.2 loads per day. The hopper dredge would
pump out the dredge material via a 24-inch pipeline at 1,800 cy/hr (1,376 m3/hr). The hopper dredge would be filled at the designated borrow site at Oceanside and hauled approximately 21 miles (35 km) to San Clemente. At the receiver beach, the dredge would be attached to a moored floating section of pipeline extending 1,500 ft (457 m) to the shoreline. The material would be re-suspended and discharged through the on-board pumping system to the receiver site.

The hopper dredge requires a mono buoy to discharge its sand onto the beach. A mono buoy is a floating pipeline connection platform that is moored to the seafloor, and is used to interconnect with a steel sinker pipeline that carries the slurry along the seafloor to the beach. For this Project the mono buoy would be anchored in at least 25 ft (7.6 m) of water, between 2,500 and 5,000 ft (762 m to 1,524 m) from shore and in the appropriate location in relation to sensitive resources and engineering considerations. From one mono buoy location, sand can be pumped directly onshore and up to approximately 2,000 ft (610 m) alongshore in either direction. 56 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-13
Dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Project duration is estimated at four months. Anticipated number of working days differs between the alternatives. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012.

Onshore Placement Method
Sand would be combined with seawater until it reaches the consistency of slurry. It then would be conveyed to the beach via either pipeline or a combination of hopper dredge and pipeline, as described above.

Existing sand at the receiver site would be used to build a small, “L”-shaped berm to anchor the sand placement operations. The short side of the “L” would be transverse (crosswise) to the shoreline and would be the proposed width. The long side would be parallel to the shore at the seaward edge and would be approximately 200 ft (61 m) long. Berm construction may be adjusted from the design requirements during fill placement depending on actual field conditions. The crosswise side of the berm would be constructed to allow alongshore landward beach access for emergency access at all times.

The slurry would be pumped onto the beach between this berm and toe. The berm reduces ocean water turbidity by allowing all the sand to settle out inside the bermed area while the seawater is channeled along the berm until it reaches the open end where it drains into the ocean.

Temporary dikes within the berm will allow sand to settle in designated areas. Once a 200 ft (61 m) section of berm is filled in with sand, another 200 ft (61 m) of berm would be created, the pipeline would be moved or extended into the new berm area, and the process would begin again. As the material is deposited behind the berm, the sand would be spread using two bulldozers and one front-end loader to direct the flow of the sand slurry and form a gradual slope to the existing beach elevation. The berm would be subject to the forces of the waves and weather once constructed and would eventually settle down to a natural grade for the beach. 57 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-14
Figure 3-2 Plan View of 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative 58 Legend
D Construction Footprint
[ Equilibrium Footprint
Bathymetry Lines
WN +E 1 :8,000
s
0 200 400
Ml Ml
800
Feet
Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-15
Figure 3-3 Plan View of 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative 59 D Construction Footprint
D Equilibrium Footprint
~IKlmbers Group Inc:

O 300 600 1,200
--===---c:::=-----■ Feet
Figure 3.4-3
Plan View of 115 ft (35 m)
Beach Width Alternative
Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-16
Construction Access and Staging Areas
Beach access for the construction equipment and crew would be split between open space on the beach and a city owned public parking lot and is shown in Figure 3-4. An open area exists along the beach immediately adjacent and north of the Pier and in the immediate vicinity of the Marine Safety Headquarters. It is expected this site would be used for the contractors’ office trailer, parking area for heavy earthmoving equipment, and storage area for dredge pipe and other miscellaneous materials. This site is used extensively for access to the Marine Safety Headquarters and other municipal operations. It poses no new environmental considerations, minimizes disturbance to the environment, and is ideally located for contractor ease of operations. Although access to this area is controlled by a signal controlled, at-grade railroad crossing, it is anticipated that there would be no significant restrictions on utilization of this portion of the contractors work and storage area.

The contractors’ dredge and vessels would require off-site mooring and berthing space. There is no mooring area available within the City of San Clemente. The nearest suitable mooring area is Dana Point Harbor, a small craft harbor approximately 5 mi (8 km) north.

Figure 3-4 Beach Access and Staging Areas
60 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-17

3.4.2.4 Public Access
For the beach fill operation, up to 300 ft (91 m) of beach would be inaccessible to the public around the discharge pipeline and berms. In addition, there would be intermittent restrictions on public access for approximately 350 ft (107 m) on either side of this discharge zone. This space would be needed for maneuvering heavy equipment during construction of the temporary berms.

3.4.2.5 Future Project Beach Profile Monitoring
Long-term shoreline erosional processes create damages through long-term profile translation landward and the increasing potential for wave related damages. The landward advancing shoreline reduces the beach width available for storm damage protection thereby increasing the probability of wave related damages to facilities and structures. Long-term beach erosion also results in the gradual reduction of the beach surface area available for recreation. The peak erosion rate is –0.7 ft/yr (–0.21 m/yr), the maximum erosion rate is -1.5 ft/yr (–0.46 m/yr), and the maximum accretion rate is +1.24 ft/yr (+0.38 m/yr).

The purpose of this monitoring is to allow the timing and the detailed design of the periodic nourishment to be optimized. Surveying of the beach and seabed morphology is paramount to the monitoring efforts. Changes in beach and seabed morphology will define the sediment transport patterns at the shoreline and ultimately the short term and long-term beach erosion processes. Alongshore transects will be crucial to determine the effects, if any, of the proposed Project on updrift and/or downdrift shorelines. The monitoring period will be for the 50-year period of Federal involvement. However, not all aspects of the monitoring plan will be conducted each year.

Maintenance nourishment efforts would occur when the shoreline reaches the base beach width (i.e., approximately 35 ft [11 m]). Based on a maximum erosion rate of -12.8 feet per year (3.9 m/yr), nourishment for the 50 ft (15 m) wide beach would be required approximately every 6 years and nourishment for the 115 ft (35 m) wide beach would be required approximately every 10 years. Maintenance nourishment efforts would return the beach to the design beach width, either 50 ft (15 m) or 115 ft (35 m), and would involve up to a similar amount of material as original construction based on the design beach width. Maintenance nourishment efforts also would be dependent upon available funding at the time of request.

3.5 Comparative Impacts Criteria of Alternative Plans
Alternatives were compared using the following four formulation criteria suggested by the U.S.

Water Resources Council.

Completeness - Completeness is a determination of whether or not the plan includes all elements necessary to achieve the objectives of the plan. It is an indication of the degree that the outputs of the plan are dependent upon the action of others. 61 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-18
Effectiveness – All of the plans in the final array provide some contribution to the planning objectives. Effectiveness is defined as a measure of the extent to which a plan achieves its objectives.

Efficiency – All of the plans in the final array provide net benefits. Efficiency is a measure of the cost effectiveness of the plan expressed in net benefits.

Acceptability – All of the plans in the final array must be in accordance with Federal law and policy. The comparison of acceptability is defined as acceptance of the plan to the local sponsor and the concerned public.

3.6 Recommended Plan Alternative
Alternatives were considered that may have fewer direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to aquatic resources that still meet the Project purpose. Potential project related impacts are provided in the alternatives analysis in Section 5.0 of this report. The 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative is identified as the recommended plan.

The recommended plan is developed by considering the storm damage reduction and recreational potential of various beach fill configuration alternatives and optimization based on the average annual benefits and the benefit/cost ratio. Primary optimization parameters of each alternative are the dimensions of the base beach width and sacrificial beach width of the cross-sectional design profile. An array of sacrificial beach widths yields a matrix of Project alternatives. Based on the evaluation of management measures above and the comparison of the alternatives formulated for this study, the tentatively recommended plan is the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative.

The recommended plan is expected to perform in a manner consistent with other recent fills within the southern California region. A similar beach nourishment operation was performed in 2001 by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG 2000). The project entailed dredging 2 million cubic yards (1.5 million cubic meters) of beach compatible sediments from 6 borrow sites for placement on 12 receiver beaches. The wide spread locations of the receiver beaches relative to the borrow locations required the use of a trailing suction hopper dredge.

Sediment discharge was accomplished by pumping through floating pipelines to the beach. The dry land operation is expected to be conducted by conventional earthmoving equipment, including bulldozers and front-end loaders. Ancillary equipment is expected to include small maintenance/tool trailers and small service trucks. Oceanside Beach is the transect deemed most applicable to San Clemente. At Oceanside Beach, the fill quantity (421,000 cy / 322,000 m³), median grain size (0.64 mm [0.03 in]), alongshore length (4,400 ft [1,341 m]), and fill width (185 ft [56 m]) are comparable to the recommended plan of this study, and its performance is deemed representative of expected performance at San Clemente.

Estimates based on the SANDAG monitoring data suggest the San Clemente fill will erode on average at a rate of 12.8 feet per year (3.9 m/yr). A beach fill erodes at substantially higher rates than the native beach. Due to the time varying nature of the wave climate, sediment supply to the beach, and other factors driving longshore sediment transport, it is expected that the beach 62 Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-19
will erode at a greater rate in some years, at a slower rate in some years, and possibly accrete in other years. Based on a 50 ft (15 m) wide beach, and the 12.8 ft/yr (3.9 m/yr) erosion rate, it is anticipated that a fill will last about 6 years on average. 63 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-1

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Meteorology and Air Quality

4.1.1 Climate/Meteorology
The proposed San Clemente Shoreline Project lies in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), with a borrow area located in the San Diego Air Basin.

4.1.1.1 South Coast Air Basin (SCAB)
The SCAB includes all of Orange County as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAB is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semipermanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.

The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (ºF). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station located in Laguna Beach (to the north) reports a yearly average of 61ºF. The average low is reported at 44ºF in January while the average high is 77ºF in August and September.

In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages around 12.45 inches per year in the Project area, again, as measured at Laguna Beach.

Although the SCAB has a semi-arid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by off shore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coastline, are frequent; and low stratus clouds, often referred to as “high fog” are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the east portions of the SCAB.

Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Annually, typical winds in the project area average about 6 to 8 miles per hour during the day and 2 to 8 miles per hour during the night.
64 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-2
Between the periods of dominant airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally have duration of a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.

In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the “mixing height”. This mixing height can change under conditions when the top of the inversion does not change. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer, and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area.

4.1.1.2 San Diego Air Basin (SDAB)
The SDAB covers 4,260 square miles and lies in the southwest corner of California and comprises the entire San Diego region. The topography in the San Diego region varies greatly, from beaches on the west to mountains and desert on the east. Much of the topography in between consists of mesa tops intersected by canyon areas. The topography in the San Diego region, along with local meteorology, influences the dispersal and movement of pollutants in the basin.

The weather of the San Diego region, as in most of southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi-permanent high-pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters. The average temperature ranges from the mid 40s to the high 90s. Most of the county’s precipitation falls from November to April, with infrequent (approximately ten percent) precipitation during the summer.

The interaction of ocean, land, and the Pacific High Pressure Zone maintains clear skies for much of the year and drives the prevailing winds. Local terrain is often the dominant factor inland, and winds in inland mountainous areas tend to blow through the valleys during the day and down the hills and valleys at night.

4.1.2 Ambient Air Quality
The following characterization of the baseline atmospheric environment includes an evaluation of the ambient air quality and applicable rules, regulations, and standards for the area. Because the Project has the ability to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air, it falls under the ambient air quality standards promulgated on the local, state, and federal levels.
65 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-3

4.1.2.1 Baseline Air Quality
Topographical features that affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants in the project area include the mountain ranges to the northeast that prevent the transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions. During the past 20 years, the SDAB has experienced a decline in the number of days with unhealthy levels of ozone despite the region’s growth in population and vehicle miles traveled, which both contribute to air pollution problems.

This improvement in air quality clearly shows that efforts to reduce air pollution are working.

Pollutants emitted into the air from stationary and mobile sources affect the ambient air quality.

Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point sources and area sources.

Point sources consist of one or more emission sources at a facility with an identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industrial processing plants. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions, such as residential water heaters.

Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources are a combination of emissions from automobiles, trucks, and indirect sources. Indirect sources are sources that by themselves may not emit air contaminants; however, they indirectly cause the generation of air pollutants by attracting vehicle trips or consuming energy. Examples of indirect sources include an office complex or commercial center that generates commuter trips and consumes energy resources through the use of natural gas for space and water heating. Indirect sources also include actions proposed by local governments, such as redevelopment districts and private projects involving the development of either large buildings or tracts. In addition, indirect sources include those emissions created by the distance vehicles travel. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.

4.1.2.2 Affected Environment
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the project area are best documented by measurements made by the SCAQMD. The sand placement is located within the southern portion of Source Receptor Area (SRA) 21 Capistrano Valley. The closest monitoring station to the San Clemente area is located at Lake Forest (Saddleback Valley SRA 19). Excepting NO2 that is not monitored in this area, data from the monitoring station in SRA 19 are summarized in Table 4-1. Data for NO2 included in Table 4-1 are as monitored in the North Coastal SRA 18. The borrow area is located near Oceanside. The nearest monitoring station to the borrow site is located at Camp Pendleton. The Camp Pendleton site measures ozone, PM2.5, and NO2. Table 4-1 also includes ambient data for Camp Pendleton.

At the SCAG monitoring sites, ozone pollution decreased between 2004 and 2005 with an increase again in 2006 and decrease in 2007 with 5 days experiencing a violation of the federal hourly standard. The SCAG data show recurring violations of and fluctuations in both the State and Federal ozone standards and no clear trend is apparent. The SCAG data also indicate that the area occasionally exceeds the PM10 and PM2.5 State and Federal standards with only one day 66 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-4
in 2006 that exceeded the standards for either pollutant. The CO and NO2 standards have not been violated in the last five years at this station.

Table 4-1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Thresholds Were Exceeded and
Maximum Levels During Such Violations
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Ozone – Lake Forest
State 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm
State 8-Hour > 0.07 ppm
Federal 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm
Federal 8-Hour > 0.08 ppm
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
16 ND
4 8

0.153

0.105
11 20
0 0

0.116

0.089
3 6
1 1

0.125

0.085
13 17
0 6

0.12 0.105
5 10
0 2

0.108

0.089
Ozone – Camp Pendleton
State 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm
State 8-Hour > 0.07 ppm
Federal 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm
Federal 8-Hour > 0.08 ppm
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
4 10
0 5

0.099

0.084
4 12
0 6

0.110

0.095
0 2
0 0

0.090

0.074
0 5
0 0

0.086

0.073
0 4
0 0

0.083

0.074
Carbon Monoxide – Lake Forest
State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm
Federal 8-Hour > 9.5 ppm
Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0 0
3 1.8
0 0
2 1.6
0 0
2 1.6
0 0
2 1.8
0 0
3 2.1
Nitrogen Dioxide – SRA 18
State 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0 0.11
0 0.10
0 0.09
0 0.10
0 0.07
Nitrogen Dioxide – Camp Pendleton
State 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0 0.11
0 0.10
0 0.09
0 0.10
0 0.07
Inhalable Particulates (PM10)
2 – Lake Forest
State 24-Hour > 50 μg/m3
Federal 24-Hour > 150 μg/m3
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (μg/m3
)

3.5 0.0
64 0.0

0.0 47

0.0 0
41 2.0
0 57
5 0
74 Inhalable Particulates (PM2.5)
2 – Lake Forest
Federal 24-Hour > 65 μg/m3
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (μg/m3
)

0.0 50.6

0.0 49.4

0.0 35.4

0.9 47.0

0.0 46.9 1
NO2 as measured at the North Coastal Orange County monitoring station. All other pollutants as measured at the Saddleback monitoring station.
2 Percent of samples exceeding standard.
ppm: parts per million; μg/m3
: micrograms per cubic meter
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District
67 I I I I I I I
-
-
-
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-5
At the SDAG monitoring sites, ozone pollution stayed fairly steady between 2004 and 2005 and actually decreased between 2005 and 2007 with an average of 3 days experiencing a violation of the State hourly standard during those three years. The NO2 standards have not been violated in the last five years at this station.

4.1.2.3 Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases.

Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Schools are also considered as sensitive as children are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution because exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. Sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity include several residential neighborhoods approximately 196 feet from the Project site.

4.1.3 Regulatory Framework
The following characterization of the baseline atmospheric environment includes an evaluation of the ambient air quality and applicable rules, regulations, and standards for the area. Because the Project has the ability to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air, it falls under the ambient air quality standards promulgated on the Local, State, and federal levels.

4.1.3.1 Criteria Pollutants
Federal and State laws regulate the air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized as primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and most fine particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), including lead (Pb) and fugitive dust; are primary air pollutants. Of these CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors that go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. A description of each of these primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented in Appendix C.

4.1.3.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
The public's exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an 68 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-6
increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health”. A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal Act (42 USC Sec. 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency, acting through the CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology (T-BACT) to minimize emissions.

Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.

To date the CARB has designated nearly 200 compounds as TACs. Additionally, the CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to a relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.

4.1.3.3 Other Effects of Air Pollution
Just as humans are affected by air pollution, so too are plants and animals. Animals must breathe the same air and are subject to the same types of negative health effects. Certain plants and trees may absorb air pollutants that can stunt their development or cause premature death.

There are also numerous impacts to the human economy including lost workdays due to illness, a desire on the part of business to locate in areas with a healthy environment, and increased expenses from medical costs. Pollutants may also lower visibility and cause damage to property.

Certain air pollutants are responsible for discoloring painted surfaces, eating away at stones used in buildings, dissolving the mortar that holds bricks together, and cracking tires and other items made from rubber.

4.1.3.4 Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)
The Federal Clean Air Act Amendment of 1971 (CAA) established national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to 69 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-7
include other pollution species. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

Both the State of California and the federal government have established health based AAQS for six air pollutants. As shown in Table 4-2, these pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.

In addition to primary and secondary AAQS, the State of California has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health.

4.1.3.5 Air Quality Management Planning
The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB.

Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The 1997 AQMP, updated in 1999 and replaced in 2003, was based on the 1994 AQMP and ultimately the 1991 AQMP, and was designed to comply with State and Federal requirements, reduce the high level of pollutant emissions in the SCAB, and ensure clean air for the region through various control measures. To accomplish its task, the 1991 AQMP relied on a multilevel partnership of governmental agencies at the Federal, State, regional, and local level. These agencies (i.e., the USEPA, CARB, local governments, SCAG, and SCAQMD) are the cornerstones that implement AQMP programs.

The 2003 AQMP, adopted in August 2003, updated the attainment demonstration for the Federal standards for ozone and PM10; replaced the 1997 attainment demonstration for the Federal CO standard and provided a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updated the maintenance plan for the Federal NO2 standard that the SCAB has met since 1992.

The most recent comprehensive plan was adopted on July 13, 2007. The 2007 comprehensive plan is designed to meet the State and Federal CAA planning requirements and focuses on ozone and PM2.5. The 2007 comprehensive plan incorporates significant new emissions inventories, ambient measurements, scientific data, control strategies, and air quality modeling.

Areas that meet the ambient air quality standards are classified as “attainment” areas while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as “non-attainment” areas. The classifications for ozone non-attainment include and range in magnitude from: marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The attainment status for the SCAB is included in Table 4-3. 70 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-8
Table 4-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Priority Pollutants Pollutant Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Primary
Standard
Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, 8 hours 0.070 0.075 ppm and solvents.

Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines,
primarily gasoline-powered
motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Annual
Average * 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleumrefining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and
railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm *
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual
Average * 0.03 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical
plants, sulfur recovery plants,
and metal processing. 1 hour 0.25 ppm *
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
Dust and fume-producing
construction, industrial, and
agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and
natural activities (e.g. windraised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3
15 µg/m3
Dust and fume-producing
construction, industrial, and
agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and
natural activities (e.g. windraised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3
Lead (Pb)
Monthly 1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters,
battery manufacturing &
recycling facilities. Past source:
combustion of leaded gasoline.

Quarterly * 1.5 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes. ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * = standard is not used for this pollutant/duration by this entity. 71 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-9
Table 4-3 Attainment Status for the SCAB
Pollutant State Status Federal Status
Ozone (1-hour) Extreme Non-attainment Extreme Non-attainment (under the prior standard)
Ozone (8-hour) Extreme Non-Attainment Extreme
PM10 Serious Non-attainment Serious Non-attainment
PM2.5 Non-attainment Non-attainment
CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
On April 15, 2010, EPA signed a final rule to grant requests to reclassify SCAB from "severe17" to "extreme". The SCAB also is designated as attainment of the CAAQS for SO2, lead, and sulfates. Areas that are designated as Severe 17 for the ozone standard must meet attainment of the 8-hour standard by 2021 (2024 if reclassified to Extreme). Areas considered as serious nonattainment of the PM10 standards must have reached attainment by the end of 2006, or as expeditiously as possible. The PM2.5 attainment date is to be met in the year 2015.

General Conformity
The EPA established the General Conformity Rule on November 30, 1993. The rule implements the CAA conformity provision, which mandates that the Federal government not engage, support, or provide financial assistance for licensing or permitting, or approve any activity not conforming to an approved CAA implementation plan. The purpose of the General Conformity Rule was to ensure that Federal activities do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution.

The total quantified emissions of nonattainment or maintenance pollutants from both direct and indirect sources is compared to rates listed in Title 40, Part 51, Section 51.853(b), considered the de minimis levels, where, if they are determined to exceed those levels, the Federal agency is required to conduct a Conformity Determination.

Since all on-shore activities are located at the main project site in San Clemente, the de minimis levels are based on attainment designations/classifications in the SCAB. Table 4.3a shows the General Conformity de minimis levels.

Table 4-4a General Conformity De Minimis Levels
Pollutant Classification Tons/yr
Ozone Extreme 10
PM10 Serious 70
CO Maintenance 100
NO2 Maintenance 100
72 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-10

4.1.3.6 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes
All projects constructed in the SCAB are subject to Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes.

Compliance with these provisions is mandatory and as such, does not constitute mitigation under CEQA. Those conditions specific to air quality that would apply to the Project are included below:
• Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities.
• Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.

During construction, the project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (fugitive dust).

SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather, sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SCAB. The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source.

SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits a construction site from causing an incremental PM10 concentration impact at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter as determined through PM10 high-volume sampling, but the concentration standard and associated PM10 sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rule are implemented and appropriately documented.

4.1.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of greenhouse gas would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq.), which requires CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing an approximate 25 percent reduction in emissions).

Discrete early action measures are measures that will be in place and enforceable by January 1, 2010. The discrete early action items include: (1) a Low Carbon Fuel standards for ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, electricity, compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and biogas; (2) 73 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-11
restrictions on High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants; (3) Landfill Methane Capture; (4) Smartway Truck Efficiency; (5) Port Electrification; (6) Reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry; (7) Reduction of propellants in consumer products; (8) Tire inflation; and (9) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) reductions from non-electricity sector.

The 2020 target reductions are currently estimated to be 174 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (MMTCO2E). In total, the recommended early actions have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 42 MMTCO2E emissions by 2020, representing about 25 percent of the estimated reductions needed by 2020. The CARB Board adopted Resolution 07-55 in December 2007, approving 427 MMTCO2E as the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit for 2020, which is equivalent to the 1990 emissions level. The measures are in the sectors of fuels, transportation, forestry, agriculture, education, energy efficiency, commercial, solid waste, cement, oil and gas, electricity, and fire suppression.

4.2 Geology and Topography
This discussion of the existing topographic and geologic features of the Project area was based on the Geotechnical Report prepared by the Geotechnical Branch of the USACE (USACE 2005b) and the Coastal Engineering Appendix to the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study (USACE 2009, Appendix D). Those reports contain a summary of geologic conditions in the Project area as well as the results of sediment testing performed by the USACE in 1993 and 2003 and SANDAG in 1999.

The shoreline in the Project area consists mainly of narrow, gently to moderately sloping sandy beaches backed by high, coastal bluffs. This sandy beach grades into a foreshore consisting of cobble and gravel pockets at the water’s edge. At Mariposa Point, located some 980 feet (300 meters) northwest of the San Clemente Pier, offshore rocks, and boulders protrude from the high intertidal sand beach and become the dominant habitat type throughout the mid and low intertidal zones. The extensive rocky intertidal habitat at Mariposa Point consists of a series of low-lying shale reef platforms that begin mid-beach and extend into the subtidal zone along with individual high relief boulders.

4.2.1 Offshore
The area offshore of San Clemente is a part of the Capistrano Bight, located at the eastern edge of the Gulf of Santa Catalina. This area is described as that part of the California coast known as the “Continental Borderland”, as there is no real continental shelf in this part of the coast. The area from Dana Point Harbor in Orange County downcoast to La Jolla in San Diego County is further defined as the “Oceanside Littoral Cell”. San Clemente Beach is located in the extreme upper portion of this Littoral Cell. Published information for the bedrock exposures of most of the offshore area, exclusive of San Clemente Beach and the Channel Islands, is sparse and is based upon scattered bottom samples and reconnaissance type geophysical investigations. Local lifeguards and divers have informally stated that the ocean floor area offshore contained only bedrock and there were no deposits of beach sand.
74 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-12
In May 2002, bathymetric surveys, seismic surveys, sub-bottom profiling, and a side scan sonar survey were conducted offshore of San Clemente Beach to determine the presence or absence of shallow bedrock. The bathymetric survey indicates that the ocean bottom slopes gradually seawards from an elevation 0 Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) at the shoreline to an elevation deeper than -100 ft (-32.8 m) MLLW at a distance of about 0.9 mi (1,500 m) from shore. The seafloor slope direction is southwest - normal to the beach. The seafloor gradient averages 0.9 percent (slope 110H:1V) but varies locally. The inshore gradient between 10 to 20 ft (3 to 6 m) is 5 percent off San Clemente Beach and decreases farther to the northwest.

The geophysical surveys further indicated that the ocean floor is a bedrock surface covered with a thin veneer of littoral sediments that vary in thickness from about 0 to about 1 ft (0.32 m) or more, out to a distance of 4,950 ft (1,500 m) from the shoreline. This surficial sediment cover likely changes seasonally as beach sands migrate cross-shore.

Several bedrock spurs extend out from shore; the largest one is the seaward extension of the San Mateo Point. These spurs may rise several meters above the intervening swales. The San Mateo Rocks northwest of San Mateo Point are isolated and may be remnant spurs. Bedrock outcrops the seafloor in places between the shore and about the 50 ft (15 m) isobath. Where outcrops occur, the seafloor is uneven from the resistant bedrock mounds. Some of the larger outcrops rise as much as 20 ft (6 m) above the surrounding seabed. The topography seaward of the outcrops is a smooth seafloor with an even slope. The smooth texture is the result of unconsolidated recent sediment deposition.

The proposed borrow area for the beach replenishment is located approximately 21 mi (35 km) downcoast of San Clemente Beach, approximately 1 mi (1.7 km) north of Oceanside Harbor, Oceanside, California. The borrow site is sand bottom, although some artificial reefs have been identified in the vicinity (SANDAG 2000).

4.2.2 Onshore
The San Clemente area comprises a part of the western flank of the Peninsular Ranges Geologic Province of southern California and includes areas of the western foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and the southeastern flank of the San Joaquin Hills. The Peninsular Ranges extend from the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the north to the tip of Baja California in the south. The bedrock exposures in the area are comprised of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene ages. The bedrock formations both onshore and offshore consist of the San Mateo Formation, an arkosic sandstone of Pleistocene age; the Capistrano Formation, a series of silty shales, mudstones, siltstones, and coarse sandstones of late Miocene and early Pliocene age; and the San Onofre Breccia, which is a series of volcanic breccias, ash flows, and tuffs derived from large landslides during volcanic eruptions, interbeded with layers of fine-grained volcanic ash deposited into fresh or salt water and is of Miocene age.

On the San Clemente Beach marine erosion has formed a broad wave-cut terrace, which extends back from the coastline and lies several meters above sea level. This relatively flat-lying surface is cut mainly in rocks of the Capistrano Formation of late Miocene and early Pliocene age and is mantled with poorly consolidated non-marine alluvial cover of Holocene and Pleistocene age and 75 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-13
marine terrace deposits of Upper Pleistocene age. The non-marine cover consists of poorly bedded fine-grained sediments. The marine terrace deposits consist of poorly consolidated sands, sandstones, and conglomerates. The beach, which begins at the foot of the wave-cut terrace, is composed of fine to medium-grained sands and silty sands. Because of various seasonal cycles of sand deposition and erosion and the lack of adequate natural beach renourishment, the beach varies in width from 0 to 200 ft (0 to 60 m). Within the Project area the beach width meanders from 0 ft wide to 76 ft (23 m) to 0 ft to 129 ft (39 m) and back to 0 ft along the reach.

4.2.3 Geologic Hazards

4.2.3.1 Landslides
Several landslides have been mapped in the hills and mountains that form the eastern boundary of San Clemente Beach. These are shown on an accompanying geologic map “Natural Slope Stability as Related to Geology, San Clemente Area, Orange and San Diego Counties, California, Special Report 98” published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. The geologic map indicates that there are seven small areas of the bluff behind the beach, extending from the San Clemente Pier to San Mateo Point, which contain landslide deposits. None of these slides extend all of the way onto the beach, so they are not a potential problem for beach nourishment.

Neither the literature search nor the offshore seismic and side-scan sonar surveys indicate any landslides offshore of the beach.

4.2.3.2 Seismicity
All of southern California including the San Clemente area is seismically active. There are several major northwest-southeast trending faults in both the onshore and the offshore areas east and west of San Clemente. The Whittier-Elsinore, Agua Caliente, San Jacinto, and the San Andreas Fault zones are located approximately 20 mi (32 km), 27 mi (43 km), 40 mi (64 km), and 62 mi (100 km) northeast of San Clemente, respectively. The Newport-Inglewood–Rose Canyon Fault lies approximately 5 mi (8 km) offshore of the beach. The Palos Verdes Fault zone parallels the Pacific Coast offshore from the San Pedro – Long Beach area to La Jolla, and lies about 18 mi (29 km) from the coastline. The San Clemente Island Fault zone lies approximately 55 mi (88 km) offshore and is parallel to the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault zone. These three faults trend parallel to the onshore faults. The Christianitos Fault, which is the closest fault to the Project area, trends northwest-southeast, and passes through the mountain ranges behind the San Clemente area and trends down San Mateo Creek and goes offshore to parallel the coastline near San Onofre in a southerly direction past Oceanside. The fault is located approximately 1 to 5 mi (2-8 km) offshore of San Clemente Beach. This wellstudied fault is considered to be inactive. This information is based on the absence of displacement of the boulder layer just above the platform and also the lack of displacement of the 90 ft (27 m) of overlying dark-brown alluvial deposits above. 76 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-14

4.2.3.3 Soils
According to data published by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey, the shoreline south of Dana Point through San Clemente is indicated as Beaches (115) with the exception of the area between Dana Point and Dana Cove (within Dana Point Harbor). That area is listed as Cieneba sandy loam (142), 30 to 75 percent slope, eroded. Adjacent soils, from at or near Paso De Cristobal southward to San Mateo Point, are composed of Myford Sandy Loam (177), 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded.

From Paseo De Cristobal northward near San Clemente Pier, adjacent soils are Xerorthents loamy (220), cut and fill areas, 15 to 30 percent slopes. North of San Clemente Pier adjacent soils near the outfall of Segunda Deshecha (creek) are Calleguas Clay loam (134), in the Northernmost portion, 50 to 75 percent slopes, eroded, and Sorrento clay loam (209), 2 to 9 percent slopes, to the south of Calleguas Clay loam, and Aloe clay (101), 15 to 30 percent slopes south of Sorrento clay loam.

A small area near Poche, located near a trailer park, consists of Riverwash (191), with Cropley clay (149), 2 to 9 percent slopes, on each side. Capistrano Beach southward to Poche is listed as Cieneba sandy loam (142), 30 to 75 percent slopes, eroded. Near San Juan Capistrano, San Juan Creek and Trabuco Creek converge with their combined outfall at Doheny State Beach (Capistrano Beach). These soils are depicted as Riverwash (191) and Metz loamy sand (163) on both sides of the outfall.

4.3 Water Quality, Sediments, and Oceanography
Water quality is affected by a variety of factors including oceanographic processes, climatic conditions, atmospheric fallout, river runoff, municipal wastewater outfalls, minor industrial outfalls, non-point source runoff, and vessel discharges. Currents, waves, and seasonal variations, as well as episodic events, such as El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, are the main factors that affect fluctuations from surface to bottom waters.

Rivers and streams discharge and transport freshwater, suspended sediments (turbidity), nutrients, debris, and contaminants from agricultural and urban runoff to nearshore waters.

Ocean wastewater outfalls discharge treated sewage effluent, which introduces suspended solids and pollutants to the marine environment. Storm drains with coastal outlets introduce non-point source inputs of pollutants and debris to the ocean.

The mouths of two streams are within 3 mi (5 km) of the beach placement area: the mouth of Prima Deshecha Cañada Creek, which is approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) northwest of the study area boundary and discharges to the ocean at Poche Beach, and Segunda Deshecha Cañada Creek, which is approximately 1.5 mi (2.4 km) northwest of the study area boundary and discharges to the ocean at North Beach. Several storm drain outlets are also within the study area. Two major rivers enter the ocean near the Oceanside borrow site. These are the Santa Margarita River and the San Luis Rey River. In addition, the City of Oceanside’s Ocean outfall discharges an average of about 17.5 million gallons per day of treated sewage through a 250 foot (75 m) long diffuser section at a depth of approximately 100 feet (30 m). 77 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-15
Several water quality-monitoring programs have study locations within the study area and in the watersheds which drain into the study area in order to compare conditions of the waters to the water quality objectives set forth by the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2005) and requirements of other regulations. The objectives established in the California Ocean Plan to protect marine aquatic life are given in Table 4-5. The objectives represent thresholds below which beneficial uses of waters will be unimpaired. Relevant baseline physical and chemical characteristics of waters within the study area are described in Section 4.3.1, bacterial characteristics are described in Section 4.3.2, and sediments are described in Section 4.3.3.

A CWA 404(b)(1) analysis that is complete and is provided in Appendix A in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217). The intent of the analysis is to state and evaluate information regarding the effects of the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The document discusses the effects of the dredging, the initial sand placement and future renourishment actions. Appropriate and practicable steps taken to minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem are discussed as avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures. To satisfy requirements of the Federal CWA, USACE will submit this Final EIS/EIR and appropriate technical documentation to the San Diego RWQCB, which is delegated with implementing the CWA within the region, for their review for CWA Section 401 certification, pursuant to 33 CFR 336.1(a)(1). Upon review of the submittal, the RWQCB would evaluate if issuance of a Section 401-water quality certification is appropriate. USACE will continue to coordinate with the RWQCB throughout the remaining study, design and construction phases of this project.

USACE has determined that full compliance with CWA Section 404 is met and thus may invoke, if needed, CWA 404(r), once the project is authorized by Congress. 78 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-16
Table 4-5 California Ocean Plan Water Quality Objectives A. Bacterial Characteristics

1. Water-Contact Standards
Within a zone bounded by the shoreline and a distance of 1,000 feet (305 meters) from the shoreline or the 30-foot (9 meter) depth contour, whichever is further from the shoreline and in areas outside this zone used for water contact sports, as determined by the Regional Board, but including all kelp beds, the following bacterial objectives shall be maintained throughout the water column:
30-day Geometric Mean - the following standards are based on the geometric mean of the five most recent samples from each site:

Total coliform density shall not exceed 1,000 per 100ml; Fecal coliform density shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml; and Enterococcus density shall not exceed 35 per 100 ml.

Single Sample Maximum:

Total coliform density shall not exceed 10,000 per 100 ml; Fecal coliform density shall not exceed 400 per 100 ml; Enterococcus density shall not exceed 104 per 100 ml; and Total coliform density shall not exceed 1000 per 100 ml when the fecal coliform/total coliform ratio exceeds 0.1 The “Initial Dilution Zone” of wastewater outfalls shall be excluded from designation as “kelp beds” for purposes of bacterial standards and Regional Boards should recommend extension of such exclusion zone where warranted to the State Board (for consideration under Chapter III.H.) Adventitious assemblages of kelp plants on waste discharge structures (e.g., outfall pipes and diffusers) do not constitute kelp beds for purposed of bacterial standards.

2. Shellfish Harvesting Standards
At all areas where shellfish may be harvested for human consumption, as determined by the Regional Board, the following bacterial objectives shall be maintained throughout the water column:

The median total coliform density shall not exceed 70 per 100 ml and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 230 per 100 ml.

B. Bacterial Assessment and Remedial Action Requirements Describes guidelines for monitoring enterococcus bacteria. (See Plan for full description).

C. Physical Characteristics

1. Floating particulates and grease and oil shall not be visible.

2. The discharge of the waste shall not cause aesthetically undesirable discoloration of the ocean surface.

3. Natural light shall not be significantly reduced at any point outside the initial dilution zone as a result of the discharge of waste.

4. The rate of deposition of inert solids and the characteristics of inert solids in ocean sediments shall not be changed such that benthic communities are degraded.

D. Chemical Characteristics

1. The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not at any time be depressed more than 10 percent from which occurs naturally, as a result of the discharge of oxygen demanding waste materials.

2. The pH shall not be changed at any time more than 0.2 units from that which occurs naturally.

3. The dissolved sulfide concentration of waters in and near sediments shall not be significantly increased above that present under natural conditions.

4. The concentration of substances set forth in Chapter Ii, Table B in marine sediments shall not be increased to levels which would degrade indigenous biota.

5. The concentration of organic materials in marine sediments shall not be increased to levels which would degrade marine life.

6. Nutrient materials shall not cause objectionable aquatic growths or degrade indigenous biota.

E. Biological Characteristics

1. Marine communities, including vertebrate, invertebrate and plant species, shall not be degraded.

2. The natural taste, odor and color of fish, shellfish, or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not be altered.

3. The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not be bioaccumulated to levels that are harmful to human health.

F. Radioactivity

1. Discharge of radioactive waste shall not degrade marine life. 79 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-17

4.3.1 Water Column Physical and Chemical Characteristics

4.3.1.1 Temperature
Offshore waters, such as those at the borrow site, typically are stratified (development of thermocline/pycnocline) during the summer and fall, unstratified during the winter, and transitional (e.g., stratification weakening or increasing) in late fall and spring. Thermoclines represent barriers to mixing between surface and bottom waters. Water temperatures in the study area range from 57.2 to 67.1 ºF (14.0 to 19.5 degrees Celsius [ºC]) near the surface (USACE 2004). During summer, surface waters are up to 50 ºF (10 ºC) warmer than in deeper water.

Shallow nearshore waters are generally unstratified year round due to turbulent mixing and shallower depths.

4.3.1.2 Salinity
Salinity levels range from 22 to 34 parts per thousand (ppt) within the study area (USACE 2004).

Nearshore ocean salinity is generally uniform, from approximately 33 to 34 ppt. Seasonally, the near-surface salinity can decrease near the Prima Deshecha and Segunda Deshecha watersheds following storm-related discharges of freshwater and/or (historically) intermittent discharges of sewage into the river.

4.3.1.3 Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen values range from 6.5 to 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (USACE 2004).

Natural deviations of dissolved oxygen result from a combination of factors, including intrusions of water masses, primary production (phytoplankton blooms), and upwelling/down welling events. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen in surface and nearshore waters generally are high due to mixing at the water/atmosphere interface and continuous wave action.

4.3.1.4 pH
Values for pH range from 7.4 to 7.6 within the study area (USACE 2004). Slightly higher pH levels occur during May through September when water temperatures are warmer (SANDAG 2000).

4.3.1.5 Suspended Particulate Matter (Turbidity) and Light Transmission Light penetration in seawater is the limiting factor associated with photosynthetic growth of phytoplankton, kelp, and other marine plants. Waters tend to be more turbid in the winter due to greater wave energy, surface runoff, and river discharges. Runoff related discharges and associated natural turbidity occur in pulses rather than as continual discharges (Continental Shelf Associates 1984). Other seasonal reductions in water clarity may occur in spring and summer due to plankton and suspended particles concentrating near the thermocline. Phytoplankton blooms (e.g., red tides) may reduce light transmittance (transmissivity) levels in summer months. 80 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-18
Water clarity is measured using a variety of methods, including percent light transmittance, suspended solids concentration, and the nephelometric method, which measures and compares light scattered by a water sample and light scattered by a reference solution. In general, light transmittance tends to increase and suspended solid concentrations decrease with distance from shore. Transmissivity levels typically range from 40 to 90 percent offshore (MEC 1997).

Similar to transmissivity values, total suspended solids (i.e., particulate) concentrations are lower offshore than nearshore. Highest concentrations generally are recorded after storm events or occasionally in the summer, probably due to phytoplankton blooms (MEC 1997).

Nearshore measurements ranging from less than 1 to 11 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) represent typical background values; however, values of 50 to 187 NTU also have been reported at locations in northern San Diego County (USACE 2005a). These naturally occurring elevations in turbidity were related to high waves and/or storms.

4.3.1.6 Nutrients
Nutrient concentrations for nearshore waters typically are higher near the bottom than near the surface, except during upwelling periods. Nearshore nutrient concentrations may be elevated in areas of wastewater discharge and near the outlet of rivers, lagoons, bays, and harbors.

Typical nutrient concentrations in nearshore waters of the Southern California Bight (SCB) are nitrates at approximately 5 to 200 nanomoles per liter; phosphates at approximately 100 to 500 nanomoles per liter; and ammonium at approximately 300 nanomoles per liter (Eganhouse and Venktesan 1993). Discharges from Prima Deshecha Cañada Creek and Segunda Deshecha Cañada Creek likely represent an important seasonal source of nutrients to nearshore waters off San Clemente. Upwelling events also contribute nutrients to surface waters.

4.3.2 Bacterial Characteristics
Several storm drains have outlets onto beaches within the study area and its vicinity. The City of San Clemente and the County of Orange have been required to monitor bacterial levels at storm drain outlets and in the adjacent surf zone since January 2003 as part of the Coastal Storm Drain Outfall Monitoring (CSDM) Program (County of Orange et al. 2003). For the CSDM Program, monitoring was conducted on both the discharge from the storm drain and the surf zone 25 yards (23 meters) up-coast and 25 yards (23 meters) down-coast of the storm drain to ocean interface.

Grab samples were collected weekly for the analysis of total coliform, fecal coliform, and Enterococcus bacteria. An estimate of the flow rate from the storm drain was made and the temperatures of the storm drain discharge and the surf zone down-coast were measured (County of Orange et al. 2006).

During the monitoring period of July 2005 through June 2006, bacteria levels at nine out of ten monitoring stations within the study area or within two miles of its boundaries met California Ocean Plan standards in 90 percent or more results. The tenth monitoring station, located at Poche Beach approximately two miles north of the study area, exceeded Ocean Plan standards in 81 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-19
10-40 percent of results during the monitoring period (County of Orange et al. 2006). Poche Beach is at the outlet of the Prima Deshecha Flood Control Channel.

4.3.3 Sediments
The primary natural sand supply for the beaches on the Pacific Coast is provided by the rivers and streams which transport the sediment to the coast during the winter and spring storms.

Eroding sea cliffs and bluffs provide a secondary source of sediment. The waves and currents distribute the sand as it arrives at the coast. The adjacent beaches are replenished as the flow of sand moves alongshore. The predominate direction of the sand movement along southern California beaches is north to south, notwithstanding seasonal local variations. Generally the best places to find suitable beach sand for replenishment are at the deltas of the various streams that empty into the ocean. There are no such streams in the vicinity of San Clemente except for the mouth of San Juan Creek, which empties into the ocean at Capistrano Beach, south of Dana Point and north of San Clemente. Prior exploration by others has indicated that the sediments at this location are too fine-grained and are unsuitable for beach replenishment. Accordingly, in January 2003, a vibracore exploration was first conducted about 1 mi (1.6 km) offshore of San Clemente Beach for a distance of about 6.2 mi (10 km) parallel to the coastline to determine if suitable sand was present. The results were negative; on the second day of the exploration, the vibracore was moved offshore near the mouth of the Santa Margarita River, a few miles northwest of Oceanside Harbor.

The sediments in the Project area are described as silty sands and sandy silts, as determined by both the geophysical surveys conducted in Summer 2002 and core samples derived from six vibracore test holes conducted in January 2003. The vibracore holes were placed and sampled at random locations offshore of the City of San Clemente from the vicinity of the San Clemente Pier downcoast to San Mateo Point (i.e., the Orange County-San Diego County Line). The test holes were placed at least one mile offshore in order to avoid the shallow bedrock encountered by the seismic survey. The elevations of the mudline at the holes varied from -54 ft (-17.7 m) MLLW to -62.2 ft (-20.4 m) MLLW, which is the limit of the most economical dredging operations. The exploration indicated that at 1 mi (1.73 km) seawards of the beach, the bedrock is still fairly shallow and was encountered between 5.1 ft (1.6 m) to 12.2 ft (3.7 m) below the mud line. The sediments encountered overlying the bedrock were silts and fine-grained sands, visually deemed unsuitable for beach replenishment. The exploration program was moved to Oceanside near the mouth of the Santa Margarita River, where previous reconnaissance exploration had indicated suitable material.

In August 2003, 26 additional test holes were sampled with a vibracore for a beach replenishment study at the Oceanside Beach site. The purpose of the study was to determine if there was enough suitable sand for a beach replenishment program at both San Clemente and Oceanside. The depth of the holes varied from 9.5 ft (2.9 m) to 20 ft (6.1 m), and averaged 13.7 ft (4.2 m). The mudline elevations of the holes varied from -36.4 ft (-11.1 m) to -57.1 ft (-17.4 m) MLLW. These holes were explored and sampled in the same proposed borrow area, but were placed to fill in the gaps between prior holes and obtain more information about certain reaches of the area in more detail.
82 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-20
In 1999, SANDAG explored and sampled 35 vibracore holes in this same proposed borrow area.

From these sites, two offshore beach compatible sites were chosen: site SO-9, located north of Oceanside Harbor, and site SO-8, located south of Oceanside Harbor.

Site SO-8 contained 12 of the vibracore holes. These vibracore holes varied in depth from 3.6 to

17.1 ft (1.1 to 5.2 m). The mudline elevations of the holes varied from -53.5 to -70 ft (-16.3 to -

21.3 m) MLLW. The site identified 4.7 million cubic yards (3.6 million cubic meters) of finegrained, somewhat silty sand which is suitable for beach nourishment purposes. This sand is located beneath 4 to13 ft (1.2 to 4.0 m) of unsuitable sandy silt and silty sand.

Site SO-9 contained 23 vibracore holes. These vibracore holes varied in depth from 4.0 to 17.3 ft (1.2 to 5.3 m). The mudline elevations of the holes varied from -48 to -59 ft (-14.6 to -18.0 m) MLLW. The site identified 0.9 million cubic yards (0.7 million cubic meters) of suitable fine- to medium-grained sand near shore 3 to 13 ft (0.9 to 4.0 m) thick. At the SO-9 borrow site, three layers of sediments were found (SANDAG 2000). The top (surficial) layer consists of sandy silt.

The grain-size analyses showed this surficial layer to be approximately 0 to 2 ft (0.6 m) deep over the dredge site, and unsuitable for beach nourishment material. Beneath the surficial silt is a layer of fine- to medium grained sand that is suitable for beach replenishment. This sand layer is 2 to 13 ft (0.6 to 3.9 m) thick, and is exposed on the seafloor surface along the central region of the site. SANDAG later removed some of the material in water deeper than 50 ft (16.4 m) and placed the material on various portions of the beach in Oceanside and vicinity.

As part of the contract for the January 2003 program, Group Delta, a Geotechnical Engineering Consultant, produced a report of project activities and results therein, entitled “Vibracore Exploration Program, San Clemente Beach Shoreline, Orange and San Diego Counties, California” (Group Delta 2003) for the Geotechnical Branch of the Los Angeles District.

4.3.3.1 San Clemente (Borrow Area #1)
Sampled materials encountered with Borrow Site #1 were generally greenish-gray silty, very-fine grained sands and sandy silts with minor amounts of shell fragments. A soft, micaceous wackestone bedrock was encountered in possibly four of the holes, causing refusal of the vibracore. These materials appeared to be too fine grained for beach nourishment purposes.

Samples for chemical analysis were not taken, as the recovered sediments were too fine to be placed onto the beach.

Physical tests were performed on eight selected samples from this borrow area. Group Delta reported that the samples show an average of 0.9 percent gravel, 51.5 percent sand and

47.6 percent fines passing the #200 sieve. The percent fines ranged from 21 percent to 67 percent. These values show that the sampled area off of San Clemente Beach does not contain suitable compatible beach replenishment material.
83 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-21

4.3.3.2 Oceanside (Borrow Area #2)
The sampled materials were generally fine-grained sands with local silty intervals and minor amounts of shell fragments. Significant laterally discontinuous gravel/cobble beds and lenses were encountered throughout the area, but the thicknesses generally averaged 2 ft (0.65 m) or less. Often the gravel intervals possessed supporting dense, silty sand material, which acted as a “pavement” holding the cobbles tightly, making the core penetration difficult. Shell and shell fragments were encountered throughout the area.

Physical tests were performed on 91 samples from this borrow area. The samples showed an average of 12.3 percent gravel, 81.4 percent sand and 6.3 percent fines passing the #200 sieve. A total of 25 out of the 27 test holes within the Oceanside site are beach-compatible, with the total fines of 12 percent or less.

4.3.3.3 Sediment Quality
Chemical testing of the proposed borrow area offshore Oceanside has been done by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG 2000) and the USACE (1993). The analytical results are summarized and compared to the Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) in Table 4-6.

The Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) are based on Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSSDA) and NOAA guidelines. The PSSDA screening level (SL) identifies the concentration below which sediment is expected to have no unacceptable adverse effects. The higher value is the maximum level (ML) above which effects are likely. The NOAA published effects-based sediment quality values for evaluating the potential for constituents in sediment to cause adverse biological effects are referred to as Effects Range-Low (ER-L) and Effects Range-Median (ERM). Sediment samples in which all chemical concentrations are below ER-L values are not expected to be toxic. Generally, effects may occasionally be expected when chemical concentrations occur between ER-L and ER-M values. The probability of toxicity is expected to increase with the number and level of exceedances above the ER-M. These values are not accepted standards or criteria, but rather provide effects-based guidelines. Since SQGs have not been developed for southern California, these are used as an initial, informal evaluation to determine the need for further Tier II or Tier III testing. 84 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-22
Table 4-6 San Clemente Shoreline Project – Borrow Area #2 Sediment Composite Sample:

Chemical Results
Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs)
Analytical
Method (1)
Method
Reporting
Limit /
Detection
Limit
Units (2)

ERL ERM SL ML USACE
2003
SANDAG
2000
(Long et al.,
1999) (PSDDA, 1998)

PHYSICAL

CONVENTIONALS
Total Solids (dry
weight)
EPA
160.3

0.1 % 75.1 75.2
Total Volatile Solids SM 2540-
E

0.1 % 0.62 0.6
pH EPA
150.1

0.1 pH
units

8.31 8.3
Ammonia-N SM 4500-
NH3 F

0.01 mg/L .63 0.6
Total Organic
Carbon (dry weight)
Plumb,
1981 EPA
415.1

0.01 % 0.15 0.09 0.08%
Dissolved Sulfides SM 4500-
S2 D

0.002 mg/L ND ND
Oil and Grease EPA 1664 0.1 mg/L ND ND
TPH-Diesel EPA
8015m

0.25 mg/kg ND ND
TPH-Motor Oil EPA
8015m

0.25 mg/kg ND ND

TRPH EPA
415.1

0.1 mg/kg ND ND
METALS Aluminum (Al) EPA 6020 1 mg/kg 5840 5960
Antimony (Sb) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 15 200 0.1 0.1
Arsenic (As) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 8.2 70 57 700 1.43 1.37 1.2 Barium (Ba) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 33.7 32.5
Beryllium (Be) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 0.11 0.12
Cadmium (Cd) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 1.2 9.6 5.1 14 0.03 0.02 <0.1 Chromium (Cr) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 81 370 9.11 10.4 6.2
Cobalt (Co) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 1.6 1.59
Copper (Cu) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 34 270 390 1,300 2.53 2.52 3.0 Iron (Fe) EPA 6020 1 mg/kg 6580 6470
Lead (Pb) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 46.7 218 450 1,200 0.86 0.89 0.9 Manganese (Mn) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 90.2 94.6
Mercury (Hg) EPA 6020 0.005 mg/kg 0.15 0.71 0.41 2.3 0.03 0.03 <0.03 Molybdenum (Mo) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 0.41 0.55
Nickel (Ni) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 20.9 51.6 140 370 3.69 4.25 2.5 Selenium (Se) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 0.25 0.26 <0.1
Silver (Ag) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 1 3.7 6.1 8.4 0.02 0.01 <0.1 Strontium (Sr) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 25.1 24.6
Thallium (Tl) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 0.08 0.08
Tin (Sn) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 0.5 0.57
Titanium (Ti) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 755 791
Vanadium (VO EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 19.7 19.6
Zinc (Zn) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 150 410 410 3,800 13.6 13.2 14.2

ORGANICS

PESTICIDES
Total Chlorinated
Pesticides (4)
ug/kg 5.22 62 56.9 69.0 ND
Aldrin EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 10 ND ND
alpha BHC EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
85 I
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-23
Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs)
Analytical
Method (1)
Method
Reporting
Limit /
Detection
Limit
Units (2)

ERL ERM SL ML USACE
2003
SANDAG
2000
(Long et al.,
1999) (PSDDA, 1998)
alpha-Chlordane EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 10 ND ND
beta-BHC EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
delta-BHC EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Dieldrin EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 0.02 8.0 10 ND ND
Endosulfan I EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Endosulfan II EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Endosulfan Sulfate EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Endrin EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Endrin Aldelhyde EPA 8270 ug/kg ND ND
gamma-BHC
Lindane
EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 10 ND ND
gamma-Chlordane EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Heptachlor EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 10 ND ND
Heptachlor Epoxide EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Methoxychlor EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Mirex EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Toxaphene EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND ND
Trans-Nonachlor EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Total DDT (5) EPA 8270 0 ug/kg 1.58 46.1 6.9 69.0 0 0
2,4’-DDD EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
2,4’-DDD EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
2,4’-DDD EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
4,4’-DDD EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 1.0 7.0 ND ND
4,4’-DDE EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 2.2 27 ND ND
4,4’-DDT EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 2.0 20 ND ND

ORGANOTINS
Total Organotins(4) Krone, et
al. 1989
1 ug/kg 0 0
Monobutyltin Krone, et
al. 1989
1 ug/kg ND ND
Dibutyltin Krone, et
al. 1989
1 ug/kg ND ND
Tributyltin Krone, et
al. 1989
1 ug/kg ND ND
Tetrabutyltin Krone, et
al. 1989
1 ug/kg 0.15(7) ND ND

PHTHALATES
Total phthalates(4) ug/kg 23,170 8.4 8.8
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 8,300 8.4 8.8
Butyl benzyl
phthalate
EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 970 ND ND
Diethyl phthalate EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 1,200 ND ND
Dimethyl phthalate EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 1,400 ND ND
Di-n-butyl phthalate EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 5,100 ND ND
Di-n-butyl phthalate EPA 8270 5. ug/kg 6,200 ND ND

POLYCHLORINATED

BIPHENYLS (PCB)

Total PCBs(4) ug/kg 22.7 18 130 3,100 0 0 ND
Aroclor 1016 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND ND
Aroclor 1221 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND ND
Aroclor 1232 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND ND
Aroclor 1242 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND ND
Aroclor 1248 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND ND
Aroclor 1254 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND ND
86 I
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-24
Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs)
Analytical
Method (1)
Method
Reporting
Limit /
Detection
Limit
Units (2)

ERL ERM SL ML USACE
2003
SANDAG
2000
(Long et al.,
1999) (PSDDA, 1998)
Aroclor 1260 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND ND

POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS HYDROCARBONS (PAH)
Total PAHs(4) ug/kg 4,02 44,7 0 0 ND
1-Methylnaphthalene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
1-
Methyphenanthrene
EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
2,3,5-
Trimethylnaphthalene
EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
2,6-
Dimethylnaphthalene
EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
2-Methylnaphthalene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 70 67 670 1,900 ND ND Acenaphthene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 16 50 500 2,000 ND ND
Acenaphthylene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 44 64 560 1,300 ND ND
Anthracene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 85.3 1,00 960 13,000 ND ND
Benzo(a)anthracene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 261 1,60 1,300 5,100 ND ND Benzo(a,e)pyrene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 430 1,60 1,600 3,600 ND ND Benzo(b)fluoranthen
e
EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 1,600 4,950 ND ND
Benzo(k)fluranthene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 1,600 4,950 ND ND
Biphenyl EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Chrysene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 384 2,80 1,400 21,000 ND ND
Dibenzo(a,h)
anthracene
EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 63.4 26 230 1,900 ND ND
Fluoranthene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 600 5,10 1,700 30,00 ND ND Fluorene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 19 54 540 3,600 ND ND
Indeno(1,2,3-
CD)pyrene
EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 600 4,400 ND ND
Naphthalene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 160 2,10 2,100 2,400 ND ND Perlene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Phenanthrene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 240 1,50 1,500 21,000 ND ND Pyrene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 665 2,60 2,600 16,000 ND ND

PHENOLS
Total Phenols ug/kg 1582 5777 0 0 ND
2,4,6-
Trichlorophenol
EPA 8270 50 ug/kg 29 310 ND ND
2,4-Dichlorophenol EPA 8270 50 ug/kg 29 210 ND ND
2,4-Dimethylphenol EPA 8270 100 ug/kg 29 210 ND ND
2,4-Dinitrophenol EPA 8270 200 ug/kg 29 210 ND ND
2-Chlorophenol EPA 8270 50 ug/kg ND ND
2-Methy-4,6-
dinitrophenol
EPA 8270 500 ug/kg ND ND
2-Nitrophenol EPA 8270 100 ug/kg ND ND
4-Chloro-3-
methyphenol
EPA 8270 100 ug/kg ND ND
4-Nitrophenol EPA 8270 100 ug/kg ND ND
Pentachlorophenol EPA 8270 50 ug/kg 400 690 ND ND
Phenol EPA 8270 100 ug/kg ND ND
(1) Analytical Method
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Methods are EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition or EPA 600/4-79-020, March 1983 APHA = American Public Health Association
APHA Method is APHA Standard Methods, 18th Edition, 1992 Plumb = Procedure for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples. Tech. Rep USEPA/CE-81, Russell H. Plumb, Jr. 1981.
(2) Units: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, parts per million (dry weight unless otherwise noted) ug/kg = micrograms per kilogram, parts per billion (dry weight unless otherwise noted) 87 I
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-25
(3) ND = not detected in this analysis or less than Method Reporting Limit value for the particular compound(s) of interest (4) Total Chlorinated Pesticides, Total Organotins, Total Phthalates, Total PCBs, Total PAHs, and Total Phenols = sum of named compounds and their derivatives
(5) Total DDT = sum of 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDD; and 4,4’-DDT The total organic carbon concentration was 0.08 percent in the SANDAG samples and 0.15 percent in the USACE samples. Contaminant concentrations of metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and phenols were non-detectible to low and well below all the thresholds in the SQGs for both sample sets. No dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) or chlorinated pesticides were detected in the samples. The bulk chemistry data indicated that chemicals detected within the sediments at the proposed borrow site are at very low levels and do not exceed the SQGs. Therefore, the borrow source sediments appear suitable for placement at the receiving beach.

4.3.4 Oceanographic Characteristics and Coastal Processes Water levels and wave energy influence the amount and erosive force of water on the beach (USACE 2005b). Oceanographic conditions and the transport of sediment along the shoreline and on the beaches are described in the following subsections. Additional description of oceanographic characteristics is in the Coastal Engineering Appendix (Appendix D).

4.3.4.1 Water Levels
Water levels within the surf zone vary according to four primary factors: (1) astronomical tides, (2) storm surge and wave set-up, (3) climatic variation related to ENSO events, and (4) longterm changes in sea level.

Tides
The tides at San Clemente are mixed, semi-diurnal tides with two unequal high tides and low tides roughly per day. Tidal variations are caused by the passage of two harmonic tidal waves; one with a period of 12.5 hours and one with a period of 25 hours. This causes a difference in height between successive high and low waters. The result is two high waters and two low waters each day, consisting of a higher high water (HHW) and a lower high water (LHW), and a higher low water (HLW) and a lower low water (LLW).

A greater than average range between HHW and LLW occurs when the moon, sun, and earth are aligned with each other to create a large gravitational effect. This spring tide corresponds to the phenomenon of a new or full moon. Neap tides, which occur during the first and third quarters of the moon, have a narrower range between HHW and LLW. In this situation, the moon, sun, and earth are perpendicular to each other, thereby reducing the gravitational effects on water levels.

There is no tidal data available for the immediate San Clemente area, however, the tidal datum elevations at La Jolla, California, are shown in Table 4-7 and are assumed representative of those at San Clemente. The mean tidal range for the Project area is 5.4 ft (1.6 m). The tidal epoch is 88 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-26
1983 to 2001. The La Jolla National Ocean Service (NOS) Primary Tide Station is located approximately 81 km (50 miles) from the San Clemente Pier. In southern California, tides typically have spatial characteristics on the order of hundreds of kilometers. Datum information for an NOS tidal station located at Newport Bay Harbor (station discontinued in 1994) located approximately 30 km (19 miles) from San Clemente indicates MSL and MHHW differences of

0.02 m and 0.03 m respectively. Therefore, the sea level variation between La Jolla and San Clemente is assumed to be negligible.

Table 4-7 Tidal Datum Elevations at La Jolla, CA
Tidal Datum Elevation ft, (m)
Highest observed water level (11/13/97) +7.65 (2.33)
Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) +5.33 (1.62)
Mean High Water (MHW) +4.60 (1.40)
Mean Sea Level (MSL) +2.73 (0.83)
Mean Tide Level (MTL) +2.75 (0.84)
North American Vertical Datum – 1988 (NAVD) +0.19 (0.06) Mean Low Water (MLW) +0.90 (0.28)
Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) 0.00
Lowest observed water level (12/17/33) -2.87 (-0.87)
Elevations are referenced to MLLW.

Storm Surge
Water levels may be higher during storms because of winds and atmospheric pressure. Storm surge is the super-elevation of the tidal level at the coast due to wind stresses and atmospheric pressure fluctuations acting upon the sea surface. Wind and atmospheric fluctuations associated with strong storms in southern California typically produce 1-2 ft (0.3-0.6 m) storm surges (Appendix D). Due to a narrow continental shelf and the absence of tropical storms and/or hurricanes, storm surge heights on the California coast are small compared to those on the east and Gulf coasts, where extreme surge heights of 3-10 ft (1-3 m) are more typical, and a peak 25 ft (8 m) was documented during Hurricane Camille in 1969. West coast storm surges typically have time scales of one to three days, with longer surge episodes possible due to bunching of successive storms.

El Niño Southern Oscillation Event
ENSO events are global-scale climatic variations with a duration lasting for approximately two to seven years. They represent an oscillatory exchange of atmospheric mass as manifested by a decrease in sea surface pressure in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, a decrease in the easterly trade winds, and an increase in sea level on the west coast of North and South America (USACE 1986). The interaction between the atmospheric and oceanic environment during these events drives climatic changes that can result in significant modifications of wave climate along the world’s coasts.
89 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-27
The severe winter seasons of 1982 to 1983 and 1997 to 1998, which produced some of the most severe storms to ever impact the southern California coast, were the result of the intense ENSO events. The atmospheric disturbance associated with these two events caused abnormally warm water temperatures, a reversal of the westerly trade winds, and an increase in the monthly mean sea levels (MSL) by as much as 0.42 ft (0.13 m) in 1982 to 1983 and 0.52 ft (0.16 m) in 1997 to 1998 at La Jolla, near San Diego (Flick 1998).

Sea Level Rise
Relative sea level rise has Project impacts from two primary considerations: 1) long-term beach erosion, and 2) increased wave run-up and overtopping. Although the exact magnitude of the future sea level rise is unknown, the main contributions will come from both ocean water thermal expansion and the meltwater from continental glaciers and the Antarctic ice sheet. The proportion of each contribution depends largely upon the actual global distribution of the temperature increase, the resulting precipitation amounts, the glacial response and dynamics, the time scale of oceanic mixing, and the stability of the west Antarctic ice sheet (USACE 2005a).

The present best estimates regarding sea level rise within southern California vary between 0.1 and 0.2 ft (0.03 to 0.06 m) in a time span of 25 years. Historic trends at San Diego, California, indicate a positive sea level rise of +0.008 ft/yr (+0.00245 m/yr) based on water level measurements during the period 1950-1999 (Appendix D). However, based on the twodimensional model of the Bruun Rule, the long term shoreline change at San Clemente due to sea level rise is estimated at 0.32 ft/yr (0.10 m/yr).

4.3.4.2 Waves
Perhaps more than any other oceanographic factors, waves determine the fate of sediment movement and the associated impacts to the coastal environment. Essentially, waves are the driving force in generating the alongshore currents that are responsible for moving sand, suspended by wave action, along the coast (USACE 2005a). In shallow water, the circular motion within the water column can induce the resuspension and transport of bottom sediments.

Waves, especially in association with high tides, can damage coastal structures. Wave height and high-velocity swell tend to be most prominent during winter and spring due to storms from the North Pacific. The greater the wave energy, the more rip currents develop, causing elevated turbidity in nearshore water.

Wave Patterns
Wind waves and swell within the study area are produced by six basic meteorological weather patterns. These include extratropical storm swells in the northern hemisphere (north or northwest swell), wind swells generated by northwest winds in the outer coastal waters (wind swell), westerly (west sea) and southeasterly (southeast sea) local seas, tropical storm swells and hurricanes off the Mexican coast, and southerly swells originating in the southern hemisphere (southerly swell).
90 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-28
The Channel Islands archipelago (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San Clemente) provide some sheltering to the coastal region depending on the swell approach direction. The swell window, which is open to the severe extratropical storms of the northern hemisphere, extends from approximately 277 degrees to 284 degrees. The exposure zone open to the southern swell and tropical storm swell extends from approximately 257 degrees to 190 degrees. The San Clemente coast is open to northwest wind swell and local seas from the west and southeast. The basic weather patterns in the study area are described below.

Extratropical Cyclone of the Northern Hemisphere (North or Northwest Swell) This weather system represents the category of the most severe waves reaching the California coast. Northern hemisphere swell waves are usually produced by specific, remote meteorological disturbances, including Aleutian storms, subtropical storms north of Hawaii, tropical hurricanes, and strong winds in the eastern North Pacific. Deepwater wave heights rarely exceed 10 ft (3 m), with wave periods ranging from 12 to 18 seconds. However, during extreme northern hemisphere storm events, wave heights may exceed 20 ft (6 m) with periods ranging from 18 to 22 seconds.

Northwest Winds in the Outer Coastal Waters (Wind Swell) Annually, the predominant wave action along the study area is due to the prevailing northwest winds north and west of the southern California coastal waters. This is particularly true during the spring and summer months. Moderate northwesters will produce breaker heights of 4 to 6 ft (1.2 to 1.8 m), while strong events can generate breaking wave heights ranging from 6 to 9 ft (1.8 to 2.7 m) with typical periods ranging from approximately 6 to 10 seconds.

West to Northwest Local Sea (West Sea)
Westerly winds can be divided into two types: (1) temperature-induced sea breezes, and (2) gradient winds. When strong enough, these winds may generate wind waves. The strongest sea breezes occur during the late spring and summer months, while the lightest winds occur during December and January. Gradient winds are typically confined to the months of November through May, with the peak occurring in March or early April. They usually occur following a frontal passage or with the development of a cold low-pressure area over the southwestern United States. The latter produces the strongest winds with duration of up to three days. Under such conditions, locally generated wind waves combine with components of the northwest swell generated off the California coast.

Pre-frontal Local Sea (Southeast Sea)
The study area coastline may be vulnerable to storm conditions related to winds blowing strongly from the southeast to southwest along the coast prior to a frontal passage. These winds typically turn toward the south-southeast to south a short distance offshore. Wind waves, with peak energies averaging between 6 and 8 seconds, reach the shore with minimal losses due to island sheltering or refraction. Wave heights are generally in the range of 4 to 8 ft (1.2 to 2.4 m).

Extreme wave heights are rare because the fetch and often times the duration of these wind waves are short-lived. The fetch is defined as a region in which the wind speed and direction are reasonably constant.
91 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-29
Tropical Storm Swell
Tropical cyclones are produced by tropical hurricanes that commonly develop at low latitudes off the west coast of Mexico from July to October. These storms first move west as they depart the coast of mainland Mexico, then curve north and northeast before dissipating in the colder waters off Baja California. The swell waves generated by these events usually do not exceed 6 ft (1.8 m) in height. However, on rare occasions the offshore waters are warm enough to facilitate hurricane migration to more northern latitudes than usual. In September 1939, a hurricane passed directly over southern California, generating recorded wave heights of 26.9 ft (8.2 m).

This storm caused widespread damage along the coast.

Extratropical Cyclone of the Southern Hemisphere (Southerly Swell) From the months of April through October, and to a lesser extent the remainder of the year, large South Pacific storm systems traversing the ocean between south latitude 40 degrees and 60 degrees from Australia to South America send swells northward to the west coast of Central and North America. Typical southern hemisphere swell rarely exceeds 4 ft (1.2 m) in height in deep water, but with periods ranging between 18 and 21 seconds, they can break at over twice that height when they reach the coast. The southern swell also causes a reversal in the predominantly southward flow of littoral sand. During summer months, these waves dominate the littoral processes of the region driving alongshore currents northward as the northern-hemisphere swells are kept at bay.

Wave Characteristics Offshore San Clemente
Wave climatology information is available for the offshore area of San Clemente in the form of direct measurements as part of the Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP). The CDIP shallow-water station most applicable to San Clemente is the San Clemente Sxy slope array (Station ID 052) located approximately 1, 000 ft (300 m) offshore of the San Clemente Pier in 34 ft (10.2 m) of water. The Sxy slope array is a directional wave height recorder with a 178-month record during the period 1983-1998 at nominally four observations per day. The height and direction data records are intermittent reporting approximately 141 months of the 178 available; one long gap that occurred during the period July 1988 through July 1991, accounts for the majority of missing records. These data records are used to determine the daily and annual wave climate, the extreme wave analysis, and data input into wave transformation and shoreline damage numerical models.

The histogram for significant wave height off San Clemente is shown in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1 illustrates that the most commonly occurring significant wave height is in the range 2.7-3.3 ft (0.80-1.00 m). Figure 4-1 also illustrates the complete absence of very large significant wave heights (> 13ft [4.0 m]). The maximum recorded significant wave height is 12 ft (3.63 m). The lack of higher recorded waves may be due to several conditions, including the fact that the Sxy slope array measures the wave climate in 33 ft (10 m) of water, whereas waves observed closer to the breaking depth will be larger due to shoaling. Also, the wave data are spectral-energy based (Hmo) rather than statistically based (H1/3), which tends to under-represent wave heights compared to statistically based wave data. The wave climate is measured in the vicinity of the Pier and is assumed representative of the entire San Clemente Project area. 92 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-30
Figure 4-1 Significant Wave Height Histogram for Waves off San Clemente, 1983-1998 The winter wave climatology can be developed from the measured wave climate. Because the severest wave climate occurs during the winter season, the wave climatology was developed based on the winter wave population. The wave data was categorized based on the DecemberMarch winter meteorological season. The histograms for the winter significant wave height are shown in Figure 4-2.

Based on the measured data, the annual maximum wave heights for each year were determined.

The annual maximum wave heights are shown in Table 4-8. Figure 4-3 illustrates that the dominant wave periods off San Clemente are in the range 12-14 seconds, with a smaller secondary peak at 6-8 seconds. The two peaks in the distribution demonstrate the dual sea/swell nature of the wave climate. Shorter period waves are typically associated with sea conditions; longer period waves are typically associated with swell conditions.

Figure 4-4 shows directional approach data for waves off San Clemente. This figure illustrates that approximately 91 percent of the waves approach from the relatively narrow 20-degree band between 230º-240º, and all other approach directions are minor or negligible. Shoreline normal in the San Clemente area is 235º. There is a very small fraction of waves (0.7 percent) approaching from 160º-220º, directions considered to be of tropical depression or southern hemisphere origins. Significantly, the predominant westerly wave direction envelops both local seas and extra-tropical swell.
93 5000
4500
4000
3500
~ u
= 3000 ~ u
u
0 2500 ....
0 ~ ..c
~
2000
z 1500
1000
500

ALL MEASURED DATA
N=25293
Cl Cl'} Cl~ ci'? Cl<t, ,._ ,._'} "-~ ,._'?J ,._<t, '), '),'} '),~ '),'?J '),<t, "> ",'} ">~ ",'?J ",<t, ~ ~'} ~~ ~'?J ~<t, ':> Significant Wave Height, Hs, m
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-31
Figure 4-2 Significant Wave Height Histogram off San Clemente, Winter Data, 1983-1998 Table 4-8 Annual Maximum Wave Heights off San Clemente, 1983-1998 Year Mo/Dy Hs, m (ft) Tp (sec) Dir (deg)
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Dec 10
Apr 01
Nov 29
Feb 16
Mar 16
Jan 18
Nov 15
Jan 30
Feb 18
Feb 07
Jan 05
Oct 26
Dec 06
Jan 30

10.2, (3.10)

6.1, (1.85)

7.2, (2.18)

11.7, (3.56)

7.4, (2.24)

11.9, (3.63)

6.8, (2.06)

7.6, (2.32)

8.7, (2.66)

6.6, (2.00)

10.6, (3.22)

7.4, (2.24)

7.6 ,(2.31)

9.8, (2.99)

14.2 6.1

6.1 16.0

8.5 14.2

18.3 14.2

8.0 7.3

9.1 8.8

6.4 18.3
248
273
227
234
254
218
212
250
197
191
205
259
207
238
94 1400
1200
1000
V,
., WINTER DATA ONLY c.,
=
~ 800
N=8520
= c.,
c.,
0 'c
... ., 600 .c
E
z =
400
200
0 .■ I 11.1.1 ■ • - - - - - -
a a'), a'!<- a'<! a'l:> " "'), "I/<- "'<! "'9 '), '),'), '),I/<- '),'<! '),'9 °" <>;,'), <>;,I/<- <>;,'<! <>;,'9 t-< t-<'), t-<1/<- t-<'<! t-<'9 ~ Significant W"iJ\/e Height Hs (m)

I I I I I I
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-32
Figure 4-3 Spectral Peak Period Histogram for Waves off San Clemente, 1983-1996 Figure 4-4 Wave Direction Histogram for Waves off San Clemente, 1983-1996 95 8000
7000
6000

ALL MEASURED DATA
.,
~ N=25283
5000 '-' =
~
5 '-' '-' 0 4000
'o
iii
-= = 3000 :,
z
2000
1000
0 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 1 0.5 11.5 12. 5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5 21.5 22.5 23.5 24.5 25.5 More Peak Period, Tp, seconds
6000
5000
Ill
Q) ALL MEASURED DATA u 4000 N=25283 C
Q)
...
...
:I
u
u
a 3000 ....
0 ...

Q)
.c
E 2000
:I
z
1000
~o/~~~~~~~~~~~#~#~~#
Wave Direction (deg)
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-33

4.3.4.3 Littoral Processes and Sediment Transport
Beaches are dynamic environments subject to seasonal movement of sand offshore during the winter (erosion) and onshore (accretion) during the summer (USACE 2005a). Sand also is transported alongshore during its offshore-onshore sedimentation cycle.

Oceanside Littoral Cell
San Clemente is within the Oceanside Littoral Cell. The Oceanside Littoral Cell extends for 53.5 mi (86 km) from Dana Point in Orange County to Point La Jolla in San Diego County. The shoreline within the Oceanside Littoral Cell displays a wide variety of coastal features including cliffs, headlands, beaches composed of sand and/or cobbles, rivers, creeks, tidal lagoons and marshes, submarine canyons, man-made shore and bluff protection devices of many kinds, and major harbor structures. The littoral cell includes two small craft harbors, Dana Point Harbor and Oceanside Harbor. Dana Point Harbor is located on the northern end of the littoral cell, while Oceanside Harbor is in the center of the cell.

The cell is divided into three sub-cells based on natural physiographic units: (1) Dana Point to San Mateo Point, (2) San Mateo Point to Carlsbad Submarine Canyon, and (3) Carlsbad Submarine Canyon to Point La Jolla. The City of San Clemente is located in the north sub-cell.

Sediment Sources
Numerous rivers and small streams discharge sediment into the Oceanside Littoral Cell, as shown in Figure 4-5. San Juan Creek and San Mateo Creek are considered major river systems for the influx of sediment into the north sub-cell. Table 4-9 provides a range of estimates of the sediment loads carried by fluvial systems of this littoral sub-cell.

Sediment Budget
A sediment budget for without-project conditions has been developed based primarily on the Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study (CCSTWS, USACE 1991). Development of the sediment budget involves defining the sediment sources, sinks, and losses; transport modes; erosion and accretion rates; and balancing the resultant budget.

The analysis of the budget of sediment for this cell has been carried out for three time periods:
(1) the period from 1900 – 1938, (2) a mild, uniform weather period from 1960 – 1978, and (3) a period of more variable wave climate covered by the CCSTWS studies from 1983 – 1990. The 1900 – 1938 “natural” budget permits an uncluttered look at the cell as it predates construction of dams and Oceanside Harbor, although it necessarily draws on some findings from later studies.

The mild, uniform period from 1960 – 1978 was selected to evaluate the effects of Oceanside Harbor at a time when the wave climate was consistent from year to year and less variable than the present wave climate. The last period of more variable wave climate, 1983 – 1990, emphasizes the change in wave climate from one that gave a consistent, strong, southerly littoral transport to one that yields a more variable transport with a net northerly component in some years. The resultant sediment budget for the three time periods is shown in Table 4-10. 96 Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-34
Figure 4-5 Major Rivers and Drainage Basins, Oceanside Littoral Cell Table 4-9 Sediment Discharge from Rivers and Streams
San Juan San Clemente San Mateo
Drainage Area mi2 (ha) 175.5 (45,455) 19.9 (5,154) 132 (34,188) River / Stream
Discharge Rate yd
3 /yr (m
3 /yr)
Study
Moffatt&Nichol 1977 17,000 (12,980) 14,340 (10,964) 2,240 (1,702) CCSTWS 84-4 (1984) 32,000 (24,427)
Simons/Li 1985 8,000 (6,107) 16,000 (12,213)
CCSTWS 88-3 (Simons/Li
1988) 20,440 (15,603) 1,030 (786) 4,885 (3,729)
CCSTWS 90-2
(Moffatt&Nichol 1990) 36,000 (27,480) 8,400 (6,412)
COE-LAD 1999 52,071 (39,749)
97 ---

PACIFIC
OCEAN CAIi
LOS l'ENA.$0UITO$ U
ffi
NOll'TH
I
LEGEND
IOUNOARV ElWEEN
Of\AtNACE l4S1NS
0 10

SCALE INMILU
I
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-35
Table 4-10 Sediment Budget for Oceanside Littoral Cell
(North – San Clemente) in 1000 m
3 /yr
1900-1938 1960-1978 1983-1990
Input Output Input Output Input Output
Ql 0 130 0 130 0 35
Qn 0 15 0 15 0 5
Qb,o 130 45 90 45 45 0
Qa 0 0 90 0 0 0
Qr,s 65 0 45 0 0 0
Total +195 -190 +225 -190 +45 -40
Net ( t)/'V ∂∂ +5 +35 +5
tX / ∂∂ (m/yr) +0.03 +0.18 +0.03
Notes:

Q = total sand transport rate into or out of cell, m
3 /yr
a = artificial nourishment, bypassing, dredging, etc
b = bluff lands erosion; includes sea cliffs, gullies, coastal terrace, slumps, etc as distinct from rivers l = longshore transport of sand in and near the surf zone n = nearshore transport along the coast, outside the surf zone o = onshore/offshore transport at the base of the shore rise r = river yield to the coast
s = lost to submarine canyons
∂V' / ∂t = sand volume change rate, m
3 /yr
∂X/ ∂t = shoreline change rate, m/yr
The resultant sediment budget indicates the shoreline is essentially in balance between erosion and accretion. The budget is considered to be in balance when the shoreline change rate (∂X/∂t), computed from the volume flux, is less than 0.1 ft/yr (0.03 m/yr). The shoreline indicates a balance in the “natural” time period and the most recent variable wave climate time period. The net volume flux indicates the budget is very slightly accretional during the uniform wave climate period.

Long Term Shoreline Change
Historical Shoreline Change
Shoreline changes within the Oceanside Littoral Cell were investigated by the CCSTWS using historical maps and nautical charts, aerial photos, and the results of ground and bathymetric survey efforts. The results of these extensive efforts are shown in Table 4-11.

Table 4-11 indicates the alongshore variation of shoreline change within the immediate vicinity of San Clemente. The San Clemente study area is between SC 1623 (State Beach) and SC 1720 (Shore cliffs). There are contradictory trends observed in the data. The data sets are out of phase with adjacent locations; a location is erosional while the adjacent transect is accretional and vice versa. The mean values during the 1940-1960 and 1960-1980 periods are similar in magnitude; the mean values during the 1980-1989 period are remarkably higher. Detailed inspection of the data indicates a shoreline that is either erosional, balanced, or accretional. During the period 1940-1960, the shoreline indicated essentially zero change with a +2.5 ft/yr (+0.76 m/yr) change 98 I I I I I I I I
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-36
in the vicinity of SC 1680 (Linda Lane). During the period 1960-1980, the shoreline vacillated alongshore between positive and negative. The shoreline change was approximately equal between positive and negative ranging from -0.7 ft/yr (-0.21 m/yr) and +0.6 ft/yr (+0.18 m/yr).

During the period 1980-1989, the shoreline was predominantly positive with accretion rates ranging from + 1.4ft/yr (+0.43 m/yr) to +7.2 ft/yr (+2.16 m/yr); an erosion value of -2 ft/yr (-0.61 m/yr) was recorded at SC 1660 (T-Street).

Table 4-11 Long Term Shoreline Change Rates in San Clemente Area MHHW Shoreline Change Rate (ft/yr [m/yr]) Max Seasonal MHHW Movement (ft [m])
Location 1940-1960 1960-1980 1980-1989 Summer Winter
SC1623
SC1660
SC 1680
SC 1720
DB 1805
DB 1850
DB 1895
DB 1900
-0.20 (-0.06)

0.0 (0.00)

2.50 (0.76)

0.0 (0.00)
-1.90 (-0.58)
-0.60 (-0.18)

2.50 (0.76)

0.00 (0.00)
-0.7 (-0.21)

0.60 (0.18)
-0.40 (-0.12)

0.00 (0.00)

8.10 (2.47)

9.31 (2.84)
-0.40 (-0.12)
-1.90 (-0.58)

7.10 (2.16)
-2.00(-0.61)

1.40 (0.43)

4.80 (1.46)
-12.30 (-3.75
--------------
-0.50 (-0.15)
-10.0(-3.05)

25.4 (7.7)

17.0 (5.2)

45.5 (13.9)

30.0 (9.2)

25.0 (7.6)

2.7 (0.8)

24.6 (7.5)

59.8 (18.2)
-26 (-7.9)
-34 (-10.4)
-57.4 (-17.5)
-27 (-8.2)
-45.6 (-13.9)
-70.2 (-21.4)
-31.4 (-9.6)
-91.4 (-27.9)
Current Beach Width Monitoring
The City of San Clemente initiated a beach monitoring program to document changes in the condition of the shore between Dana Point Harbor and San Mateo Point. The results of this program provide a basis for evaluating the impacts of natural events and anthropogenic operations. The program includes semi-annual full cross-shore profile surveys at 11 representative sites and bi-monthly beach width measurements at 9 of the 11 profile sites.

Transect locations are shown in Table 4-12. The 11 profile locations include 6 historical locations originally established by the CCSTWS, and 5 locations established specifically for the beach monitoring program.

Recent Shoreline Change Rate
The shoreline change rate can be determined from the aggregate measured data collected in support of the CCSTWS and the City of San Clemente beach width monitoring program. The data is a compilation of measurements obtained in the 1980s through the present. 99 I I I I I I I
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-37
Table 4-12 San Clemente Area Beach Profile Transects
Site #
Transect
Designation Location Origin
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 DB-1850
DB-1805
SC-1720
SC-1705
SC-1700
SC-1695
SC-1680
SC-1660
SC-1645
SC1623
SC-1605
N. Doheny State Beach
N. Doheny State Beach
Shore cliffs
Capistrano Trailer Court
North Beach
Dije Court
Linda Lane
T-Street
Lost Winds
San Clemente State Beach
Cottons Point
CCSTWS
CCSTWS
CCSTWS
Est. Oct. 2001
Est. Oct. 2001
Est. Oct. 2001
CCSTWS
CCSTWS
Est. Oct. 2001
CCSTWS
Est. Oct. 2001
It is noted that this beach width data set is expressed relative to the MSL contour. The beach widths are the distance between a fixed point on the backshore and the approximate location of the MSL contour. This MSL beach width incorporates a portion of the “wet” beach (e.g., the foreshore between the MSL contour and the berm), whereas the berm beach width definition, which is used in this study, incorporates only the “dry” portion of the beach. The MSL beach widths will be inherently greater than the berm beach widths. The MSL indicates a positive beach width where the beach has been previously defined in many reaches as having zero width.

Based on a typical beach slope of 8H:1V, a berm elevation of +20.6 ft (+6.2 m) and a MSL contour elevation of +5.5 ft (+1.64 m), the estimated horizontal beach width attributable to this contour elevation difference is approximately 114 ft (35 m). It can be shown that the dry beach width is zero at Linda Lane and near zero at the other locations. Thus, the data sets are consistent with the conclusions developed in this study. It is assumed that the trend for the berm widths will coincide with the trend for the MSL data.

Figure 4-6 shows the measured data for the four locations that are historical to the CCSTWS (solid lines). The linear regression for each data set is shown as dotted lines. The slope of the lines represents the mean shoreline trend for each respective data set. State Beach, T-Street, and Linda Lane show a declining beach width while the beach width trend at Shorecliffs indicates widening.

The long-term shoreline change rate data sets are shown in Table 4-13. The measured data is shown for the four locations that are historical to the CCSTWS. The shoreline change data sets are considered together to obtain representative values for the entire study area. The mean shoreline change rate is –0.7 ft/yr (-0.20 m/yr), the maximum erosion rate is –2.0 ft/yr (-0.61 m/yr) and the maximum accretion rate is +1.24 ft/yr (0.38 m/yr).

There are contradictory trends observed in the data. The Shorecliffs data set is out of phase with the other three. The three data sets around the Pier are consistent in trend and phase. The data sets indicate consistent erosion and accretion trends at the same time. The mean values are similar in magnitude. The data set at Shorecliffs is nearly opposite in behavior. The beach is 100
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-38
erosional and/or accretional when the others are accretional and/or erosional. The data in the 1980s is consistent among data sets. After the long absence of data in the 1990s, the 2002 data indicates a loss of beach width.

Figure 4-6 Recent Shoreline Change - MSL Beach Width (m) Table 4-13 Summary of Recent Long Term Shoreline Change Rates Location Erosion Rate
ft/yr (m/yr)
SC 1720, Shorecliffs +1.24 (+0.38)
SC 1680, Linda Lane -0.79 (-0.24)
SC 1660, T–Street -2.00 (-0.61)
SC 1623, State Beach -1.09 (-0.33)
Cross-shore Profiles
Cross-shore profiles are compiled from the LIDAR topographic data and bathymetric measured data. Profiles from the vicinity of San Clemente Pier and Mariposa Point are representative of the beach and the armored shoreline respectively that are characteristic in the Project area (Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8). Only the portion of the profile from the bluff to the waterline is 101
80 T"'""-------------------------------------------~
40 20 +----------------------------------s_ta_te_ B_ea_c_h_:~y_=_-_o_.3_3_2_7x_+_ 7_19_.~3- , T Street: y = -0.6104x + 1269.5
Shorecliffs: y= 0.3787x -709.69
10 _j__---------------------------"====""""=====~-l
0 +----,---,---,--T"'""--,---,--"""T--r---,--""T'"-"""T--,----,---,---,---,--T"'""--,---,----i 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 19 88 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year
Shore cliffs --Linda Lane --TStreet --state Beach
Linear (Shorecliffs) - -Linear (Linda Lane) - - Linear (T Street) - - Linear (State Beach) Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-39
shown to better illustrate the detail of the foreshore and backshore regions. The profile centerline is established at the seaward rail of the SCRRA railroad.

The Pier area beach profile indicates a typical berm elevation of +17 ft (+5.2 m), a typical foreshore slope of 8H:1V – 10H:1V, an offshore slope of 110H:1V, and a railroad elevation of approximately +21 ft (+6.4 m). The Mariposa Point area profile indicates a mean revetment elevation of +23 ft (+6.9 m), typical revetment slope of 1H:1V, toe elevation at approximately

0.0 ft, an offshore slope of 110H:1V, and a railroad elevation of approximately +21 ft (6.4 m).

Figure 4-7 Cross-Shore Profile of Beach
Figure 4-8 Cross-Shore Profile of Armored Shoreline
Sediment Profile Thickness
Data collected for the Sand Thickness Survey Report (USACE 1988) allows estimation of the available sediment supply and consequently any potential limits to erosion. This study conducted jet probing along various profiles to determine the available sediment thickness.

Three profiles in the San Clemente area were jet probed including SC-1623 (San Clemente State Beach), SC-1660 (T-Street) and SC-1720 (Capistrano Shores). The survey results indicate the sediment thickness cross-shore along the profile. The results are summarized in Table 4-14.

On profile SC-1623, the sediment thickness ranges from 0.3-10.5 ft (0.1-3.2 m). The average 102
z-;il' ..... _J
I- _J
<::;;
>
'.j a; uJ -
z--
03::
t-1 ....J
1-....J
<C ::::i::
> u.J • _J £:: 1..1..J-
;:Ii
a:
uJ
Cl]
:::c
u
<I:
w
Cil
0 <C
□
er
_J
<C
er
u...
u...
::::I
_J
c:l
'I t==I lt===±:t===tJd~---~t ~1 t:::=:: I tt===j# If
-70 -60 --!50 """IC -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
'1 ~ -50
DISTANCE [ml
1-
z
u.J
~
1-
w
>
w
0:::

Cl
<
D
0:::
_J
t-1
<(
0:::
u...
u...
::::J
....J
(IJ
--E------=- ls:::i- 2 = !-4-11°
---..tj0 -30 -20 -10 a 10 20
DI STANCE Cml
,.... rn
3•
• rn
< :!!'. ► r---l
r ...... :EO
~z
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-40
profile is consistently thick 7.7-10.5 ft (2.4-3.2 m) across the beach locations and is near zero

0.4-1.8 ft (0.1-0.6 m) across the seaward portion of the profile.

On profile SC-1660, the sediment thickness ranges from 0-14.8 ft (0-4.5 m). The average profile is consistently thick 6.9-14.8 ft (2.1-4.5 m) across the beach locations and is near zero 0.4-2.2 ft (0.1-0.7 m) across the inner seaward portion of the profile. The data indicates a thickness of 8.8 ft (2.7 m) at the furthest offshore location.

On profile SC-1720, the sediment thickness ranges from 0-15 ft (0-4.6 m). The average profile is consistently thick 3.3-14.9 ft (1.0-4.5 m) across the beach locations and is near zero 0-7 ft (0-

0.2 m) across the seaward portion of the profile.

The measurement results identified cobbles, boulders, and other hard substrate at various depths along the profile. The observations include “some pebbles scattered on beach surface and some boulders visible at backshore” and “offshore sand-stone outcrops with local bottom relief of 1 ft (0.30 m)”. This information is consistent with 2002 geologic information collected during geophysical studies conducted as part of this study, and reported in the Geotechnical Appendix (Appendix E).

Table 4-14 Summary of Sand Thickness
Probe Location Sand Thickness
Range Line No.

Range
ft (m)
Elevation
(MLLW)
ft (m)
1 ft (m) 2 ft (m)
Average
ft (m)
SC-1623 1 69.3 (21.1) 13.5 (4.1) 9.9 (3.0) 10.2 (3.1) 10.1 (3.1) SC-1623 2 113.5 (34.6) 11.1 (3.4) 10.5 (3.2) 10.4 (3.2) 10.5 (3.2) SC-1623 3 169.6 (51.7) 6.9 (2.1) 7.7 (2.4) 7.6 (2.3) 7.7 (2.4) SC-1623 4 636.8 (194.2) -11.4 (-3.5) 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) SC-1623 5 872.8 (266.1) -19.6 (-6.0) 0.8 (0.2) 0.9 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) SC-1623 6 1,653.8 (504.2) -30.5 (-9.3) 1.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0.6) SC-1660 1 37.6(11.5) 16.3 (5.0) 14.8 (4.5) 14.8 (4.5) 14.8 (4.5) SC-1660 2 77.2 (23.5) 10.2 (3.1) 11.0 (3.4) 11.4 (3.5) 11.2 (3.4) SC-1660 3 140.6 (42.9) 4.8 (1.5) 7.2 (2.2) 6.6 (2.0) 6.9 (2.1) SC-1660 4 763.5 (232.8) -10.1 (-3.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.8 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) SC-1660 5 1,516.5 (462.4) -21.3 (-6.5) 2.0 (0.6) 2.3 (0.7) 2.2 (0.7) SC-1660 6 2,209.5 (673.6) -29.6 (-9.0) 8.5 (2.6) 9.0 (2.7) 8.8 (2.7) SC-1720 1 35.9 (10.9) 15.4 (4.7) 15.0 (4.6) 14.8 (4.5) 14.9 (4.5) SC-1720 2 81.4 (24.8) 8.7 (2.7) 9.2 (2.8) 9.9 (3.0) 9.6 (2.9) SC-1720 3 152.6 (46.5) 1.9 (0.6) 3.3 (1.0) 3.3 (1.0) 3.3 (1.0) SC-1720 4 541.9 (165.2) -8.1 (-2.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) SC-1720 5 1,622.9 (494.8) -21.9 (-6.7) 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) SC-1720 6 2,884.9 (879.5) -28.3 (-8.6) 0.5 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 103

I I I I I I I I
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-41

4.4 Biological Resources
These sections describe biological resources found in the vicinity of the proposed beach fill and borrow site areas along the San Clemente coastline. These descriptions are based upon existing literature on the Southern California Bight (SCB), which includes the eastern coastline of the Pacific Ocean from Point Conception, California, to Baja California, as well as the results of intertidal and subtidal reconnaissance site surveys conducted on March 13 and June 26, 2000, by Coastal Resources Management (CRM 2000), surfgrass surveys performed by Chambers Group in March 2008 and a kelp and surfgrass survey performed by Chambers Group in July 2009. A terrestrial biology survey was performed by Chambers Group on May 18, 2008.

Surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi and P. Scouleri) and giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) are considered to be particularly valuable marine habitats by the resource agencies because they provide shelter for fishes and invertebrates, attachment sites for sessile invertebrates, and form the basis of many marine food chains, both as living material and detritus. Surfgrass and giant kelp beds occur in limited areas along the southern California coast, usually on hard bottom substrate, compared to much more common soft bottom habitat.

4.4.1 Terrestrial Shoreline Habitat

4.4.1.1 Vegetation
Residential and commercial development, a train railway, recreational activities, and introduced non-native, exotic plants have largely eliminated native terrestrial vegetation along the San Clemente shoreline and adjacent upland areas. The beach area is heavily used for recreation, and upland vegetation is limited primarily to ornamentals and a few patches of native vegetation.

The vegetation is typified by common non-native species such as iceplant (Lampranthus spp.), sea rocket (Cakile maritima), African daisy (Gazania spp.), and mature palm trees. Native vegetation consists primarily of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and jimson weed (Datura wrightii).

These sandy beach back bluffs are outside the Project area. The San Clemente Project study boundary does not include any of the terrestrial vegetation types east of the railroad tracks and, therefore, these are omitted from further analysis.

4.4.2 Marine Shoreline and Offshore Habitats
The predominant intertidal habitat along San Clemente’s shoreline is sandy beach, although some rocky outcrops that extend from mid-beach to the low intertidal are present at Mariposa Point, north of San Clemente Pier. Beyond the surf zone, the seafloor is a mosaic of sand and low-to-high relief patch reef. Some pinnacles of the reef are visible in the nearshore zone at low tide while two prominent offshore pinnacles break the surface offshore of Mariposa Point and south of the San Clemente Pier. Other reef habitats are located south of the Pier offshore of T-Street that extends west, and then north around the end of the San Clemente Pier (Figure 4-9).
104
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-42

4.4.2.1 Rocky Intertidal
Although the predominant intertidal habitat along San Clemente’s shoreline is sandy beach, an area of significant rocky intertidal is present at Mariposa Point, 3,200 ft (975 m) north of the San Clemente Pier and approximately 1,600 ft (488 m) north of the northern end of the proposed beach fill site at Linda Lane. Boulders and rocky outcroppings in this area support a variety of algal species (CRM 2000). In the high intertidal, boulders support filamentous green algae (Enteromorpha spp.). The mid to low intertidal algae composition is dominated by encrusting red algae (Lithophyllum spp., Lithothamnion spp.), encrusting brown algae (Pseudolithoderma spp.), and coralline algae (Corallina spp.). Green algae (Enteromorpha spp. and Ulva spp.) and several species of filamentous red algae also occur in these zones. Larger brown algae species colonize the base of the intertidal reef throughout the area, including palm kelp (Eisenia aborea) and feather boa kelp (Egregia menziesii). Surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi), an important species that enhances the biological value of nearshore habitat, is present in the low intertidal beginning approximately 300 ft (91 m) offshore of the sand beach. Surfgrass serves as a nursery for California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) and provides shelter for a variety of juvenile and adult fishes. Surfgrass is present throughout the low intertidal platform of Mariposa Point, which is upcoast outside of the project area. Surfgrass off Mariposa Point occurs a minimum of three feet above the sand line with no more than one inch of sand covering the surface of the rocks.

Surfgrass blades in this area are 1 to 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m) in length.

A diverse mid-to-low intertidal invertebrate community is found on boulders as well as the surfaces of the low-lying platform reefs at Mariposa Point (CRM 2000). The most common sessile invertebrate in this area is the California mussel (Mytilus caliornianus), which occurs throughout the mid and low intertidal zones, forming masses on the sides and upper surfaces of the boulders and platform reefs. Other common to abundant invertebrates in this area include the solitary and colonial forms of the anemone (Anthopleura aggregate), limpets (Collisella scabra, Tectura spp., Collisella digitalis), chitons (Mopalia muscosa and Nuttalina californica), acorn barnacles (Balanus glandula), and snails (Acanthina spirata). Although not common, the reefbuilding sandcastle tubeworm (Phragmatopoma californica) was found around the base of several boulders in the mid-intertidal zone.

Up to ten species of fish utilize the low to minus tidal zones of rocky intertidal habitats in the SCB (MEC 2002). Wooly sculpin (Clinocottus analis) is one of the more commonly encountered fish species in tidepools, but juvenile opaleye (Girella nigricans), rockpool blenny (Hypsoblennius gilberti), spotted kelpfish (Gibbonsia elegans), and California clingfish (Gobiesox rhessodon) also may be present (Cross and Allen 1993). 105
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-43
Figure 4-9 Historic Kelp Canopy and Reef Map
Figure provided by SCE, Wheeler North Reef Design Plan February 2008 106
N
A
0 125 ~ 500 750 1,00J
-- Ml?lers
Primary Reef Areas
c:::::J Lease Area
Kelp Canopy 1967 to 2000
Years of Kelp Presence,
1 2
1111 3
1111 Persistent Kelp > 3 years
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-44

4.4.2.2 Sandy Intertidal
The sandy beach along the San Clemente shore is variable in width. The shoreline at Mariposa Point consists of a riprap backshore environment that protects the railroad tracks. Immediately seaward of the riprap is a variable-width and gentle-to-moderate sloping sandy beach approximately 33 to 100 ft (10 to 30 m) in width. The rocky intertidal habitat described above in Section 4.4.1.1 lies seaward of this stretch of sandy beach. The beach within the Project footprint between Linda Lane and T-Street is narrow. A stone revetment to the north and an access road to the south provide backing along the beach at Linda Lane, which is fronted by a steeply sloping sandy beach to the water line. There is also a rock riprap that protects the lifeguard headquarters from wave run-up in front of buildings along this section of the shoreline.

South of the Pier the beach is narrow and lies alongside the railroad tracks.

Sandy beaches in California are inhabited by an abundant invertebrate community that is an important food source for vertebrate predators, including shorebirds, seabirds, and fishes (Dugan et al. 2000). Intertidal invertebrates of sandy beaches show a characteristic zonation related to tidal exposure. The composition of the invertebrate community at a given beach, as well as the zonation, tends to be extremely dynamic due to the highly mobile nature of the sandy substrate and the resources on which these animals depend (Dugan and Hubbard 2006). Most exposed sandy beaches have two to three zones inhabited by distinct groups of mobile animals. These zones generally correspond to the relatively dry substrate of the upper intertidal zone at and above the drift line, the damp sand of the mid-intertidal zone, and the wet sand of the lower intertidal zone.

The lower intertidal zone (swash zone) in southern California sandy beaches is dominated by the filter feeding mole crab, Emerita analoga, which moves up and down the beach with the tides.

The polychaete “bloodworm”, Euzonus, also is common in the mid to lower intertidal. In the upper intertidal, drift kelp is an important source of food for many invertebrates. Common organisms associated with macrophyte wrack include beach hoppers (Megalorchestia spp.), kelp flies (Coleopa vanduzeei), isopods (Alloniscus perconvexus and Tylos punctata), and various species of beetles.

The sandy intertidal is also used by a nearshore fish, the California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis), which lays its eggs in the high intertidal zone between March and August. During the grunion spawning season, eggs and developing embryos are buried in the sand to incubate between the highest tides of each month, at the full and new moon (Martin 2006). The eggs incubate a few inches deep in the sand and hatch approximately 10 days later during the next series of high tides (Chambers Group 2002). Grunion are known to spawn on the beach in the vicinity of San Clemente Pier (K. Martin, Pepperdine University, pers. comm., 2007).

4.4.2.3 Subtidal Hardbottom
The shallow subtidal zone for much of the Project area is a mixture of sand and boulders, with occasional outcrops of exposed shale bedrock (CRM 2000). Historically, offshore kelp beds, dominated by giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) with an understory of feather boa kelp (Egregia 107
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-45
menziesii) and palm kelp (Eisenia arborea), have been prevalent along this section of coastline.

The kelp canopy within the project area has fluctuated considerably over the last decade. Figure 4-9 shows the kelp canopy between 1967 and 2006 and is an indication of reef habitat deeper than approximately 20 feet (6 meters). During surveys in June 2000, CRM found low to moderate density kelp beds with little or no surface canopy 2,000 ft (610 m) off of Mariposa Point at depths between (-23 and -28 ft) (–7.0 and –8.5 m) MLLW. Another bed was observed 650 ft (198 m) off San Clemente Pier (T-Street) at a depth of 16 ft (4.9 m) in October 1999. This patch was not observed during the June 2000 survey (CRM 2000). Much of the kelp observed in June 2000 was ragged and covered with fouling ectoprocts (Bryozoa); however, newly settled recruit plants were also present (CRM 2000). In March 2008, kelp canopy was sparse in the project area. In July 2009, a thick kelp bed was observed on the considerable reef formations offshore and south of San Clemente Pier. Figure 4-10 shows the kelp mapped in July 2009. The kelp bed in 2009 corresponds generally with the historical kelp mapped previously (Figure 4-9).

The most extensive reef formations in the vicinity of San Clemente Pier are located off Mariposa Point, north of the project area. The shallow subtidal reefs off Mariposa Point have welldeveloped macrophyte growth, including dense stands of understory species of kelp and surfgrass (CRM 2000). These inshore reefs are approximately 300 to 700 ft (90 to 210 m) from the shoreline, and some of the rocks have several feet of vertical relief. Most, however, are sand inundated boulders less than 2 to 3 ft (0.6 to 1 m) in height. Surfgrass on these shallow subtidal reefs grows a minimum of 1 ft (0.3 m) above the sand line and have blades up to 2 ft (0.6 m) long.

The nearest high relief reef is located 2,000 ft (610 m) offshore of Mariposa Point (Washrock Reef) at depths between -23 and -28 ft (-7 and -8.4 m) MLLW. A 400 foot by 200 foot (120 meter by 60 meter) patch (1.83 acres or 7,434 square meters) of giant kelp was observed inshore of the Washrock Reef just north of the Pier at a depth of 26 ft (8 m) in October 1999 which persisted at least through June 2000 (CRM 2000). The apex of Washrock Reef is dominated by mussels (Mytilus californianus and M. edulis). Other characteristic reef organisms observed during the CRM June 2000 survey included gorgonians (Muricea californica and M. fructicosa), keyhole limpet (Megathura crenulata), purple and red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus and S. franciscanus), California sea cucumber (Parastichopus californicus), Kellet's whelk (Kelletia kelletii), and sea stars (Pisaster brevispinus and P. giganteus). Fishes observed included spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculofasciatus), kelp bass (P. clathratus), seniorita (Oxyjulis californicus), bat ray (Myliobatis californica), and black perch (Embiotica jacksoni).

Other fishes that are commonly associated with nearshore reef habitats with developed stands of perennial vegetation above 3 ft (1 m) in height also would be expected to occur within the Project area Species associated with southern California nearshore reefs include barred sand bass (P. nebulifer); shiner, walleye, and dwarf surfperches (Embiotocidae); California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher); garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus); jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus); giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus); painted greenling (Oxylebius pictus); and halfmoon (Medialuna californiensis) (MEC 2002, Thompson et al. 1993).

Offshore the northern end of the proposed beach fill site at Linda Lane, low relief boulders occur at depths greater than 9 ft (2.7 m) MLLW (CRM 2000). Boulders appear to be frequently scoured and are characterized by growth of red turf algae and crustose corallines. Coastal 108
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-46
Resources Management observed surfgrass at this depth off the northern portion of the Linda Lane area, approximately 300 ft (90 m) from the shoreline. The surfgrass occurred on the upper surfaces of 1 ft (0.3 m) high boulders. Blades were approximately 2 to 3 ft (0.6 to 0.9 m) long.

Chambers Group surveyed for surfgrass in the Project area in March of 2008. Offshore of the northern portion of the proposed sand placement area between San Clemente Pier and Linda Lane, only scattered patches of surfgrass were observed (Figure 4-10).

South of San Clemente Pier, cobble and reef habitat occur offshore beginning at a depth of -1.2 to (-4 to -5 ft) (-1.5 m) MLLW and extending to at least -11 ft (- 3.3 m) MLLW (CRM 2000).

Surfgrass meadows are located approximately 300 ft (90 m) from the shoreline on T-street Reef.

The surfgrass grows on 1 to 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m) high boulders and has blades that are 2 to 3 ft (0.6 to 0.9 m) long. Farther offshore surfgrass cover declines. Surfgrass at the deeper depths (-11 ft [- 3.3 m] MLLW) was growing on 1 ft (0.3 m) high boulders inundated with sand. In some cases, two-thirds of the length of the surfgrass blades were covered with sand and only 1 ft (0.3 m) of the blades remained above the sand line. Figure 4-10 shows surfgrass mapped by Chambers Group during the March 2008 survey. South of San Clemente Pier, surfgrass grows on the T-Street Reef starting at a water depth of between -4 and -6 ft (-1.2 and-1.8 m) MLLW and extending offshore to a water depth of between -11 and -13 ft (-3.3 and -3.9 m) MLLW.

The subtidal reef habitat south of the Pier is extensive and angles around the tip of San Clemente Pier. This reef formation is shown on Figure 4-10. Larger macrophytes observed on the reef include giant kelp, feather boa kelp (Endarchne binghamiae) and bladder chain kelp (Cystoseira/ Halidrys) (CRM 2000). A small patch of giant kelp consisting of 12 plants was observed 650 ft (197 m) south of the Pier at a depth of 16 ft (5 m) in October 1999, but was not observed in June 2000. Kelp canopy was observed on the entire reef in July 2009.

California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) is common in the subtidal reef habitat in the project area. Commercial lobster fishermen set traps in the area during the lobster fishing season of October through mid-March and lobster also are fished in the area by SCUBA divers.

Abalone (Haliotis rufescens) have been reported historically in the general project area (Blunt 1980), but were not observed during any of the recent surveys.

4.4.2.4 Subtidal Softbottom
Benthic invertebrate species typical of Southern California nearshore soft bottom habitats include polychaete worms (e.g., Diopatra spp., Loimia medusa, Pista pacifica), sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus), crabs (Heterocrypta occidentalis, Portunis xantusii, Randallia ornata), hermit crabs (Pagurus spp., Pagurites spp.), marine snails (Nassarius fossatus, Olivella biplicata, Polinices spp.), clams (Ensis spp.), armored sea stars (Astropecten armatus), tube anemones (Harenactis attenuata, Zaolutus actius), sea pens (Stylatula elongata), and sea pansies (Renilla kollikeri) (MEC 2002, Thompson et al., 1993).
109
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4-47
Figure 4-10 Surfgrass Survey
110
Legend
2009 Survey 2008 Survey 15m Alternative
• Observed Surfgrass • Observed Surfgrass r: _! Project Footprint Reef Position Surfgrass Area D Impact Area
-- Dive Transects
Kelp Bed
--Intertidal Survey 35m Alternative
- Scuba Survey - - Project Footprint - --- Snorkel Survey --Impact Area 0 -
~(, ~ -
200 400
-
800
Feet ~hambers Group Inc'.

Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-48
Fish commonly found over shallow sandy subtidal habitat (less than 30 ft or 9m) in southern California include California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), speckled sanddabs (Citharichthys stigmaeus), barred surfperch (Amphistichus argenteus), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), bat ray (Myliobatus californica), and shovelnose guitarfish (Rhinobatos productus) (MEC 2002, SANDAG 2000). Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific bonito (Sarda chiliensis), and topsmelt (Athernops affinis) are commonly encountered in the water column just beyond the surf zone (MEC 2002, SANDAG 2000).

The proposed borrow site offshore Oceanside (SO-9) was described by SANDAG (2000). The proposed borrow site consists of sand bottom habitat at between 45 and 60 ft (14 and 18 m) water depth. Fishes and invertebrates found in the vicinity of the Oceanside borrow site are typical of these depths on southern California offshore soft bottoms (SANDAG 2000). The most abundant invertebrate taxa identified for the Oceanside borrow site include several species of polychaete worms (Diopatra spp., Euclymeninae sp., Melinna oculata, Metasychis disparidentatus, Paraprionospio pinnata, Petalodymene pacifica, Pista disjuncta, Spiophanes missionensis, Streblosoma sp.) and the amphipod Ampelisca cristata (SANDAG 2000).

Abundant fish species include longfin sanddab (Citharichthys xanthostigma), barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer), California halibut, California lizardfish (Synodus lucioceps), and fantail sole (Xystreurys liolepis) (SANDAG 2000).

4.4.2.5 Essential Fish Habitat
In accordance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act, an assessment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) was conducted for the proposed Project. NOAA Fisheries provided conservation recommendations during the public comment period and these recommendations are addressed in Section 14.0 of this Final EIS/EIR.

The Project is located within an area designated as EFH for two Fishery Management Plans (FMPs): Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan and Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Many of the 86 species federally managed under these plans are known or expected to occur in the area and could be affected by the proposed Project. All of the five species managed under the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan are likely to occur in the Project area. These pelagic species are northern anchovy, Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack mackerel, and market squid (Loligo opalescens). Approximately 16 species managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan are likely to occur in the Project area. These species include leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata), big skate (Raja binoculata), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), four species of flatfish (Pleuronichthys decurrens, Microstomus pacificus, Pleuronectes vetulis, Citharichthys sordidus), and at least eight species of rockfish (Sebastes chrysomelas, S. auriculatus, S. caurinus, S. rastrelliger, S. atrovirens, S. serranoides, S. serriceps and Scorpaena guttata).

4.4.2.6 Birds
A diverse variety of resident and migratory seabirds and shorebirds are commonly observed along southern California beaches and offshore waters. Seabirds, such as pelicans, terns, and 111
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-49
cormorants, forage for fish in the nearshore ocean. Gulls and shorebirds utilize sandy upper tidal beaches as roosts. Gulls feed on fish and invertebrates, particularly near the edge of the kelp canopy. Shorebirds probe for invertebrates in the damp sands of the middle and low intertidal zones, and some species also forage for small fish and invertebrates in the rocky intertidal. Kelp and surfgrass that have washed ashore harbor invertebrates provide good foraging areas for gulls and shorebirds.

The seabirds that are most commonly observed along the beaches and ocean waters offshore of Orange and San Diego counties include Heerman’s gull (Larus heermanni), ring-billed gull (L. delawarensis), western gull (L. occidentalis), California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), surf scoter (Melinita perspicillata), terns (Sterna spp.), grebes (Podicipedidae), and double-crested (Phalacrocorax auritus), and pelagic (P. pelagicus) cormorants (Chambers Group 2002, MEC 2002).

A variety of shorebirds would be expected to use the beach in the vicinity of San Clemente Pier.

Commonly observed species include the following shorebirds: marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), sanderling (Calidris alba), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), western sandpiper (Calidris mauri), and least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) (McConnaughey and McConnaughey 1988, Chambers Group 2002, MEC 2002).

4.4.2.7 Marine Mammals (Non-Endangered)
The marine mammals that occur in the Southern California Bight have been described in detail in previous studies and environmental documents (e.g., Bonnell et al. 1981, 1983; Bonnell and Dailey 1993; Dohl et al. 1981, 1983; ADL 1984; Barlow et al. 1995, 1997; Barlow and Gerrodette 1996; Koski et al. 1998; DeLong and Melin 2000; Stewart and Yochem 2000).

Although as many as 36 species of marine mammals inhabit or visit the Southern California Bight, including 6 species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), 29 species of cetaceans (whales, porpoises, and dolphins), and the sea otter, only about 6 species are expected to occur in the nearshore waters of the San Clemente study area on a regular basis. These include two pinnipeds, one whale, and three dolphin species (described below). Other species also may occur in the study area on an irregular basis.

California sea lion
The California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) ranges from British Columbia to Mexico. The current U.S. population size is estimated at 237,000-244,000 animals (Carretta et al. 2007). In the Southern California Bight, California sea lions currently breed on four islands: San Miguel, San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and San Clemente. California sea lions are common along the California coast and occur within the project area.

Harbor seals
Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) range from Mexico to the Aleutians. The North Pacific population is centered in Alaska (Hoover, 1988), and about 34,233 harbor seals are found in California 112
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-50
(Carretta et al. 2007). Peak harbor seal populations on land occur during the species' spring breeding and pupping season and early summer molt. Harbor seals forage relatively close to shore and occasionally “haul out” onto land at various times of the day for an indefinite period of time (Seaworld 2002). Harbor seals regularly haul out on large, exposed rocks south of the San Clemente sand placement site.

Gray Whale
Two separate populations of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) are recognized for the North Pacific: the eastern, or Californian, population and the Korean, or western, population (Le Duc et al. 2000). Gray whales also existed in the North Atlantic up to the 16th century, but this population became extinct probably due to whaling (Henderson 1984). The Californian population of gray whales migrates through southern California waters twice a year on its way between Mexican breeding lagoons and feeding grounds in the Bering Sea. The southbound migration through the Southern California Bight begins in December and lasts through February; the northbound migration is more prolonged, lasting from February through May with a peak in March (Bonnell and Dailey 1993). Gray whales are generally absent from southern California waters from August through November. Migrating gray whales generally travel along the nearshore shallow continental shelf within 2 mi (3 km) of the shoreline over most of the route (Graham 1989). This proximity to shore makes gray whales vulnerable to numerous threats by human activities, including industrial activities, oil exploration and extraction, shipping traffic, pollution, and whale-watching tourism (Crane 1992).

Bottlenose Dolphin
There are two California populations of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), coastal and offshore. Coastal bottlenose dolphins, which are the population that is most likely to occur in the study area, generally are found within approximately a mile (1-2 km) of shore, primarily from Point Conception south into Mexican waters. The coastal population appears to form small resident groups that range along the coastline, especially off Orange and San Diego counties (Weller and Defran 1989). The coastal population is estimated at about 323 animals (Carretta et al. 2007).

Pacific White-sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) are found year-round in southern California and are widely distributed in the Southern California Bight. The distribution of this species shifts seasonally and they are most abundant in inshore waters in the spring and summer (Bonnell and Dailey 1993). They would be expected to occur occasionally in the project area at the borrow site and offshore the receiver site.

Common Dolphin
Short-beak common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and long-beak common dolphin D.bairdii) are found year-round in southern California waters. The short-beak common dolphin is the most abundant cetacean off California, but generally occurs far offshore. The long-beak common 113
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-51
dolphin is more likely to occur in nearshore waters. Either species may occasionally occur in the project area either at the borrow site or off the San Clemente receiver beach.

4.4.2.8 Wildlife
Wildlife species detected within the majority of the Project area are typical of the highly disturbed, heavily utilized sandy beach habitat. Shorebirds and seabirds are described above.

Terrestrial wildlife that would be expected include American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), rock doves (Columba livia), and California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi).

Although the project reach is within heavily-urbanized downtown San Clemente, there are some canyons, including Linda Lane, the canyon between Cazador Land and Trafalgar Lane/Esplanade, and the canyon just south of T-street, that would be expected to support urban adapted mammals, including coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor) and opossum (Didelphis virginiana). These mammals may occasionally wander onto the beach at night or early morning.

4.4.3 Special Status Listed Species
Section 7(c) of the ESA, as amended, requires that a federal agency request from the appropriate authority a list of threatened and/or endangered species present in an area of a proposed major federal action. Because of a lack of natural terrestrial habitat within the Project footprint, sensitive terrestrial plants and animals would not be expected to occur in the Project area. lists sensitive species with the potential to occur on the beach in the Project area or offshore in the vicinity of the borrow sites and/or the beach fill site. Potential impacts to these species are addressed in Section 5.4 of this joint EIS/EIR.

4.4.3.1 White Abalone (Federal Endangered)
In May 2001, white abalone (Haliotis sorensoni) became the first marine invertebrate to be listed as a Federal endangered species. White abalone is a mollusk that occurs on rocky habitat from Point Conception to Baja California at 80 to 200 ft (24 to 60 m) depths (Hobday and Tegner 2000). White abalone has been recorded in water as shallow as 25 ft (7.5 m) in the Santa Barbara Channel (Aspen 2005). White abalone typically is found in open low relief rock or boulder habitat surrounded by sand (Hobday and Tegner 2000). There has been a greater than 99 percent decline in both the abundance and density of white abalone in California since the 1970s (Hobday and Tegner 2000). The abalone fishery contributed to the decline of white abalone by overharvesting and reduced the density to the point where recruitment success has been unlikely.

White abalone have a low potential to occur in the shallow subtidal habitat offshore San Clemente. Although this species has been found in water as shallow as 25 ft (7.5 m) off Santa Barbara, it generally is in water depths greater than 80 ft (24m) especially in the southern part of its range. No white abalone were observed during biological surveys of the Project area (CRM 2000).
114
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4-52
Table 4-15 Special Status Listed Species that May Occur in the San Clemente Pier or Oceanside Common
Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Distribution Potential For Occurrence In Project Area InvertebratesWhite Abalone
Haliotis sorenseni FE Open, low relief rock or
boulder habitat surrounded by sand at 80 to 200 ft (24 to 60 m) depths (Hobday and Tegner 2000) Point Conception to Baja California
Low
Fishes Southern steelhead
Oncorhynchus mykiss
FE
(south of
Point
Conception)
Spawn in cool, clear, welloxygenated streams. Higherelevation headwaters are primary spawning and rearing areas. Southern steelhead likely have greater physiological tolerances to warmer water and more variable conditions.

The Southern California Evolutionarily Significant Unit of steelhead extends from the Santa Maria River to the U.S.-Mexico Border. Steelhead have recently been reported from San Mateo Creek on Camp Pendleton just south of San Clemente, and the Santa Margarita near the borrow site Low
BirdsWestern snowy plover
Charadriusalexandrinusnivosus
FT Beaches (migration and
wintering)
Nests in sandy areas on beaches, bays and islands from Washington State to Baja California. Nearest nesting sites are on Camp Pendleton Absent. Sea and Sage Audubon performed a 2010 winter survey; San Clemente Beaches were not included because beach habitat within the project placement footprint, as well as in Oceanside, are narrow and heavily used by people. Philip Unitt, San Diego Natural History Museum, Birds of San Diego County, Memoir 13, 1984, does not show snowy plovers in north portion of the county. California State Parks has tracked snowy plovers during winter window surveys and has driven San Clemente State Beach many times with zero plovers observed over the years (David Pryor, personal communication, February 2011). 115
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4-53
Common
Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Distribution Potential For Occurrence In Project Area California least tern
Sterna antillarum browni
FE; SE
(nesting
colony)
Nearshore waters; breeding populations in California are restricted to coastal locations; forage close to their breeding colonies in bays, harbors, and nearshore ocean waters Nesting occurs from the San Francisco Bay area to Baja California. Nearest nesting sites are on Camp Pendleton.

Absent Project would not occur when they are present in California Notes:FE = Federal Endangered ST = State Threatened FT = Federal Threatened SE = State Endangered Potential for Occurrence Absent – species is restricted to habitats, environmental conditions or seasons that do not coincide with the project site or timing Low – records for this species do not exist within the immediate vicinity of the site and/or habitats or environmental conditions needed to support the species are of low quality Moderate - either an historical record exists of the species in the immediate vicinity of the site and marginal habitat exists on the site, or the habitat requirements and environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the site but no historical records exist of the species in the vicinity of the site High- both historical records exist of the species within the site or its immediate vicinity and the habitat requirements and environmental conditions associated with the species occur on the site 116
I
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-54

4.4.3.2 Tidewater Goby (Federal Endangered)
The tidewater goby was listed as endangered on February 4, 1994, (59 FR 5498) and is categorized as a California Special Concern (CSC) species by CDFG. A recovery plan for this species was finalized in 2006 (USFWS 2005a), and critical habitat has been proposed (USFWS 2007b). Gobies are mostly coastal lagoon fishes that prefer shallow, usually brackish water (Love 1996). Primary tidewater goby habitat is found in small, shallow coastal lagoons that are separated from the ocean most of the year by beach barriers. This includes shallow areas of bays and areas near stream mouths in uppermost brackish portions of larger bays. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the tidewater goby on November 20, 2000 (65 FR 69693-69717). Critical habitat includes stream channels and their associated wetlands, flood plains, and estuaries. Critical habitat within the vicinity of the San Clemente beach site includes San Mateo Creek and San Onofre Creek. Near the San Clemente Project area, populations of tidewater gobies, although highly variable in number, occur at San Mateo Creek and San Onofre Creek. Critical habitat onshore of the Oceanside borrow site includes Las Flores/Las Pulgas Creeks, Hidden Lagoon, Aliso Canyon, Cockleburr Canyon and the Santa Margarita River on Camp Pendleton as well as the San Luis Rey River near Oceanside Harbor. Within the last 10 years, tidewater gobies have been collected in Las Flores Creek, Hidden Lagoon, Aliso Canyon, and Cockleburr Canyon.

4.4.3.3 Steelhead Trout (Federal Endangered)
The effective date for listing the Southern California Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of west coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as endangered and the South Central California Coast ESU as threatened is October 17, 1997 (63 FR 32996). Steelheads from the Southern California ESU have already been extirpated from much of their historical range. There is a strong concern about the widespread degradation, destruction, and blockage of freshwater habitats within the region, and the potential results of continuing habitat destruction and water allocation problems. Total abundance of steelhead in the South-Central Coast ESU is extremely low and declining. Risk factors for this ESU are habitat deterioration due to sedimentation, and flooding related to land management practices.

Steelheads, like all salmon, need clean, cool water with plenty of oxygen and low amounts of suspended solids and contaminants. They also need gravel and rocks to spawn. Fine sediment is lethal to steelhead. Steelheads also require large, woody debris and deep pools in the river, which provide refuge from predators and resting places during storms. San Mateo Creek is the nearest occurrence of steelhead near the San Clemente Project. Historically, San Mateo Creek was one of the most productive streams for southern steelhead. In a report to NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton (MCBCP) in coordination with the CDFG determined that San Mateo Creek in northern San Diego County still supports a small population of the southern California steelhead. This is based upon field surveys completed in 2003 by biologist from MCBCP and CDFG (S. Glowacki, pers. comm. 2004). Even though this steelhead population is relatively small, large adults were found. Southern steelhead also has been found in the Santa Margarita River near the borrow site. 117
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-55

4.4.3.4 California Brown Pelican (Federal and State Endangered) The California brown pelican was delisted from the Federal endangered species list on November 17, 2009 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (74 FR 59443); it was delisted from the State endangered species list in a vote by Fish and Game Commission in February 2009

4.4.3.5 California Least Tern (Federal and State Endangered) The California least tern was listed as endangered on October 13, 1970, (35 FR 16047) and State listed as endangered in June 27, 2004. A recovery plan for the species was published in 1980 (USFWS 1980), and was revised in 1985 (USFWS 1985). Critical habitat was never designated.

The breeding range of the California least tern population occupies specific localized breeding colonies from about April to September each year. Colonies are usually in close proximity to a lagoons or estuary or river confluences with the ocean environs where they obtain most of the small fish they consume, although they may also forage up to 2 to 3 mi (3.2 to 4.8 km) from the beach in the near shore. Large numbers of least terns breed on the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP), 12 to 14 miles south of the Project area. In 2006, there were 1,423 nesting pairs of least terns at MCBCP (Marschalek 2007). Most of these (1,265 pairs) documented in the 2006 breeding survey were at the mouth of the Santa Margarita River. The nearest colonies to the Project area were at White Beach, approximately 14 mi (22 km) south of the proposed beach fill site, where 137 pairs bred in 2006 and at Red Beach, approximately 12mi (19 km) south of the Project site where 21 pairs bred (Marschalek 2007). The Oceanside borrow site is within the foraging range of the Santa Margarita River colony.

Least terns are known to use the near shore waters for foraging as they make their northbound and southbound migration treks. There are no known records of least terns using the San Clemente Pier sandy beach habitat for nesting or for night roosts.

4.4.3.6 Western Snowy Plover (Federal Threatened)
The coastal population of the western snowy plover was listed as threatened in the Federal Register on March 5, 1993, (58 FR 12864) and is a CSC. A recovery plan for this species was finalized in 2007 (USFWS 2007a). Designation of critical habitat was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1999, (64 FR 68507) and last revised in 2005 (USFWS 2005b). This population is defined as those individuals that nest adjacent to tidal waters, and includes all nesting birds on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays, estuaries, and coastal rivers. The breeding range of the threatened population extends along the Pacific coast of North America from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico. The winter range is somewhat broader and may extend to Central America (Page et al. 1995); however, most plovers winter south of California.

The nesting habitat of the coastal population is mainly dune-backed beaches, barrier beaches, salt flats, and salt evaporation ponds. Habitat of wintering birds includes beaches where nesting is not known to occur. In the U.S., over 150 currently used or historical nesting and/or wintering areas have been identified, most of which (about 85 percent) are in California. Snowy plovers do not nest within the Project area, which consists of beaches subjected to a high degree of human 118
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-56
use. San Onofre Beach, approximately 5 miles south of the proposed Project area, in northern San Diego County, has been designated as Critical Habitat for the western snowy plover (USFWS 2005b). Snowy plovers nest on MCBCP at White Beach (approximately 14 mi [22 km] south of the Project area) and the Santa Margarita River (about 16 mi [26 km] south of the beach fill area) (Powell et al. 2002).

The coastal population consists of both resident and migratory birds. Some birds winter in the breeding areas, while others migrate north or south to wintering areas. Current population data for California is 1,444 adult plovers.

Sea and Sage Audubon performed a 2010 winter survey; San Clemente Beaches were not included because beach habitat within the project placement footprint, as well as in Oceanside, are narrow and heavily used by people. Philip Unitt, San Diego Natural History Museum, Birds of San Diego County, Memoir 13, 1984, does not show snowy plovers in north portion of the county. California State Parks has tracked snowy plovers during winter window surveys and has driven San Clemente State Beach many times with zero plovers observed over the years (David Pryor, personal communication, February 2011).

4.4.3.7 Xantus' Murrelet (State Threatened)
Xantus’ murrelet range from Baja California to Oregon and Washington (National Geographic 2001). Xantus’ murrelets are common spring and summer residents to the Channel Islands and nearshore islands and offshore mainland waters (Lehman 1994). They nest colonially in only 12 to 15 locations, including Santa Barbara, Anacapa, San Miguel, Santa Catalina, San Clemente, and Santa Cruz islands. Santa Barbara Island contains the largest breeding concentration of this species in the world (McChesney et al. 2000, Burkett et al. 2003). An effort to remove black rats from Anacapa Island has re-established nesting by Xantus’ murrelets there. This species forages throughout the SCB from these nest sites, particularly in the area between Santa Barbara and Santa Catalina islands and the mainland, but densities are low (Mills et al. 2005). They are rarely seen close to shore in Orange County (Hamilton and Willick 1996). Unitt (1984) mentions a few sightings off Point Loma that might be less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from shore, but it is not explicitly stated. Unitt states that many sightings are not distinguished between Xantus’s and Craveri’s murrelets, but it is most likely that they are Xantus’s rather than Craveri’s because Xantus’s are much more common in the SCB (Harry Carter, pers. comm., 10 March 2008).

4.4.3.8 Listed Marine Mammals
Two species of pinniped designated as Federal Threatened and six species of Federal Endangered whales have an unlikely potential to occur in the nearshore waters off San Clemente and Oceanside. The threatened pinnipeds are the Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) and the Stellar sea lion (Eumetopias jubata). The Endangered whales are blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), sei whale (B. borealis), fin whale (B. physalus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). The presence of any of these species within the project area is not expected.
119
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-57

4.4.4 Conservation/Habitat Management Plan
San Clemente is within the Orange County Southern Subregion Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The purpose of the Southern NCCP is to protect designated open space and conserve identified listed and unlisted species (Covered Species) and associated vegetation communities, including upland, aquatic and riparian resources (Conserved Vegetation Communities), through the long-term management of the natural communities that provide habitat essential to the survival of these wildlife and plant species. The Southern NCCP/ Master Streambed Alteration Agreement/ Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern NCCP/MSAA/HCP) has been prepared by the County of Orange in cooperation with the CDFG and the USFWS in accordance with the provisions of the State Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991, Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code, and the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

4.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, and historic structures, and consist of artifacts, food waste, structures, and facilities made by people in the past. Prehistoric archaeological sites are places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by the native population of the area (Native Americans) prior to the arrival of Europeans in southern California. Artifacts found in prehistoric sites include flaked stone tools such as projectile points, knives, scrapers, and drills; ground stone tools such as manos, metates, mortars, and pestles for grinding seeds and nuts; and bone tools, such as awls.

Prehistoric sites and features include hearths, bedrock mortars, rockshelters, rock art, and burials.

Historic archaeological sites are places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by people during the period when written records were produced after the arrival of Europeans.

Historic archaeological materials usually consist of refuse, such as bottles, cans, and food waste, deposited near structure foundations. Archaeological investigation of historic period sites is usually supplemented by historic research using written records. Historic structures include houses, commercial structures, industrial facilities, and other structures and facilities more than 50 years old.

4.5.1 Regulatory Setting

4.5.1.1 Federal Level
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The action must demonstrate compliance with the NHPA, Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470-470m, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 460b, 470l-470n, and 36 CFR 800, as amended (August 5, 2004).

Cultural resources are identified using two principal methods. Before starting, a project, a records and literature search is conducted at repositories of archeological site records. The search may show that an archeological or historical survey has been conducted in the project area 120
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-58
and that cultural resources have been identified. That information may be enough to proceed with the significance evaluation stage of the project. If no previous survey has been done, or if a previous survey was either out of date or inadequate, a pedestrian survey of the ground surface within the proposed project boundaries may be conducted. Subsurface testing may also be performed if deemed appropriate by the cultural resources professional.

After a cultural resource(s) has been identified during a survey or record and literature search the federal agency overseeing the undertaking proceeds to determine whether the cultural resource is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates this process. The Federal Regulation that guides the process is found at 36 CFR 800.

For a cultural resource to be determined eligible for listing in the National Register it has to meet certain criteria. The resource has to be either minimally 50 years old or exhibit exceptional importance. After meeting the age requirement, cultural resources are evaluated according to four criteria: a, b, c, and d. The National Register criteria for evaluation as defined in 36 CFR

60.4 are:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and a. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
b. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or c. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
d. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

After a cultural resource has been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register, it is accorded the same level of protection as a property that is included. It then becomes formally known as a “historic property” regardless of age.

4.5.1.2 State Level
Like NEPA, the CEQA also considers the effects of a project on cultural resources. CEQA applies to all projects undertaken by a public agency (State or Local), any special district (e.g., a school district), and any public college or university. The CEQA Guidelines are the implementing measures for CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) indicate a project may have a significant environmental effect if it causes “substantial adverse change” in the significance of an “historical resource” or a “unique archaeological resource” as defined or referenced in 14 CCR §15064.5(b,c) (1998). Such 121
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-59
changes include “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (14 CCR §15064.5 [b]).

Cultural resources are identified and evaluated for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register). Cultural resources that have been determined eligible for listing in the California Register are referred to as “historical resources”. CEQA (PRC Sections 21002(b), 21083.2, and 21084.1) recognizes historical resources as part of the environment. The California Register is an authoritative guide to the State’s historical resources and to which properties are considered significant for purposes of CEQA. The California Register Criteria of Significance are similar to that of the National Register. An historical resource must be significant at the Local, State, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

4.5.1.3 Local Level
The City of San Clemente’s General Plan addresses historical resources in its Cultural Resources Element, adopted in 1993. The City of San Clemente also is a Certified Local Government under the NHPA. As a result, San Clemente is required to maintain a system for inventory and survey of historic properties that is consistent with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. The City of San Clemente uses California Register criteria for making determinations of significance (http://san-clemente.org/sc/standard.aspx?pageid=439), accessed January 8, 2008).

4.5.2 Area of Potential Effects (APE)
For the purpose of identification of existing cultural resources for this Project, the Project’s APE includes three non-contiguous areas, which are located both onshore and offshore. The onshore portion of the APE includes the approximately 3,411 ft (1,040 m) long and 82 ft (25 m) wide strip of shoreline centered around the San Clemente Municipal Pier from approximately the Marine Safety Headquarters building to just south of the T-Street overpass. The offshore portion of the APE includes the offshore borrow site, Area 2, located off the coast of Oceanside.

Local prehistory and history are briefly summarized here in order to provide a context for further discussion of the known archaeological and historical remains within the APE and vicinity. 122
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-60

4.5.3 Cultural Context
This section summarizes the archaeology within and adjacent to the southern California coastline from Doheny State Beach to San Mateo Point. A variety of different regional chronologies, often with overlapping terminology, have been used in coastal southern California, and they vary from region to region. Today, the prehistory of Orange County is generally divided into three major temporal periods: Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric. These time periods are characterized by patterns in material culture that are thought to represent distinct regional trends in the economic and social organization of prehistoric groups. In addition, particular scholars referring to specific areas utilize a number of cultural terms synonymously with these temporal labels. For example, Warren (1968) in reference to the southern California coast and specifically Orange County prefers Encinitas Tradition for Archaic and Shoshonean for Late Prehistoric.

4.5.3.1 Paleoindian Period
The antiquity of human occupation in the New World has been the subject of considerable debate over the last few decades. The currently accepted model is that humans first entered the western hemisphere between 12,000 and 15,000 years B.P. (before present). There is currently no firm evidence of human occupation in coastal southern California prior to 12,000 B.P. Thus, this period begins with the first evidence of human occupation and ends with the extinction of Pleistocene game around 9,000 B.C. (before Christ). No Paleoindian period sites are known within Orange County, but several have been found in San Diego County. Warren (1968) named this local cultural tradition the San Dieguito Tradition. The artifact assemblage for this period consists mostly of lithic (stone/rock) artifacts: large projectile points, scrapers, and choppers.

Paleoindian subsistence was based on the hunting of large Pleistocene game. Social groups/families would have stayed with a major kill as until it was depleted of all its nutritional and functional value. Researchers argue that such an economy could only support groups no larger than extended families. Around 9,000 B.C. the Pleistocene Epoch ended, and the large game animals became extinct. No longer able to continue their big game hunting tradition, the Paleoindian people were forced to utilize other resources to meet their economic needs.

4.5.3.2 Archaic Period
The Archaic period is commonly subdivided into Early (9,000-6,000 B.C.), Middle (6,000-4,000 B.C.), and Late Archaic period (4,000-2,000 B.C.). In addition, Wallace (1955) refers to this as Horizon II Milling Stone, and Warren (1968) calls it the Encinitas Tradition. Subsistence during the Early Archaic came primarily from plants and small animals, fishing, and shellfish. By the Middle Archaic, hard seeds were included in the diet as evidenced by the abundance of manos and metates found within these sites. By the Late Archaic, social groups grew in numbers and became more sedentary. Groups migrated seasonally depending on food availability rather than randomly following game animals.

4.5.3.3 Late Prehistoric Period
The Late Prehistoric period is generally considered to have begun between 1,300 and 800 years ago (Moratto 1984). In general, this period has been characterized by the appearance of small 123
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-61
pressure flaked arrow points (Cottonwood Triangular and Desert Side-notched points) indicative of bow and arrow technology, the appearance of ceramics, the replacement of flexed inhumations with cremations, the possible appearance of the mortar and pestle, and an emphasis on inland plant food collecting and processing, especially of acorns. In addition, sedentary villages with populations of up to 1,500 persons along with decorated tools and ornaments are attributed to this period. Warren (1968) called this period Shoshonean; named after the migration of Shoshonean-speakers, known as the Shoshonean wedge, to mostly what is now Orange County from the inland deserts about 1,500 years ago. Researchers have recorded this migration to the origin of the Late Prehistoric period. Following this influx of new people, the tribal landscape in the Southern California Coastal regions was altered by differentiation of tribes into the discrete cultural groups that were present at the time of European contact (Wallace 1955).

4.5.3.4 Post-Contact Native American Ethnohistory
The Post-Contact period began in 1769 A.D. (after Christ), when Gaspar de Portola led an overland expedition from San Diego to Monterey, CA. The first permanent settlement in Orange County came when San Juan Capistrano was selected as the site for a mission in the spring of 1775. The establishment of the San Juan Capistrano Mission in 1776 and the San Luis Rey de Franciscan Mission in 1798 further impacted traditional coastal settlement systems.

Acculturation, assimilation, and the introduction of Old World diseases greatly disrupted and reduced Native American populations, and by the early 1800s traditional coastal villages were largely abandoned.

This Project area falls primarily within the territory of the Juaneño Tribe. They are known as the Juaneño because of their association and proximity with the San Juan Capistrano Mission.

According to Bean and Shipek (1978), the Juaneño and Luiseño are considered to be ethnologically and linguistically the same, but have been subdivided due to missionization during the Spanish period. Today, the Juaneño Indians have distinguished themselves by gaining State recognition and seeking Federal recognition as a discrete Indian tribe.

Our knowledge of California Indian life prior to European contact is based mostly on knowledge gained from archaeological investigations. Since California tribes were generally peaceful and did not offer warlike resistance to European settlers, they did not receive the notoriety more aggressive groups enjoyed. In addition, consequently American researchers became interested in Indian ethnohistory only after their pre-contact cultural traditions and languages were virtually destroyed. As a result, we know very little about traditional coastal life, except what can be gleaned from mission records. Nineteenth and Twentieth century ethnohistoric reconstructions provide only minimal insight into coastal adaptations.

Father Boscana’s “Chinigchinich” is, in the words of Kroeber, “the most intensive and best written account of the customs and religion of any group of California Indians in the mission days” (1925:636). The Juaneño practiced puberty rites and mourning rituals. Both these ceremonies were held within a sacred, enclosed structure called the Wankech. Uninitiated persons were not allowed to enter this structure, and once inside voices were kept to a whisper.

The structure contained an altar consisting of an effigy of the god Chinigchinich and a sand 124
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-62
painting. According to Brown, “the center of the Juaneño religion was Chinigchinich, the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. The heroes were originally from the stars, and the sagas told of them formed the Juaneño religious beliefs” (1997).

Puberty rites were practiced for both boys and girls. Male initiation included the use of datura, a hallucinogen, in order to “see” the animal that would help protect them from future dangers. The animal was usually a coyote, bear, crow or raven, or a rattlesnake. Female initiation required that the girl fast and lie in a pit lined with heated stones for several days while older women sang and younger women danced around her. The mourning ceremony consisted of cremating the decedent usually just hours after death. The pyre was lit by a designated individual who obtained this privilege by descent. The Juaneño had medicine men or shamans, but very little is known about them or their practices. In addition, the Juaneño used a calendar. According to Kroeber, “ten months were named…the year was definitely divided by the solstices…the month or moon in which the solstice fell was somewhat longer than the others, after which there followed four regular lunations…nothing like this attempt to combine a lunar and solar count has yet been reported from any other people in California” (1925:644). The office of chief was inherited from paternal lineage.

4.5.3.5 Euro-American History
The Hispanic era in California’s history includes the Spanish Colonial (1769-1820) and Mexican Republic (1820-1846) periods. This era witnessed the transition from a society dominated by religious and military institutions consisting of missions and presidios to a civilian population residing on large ranchos or in pueblos.

By the early 1820s, California came under Mexico’s rule, and in 1834 the missions were secularized. This resulted in political imbalance and Indian uprisings against the Mexican rancheros. Secularization of mission lands began shortly after the declaration of Mexican Independence in 1821. Nine thousand acres of land, including the area of San Clemente, were granted to Filipe Carrillo in 1846 as Rancho Los Desaechos (Brown 1997). Carrillo failed to submit his claim to the U.S. Land Commission after the United States took possession of the area from Mexico, and as a result the rancho changed hands several times (Brown 1997).

Named after one of the offshore southern Channel Islands, the city of San Clemente was founded by a former mayor of Seattle, Ole Hanson, in 1925 (Brock 1985). San Clemente was among the first master planned communities built from totally open land in the United States. Before erecting a single structure on the rolling coastal hills, Ole Hanson laid out an expansive plan based on the Spanish Colonial architectural style including restaurants, a clubhouse, residences, public parks, a public pool, a fishing pier, and even equestrian trails. Hanson’s residential community, promoted as “The Spanish Village,” featured wide, meandering streets that conformed to the contours of the hills, houses situated to provide an ocean view, and mandatory white stucco exteriors and red tile roofs for every building. San Clemente was incorporated in 1928 and grew rapidly until the Depression, when development halted. The growth rate picked up again during the 1950s and was later boosted by construction of the San Diego Freeway. 125
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-63
Today, the Spanish Village by the Sea is more heterogeneous than Hanson had envisioned, but historic homeowners and current planning and development all reflect increasing esteem for his red-roofed, white-walled Spanish architecture dream. Historic homeowners must abide by city codes that protect the aesthetic spirit and style of early San Clemente. New development east of the Interstate 5 freeway now elevates Spanish Colonial Revival architecture to new interpretations, incorporating red roofs, balconies, and promenades as the demographics of San Clemente shift and new residents are drawn to the Mediterranean charm of this community.

Perhaps the best example of San Clemente’s increasing appreciation for its past is the restoration underway at the Casa Romantica, which was Ole Hanson’s bluff top home at the time of the City’s founding. The Casa Romantica was completed in 1928, and after Hanson lost it to the bank during the Great Depression, the Casa passed through various owners. The wear and tear of time and neglect took its toll, and at one point the outstanding landmark seemed destined for demolition. Fortunately, a group of local activists pushed hard for the Casa Romantica’s rescue and directed its destiny away from commercial alternatives and toward a use that will benefit all of the community—that of a Cultural Center and Gardens.

4.5.4 Records and Literature Search Results
In 2002, the USACE (Lydia Lopez-Cruz) conducted a cultural resources records search of the APE and vicinity through the California Historical Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, to determine if the APE (1) has been surveyed for cultural resources; and (2) contains any recorded cultural resources or historic properties. Ms. Lopez-Cruz reviewed the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Resources Inventory, which includes the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, State Historic Landmarks, and Points of Historic Interest listings.

The records search results indicate that the APE has not been surveyed for cultural resources. In 1997, RMW Paleo Associates, Inc., conducted a cultural resources survey for the pedestrian and bicycle path located within the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right of way immediately adjacent to the APE (Brown 1997). No cultural resources were identified during this survey.

CHRIS-SCCIC records indicated that no recorded cultural resources or historic properties have been recorded within the APE. While no sites have been recorded within the Project area, three prehistoric shell midden sites (CA-ORA-101, -102, and -103) and one isolated piece of basalt flaked stone (30-100074) have been recorded within the Project area vicinity ( 126
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-64
Table 4-15).
127
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-65
Table 4-15 Summary of Recorded Archaeological Resources within Project Vicinity Resource Description Location (mi)*
Evaluated
for NR? Reference
CA-ORA-101 Shell midden 1.0 SE No Smethe 1954
CA-ORA-102 Shell midden,
village site,
manos, bowls

1.2 SE No Waldeck 1948
CA-ORA-103 Shell midden,
hammerstone,
manos

1.2 SE No Waldeck 1948
30-100074 Basalt
denticular
flake

1.6 NW N/A Maxon 1996
*Distance from San Clemente Municipal Pier
In addition, the National Register lists two properties located in the Project area vicinity: Casa Romantica and San Clemente Beach Club. These historic properties are described in Table 4-16 below.

Table 4-16 Summary of National Register Properties within Project Vicinity Resource Address Location (mi)*
Date listed
on NR
Casa Romantica 415 Avenida
Granada

0.2 N 1991-12-27
San Clemente
Beach Club
Avenida Boca
De La Playa

0.9 N 1981-04-09
*Distance from San Clemente Municipal Pier
One locally significant historic resource is located within the Project area: the San Clemente Municipal Pier (Figure 4-11). The City’s original pier was designed by engineer William Ayer and constructed by the City of San Clemente in 1928 (HRG 2006). This pier was demolished by storms in 1939. William Ayer designed a new pier which was built in 1940; this pier was severely damaged by storms in 1983. As a result, the pier was substantially reconstructed after this storm event. Therefore, the extant pier structure does not retain much original construction material, but it does retain the same form and appearance of the original 1928 pier. In 2006, the City of San Clemente commissioned a historic resources survey update in order to update its Historic Structures list (HRG 2006). At this time, the San Clemente Municipal Pier was formally recorded and evaluated by Historic Resources Group, Inc (HRG 2006). HRG determined that the Pier was eligible at the local level under criterion A, and it is listed on the City’s Historic Structures List. The USACE has determined that Pier is not eligible for listing in the California Register or National Register.
128
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-66
Figure 4-11 Overview of San Clemente Municipal Pier (looking west) In order to assess the cultural sensitivity of the offshore portions of the APE (i.e., Offshore Borrow Areas 1 and 2), the USACE (Amy M. Holmes) contacted nautical archeologist Heather MacFarlane of MacFarlane Archaeological Consultants in Ventura, California. Ms. MacFarlane consulted her personal database of submerged resource information for the southern California coast and consulted with Mr. Jeff Carothers of FUGRO West, a geosciences and marine survey firm. Areas 1 and 2 have not been surveyed for submerged cultural resources. In 2002, FUGRO West performed a borrow site survey for the USACE between the shore and the eastern edge of Area 1; this survey did not cover Area 1.

Area 1 has low sensitivity for submerged resources, as no known historic shipwrecks are within the boundaries of Area 1. Area 2 is moderately sensitive for submerged cultural resources, as there is a cluster of seven historic shipwrecks within Area 2 or its vicinity (Personal Communication, Heather MacFarlane, January 10, 2008).

4.5.5 Pedestrian Survey Results
On January 3, 2008, the USACE (Amy M. Holmes) conducted a pedestrian survey of the onshore part of the APE. This included an inspection of the beach shoreline and bike path from the San Clemente Metrolink Station south to the T-Street overpass. Ms. Holmes inspected the ground surface for cultural resources. In addition, Ms. Holmes inspected the San Clemente Municipal Pier and the proposed construction staging areas in its vicinity.

Besides the historic San Clemente Municipal Pier, no cultural resources were relocated or identified during the pedestrian survey of the onshore part of the APE. This area has been disturbed by the placement of imported beach sands, the railroad, and the hike and bike path, paved driveways, and other associated infrastructure such as utility lines. 129
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-67

4.5.6 Native American Consultation
On January 7, 2008, the USACE contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting that they perform a search of their Sacred Lands File in order to identify any Native American cultural sites inside or within the vicinity of the APE. The NAHC provided a list of Native American contacts that are affiliated with the San Clemente area.

Copies of the public draft of this document were sent to representatives of the Juaneño people named on NAHC’s Native American Contact List for review and comment. No comments were received during the comment period.

4.5.7 Section 106 Consultation and Coordination
In accordance with 36 CFR 800.3, the USACE sent an initial letter, the Public Draft EIS/EIR, and will send the Final EIS/EIR to the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Native American Tribes, including the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, named by the NAHC advising them of this proposed Project and the Corps’ determinations.

4.6 Ground and Vessel Transportation
Local streets, roads and railway transport methods will not be used in the proposed Project except for construction crew commuting to and from the Project site. Instead, offshore collection locations of beach replenishment material will be made available via offshore gathering of oceanographic deposition. This will be accomplished utilizing collection barges.

4.6.1 Ground Transportation

4.6.1.1 Major Highways
Interstate 5 (I-5), which is a primary transportation link between Los Angeles and San Diego counties, runs in a north-south direction parallel to the coastline, ranging approximately 0.5 to

1.25 mi (0.8 to 2.01 km) inland from the coast. I-5 is designated a freeway through San Clemente and consists of eight travel lanes. El Camino Real (or U.S. Highway 101) runs parallel to the Pacific Ocean coastline in a north-south orientation ranging approximately 315 ft to 1,600 ft (96 to 483 m) from the coast. El Camino Real is a four-lane roadway designated a secondary roadway.

The principal access route to the San Clemente Pier from I-5 is via local streets, following either West Avenida Palizada or Avenida Presidio to El Camino Real to Avenida Victoria. Other local streets that lead to Avenida Victoria include Avenida Del Mar and Avenida Rosa. Principal access to Linda Lane Park (Park) (approximate northern boundary of Project site) is via West Avenida Palizada or Camino Del Mar to Encino Lane, with parking at the Park. Principal access to T-Street beach (approximate southern boundary of Project site) is via El Camino Real to Trafalgar Lane to Esplanade, with parking on West Paseo de Cristobal. Table 4-17 provides the average daily traffic for local roadways leading to the Project site. 130
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-68
Table 4-17 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along Local Roadways ADT
El Camino Real
Between Avenida Palizada and Avenida Cabrillo 19,000
Between Avenida Cabrillo and Avenida del Mar 17,000
Between Avenida del Mar and Paseo del Cristobal 15,000
Avenida Palizada
Between I-5 and Avenida de la Estrella 22,000
Between Avenida de la Estrella and El Camino Real 19,000 Avenida del Mar Between El Camino Real and Ola Vista 6,000 Avenida Victoria Between El Camino Real and Ola Vista 5,000 Ola Vista Between Avenida Palizada and Paseo del Cristobal 3,000 Source: City of San Clemente 2007

4.6.1.2 Rail System
The rail corridor provides a major source of commuter travel for the entire South Pacific portion of southern California. Commuter rail stops at San Clemente Pier include two daily Amtrak trains between late April and October and weekend and holiday service year round, as well as two Metrolink weekend train stops. Presently, rail service safety requires occasional preventative maintenance in the form of monitoring the rail bed for erosion and utilizing riprap to prevent erosion. According to OCTA, it has been necessary to place riprap along the most critical segment between North Beach and the Marine Safety Building to decrease wave erosion impacts. Crews are dispatched during high tide and story conditions to visually inspect the track for damage that could cause derailment. This railroad is a vital transportation link for passenger and freight service. Furthermore, the Department of Defense has designated this right-of-way as a Strategic Rail Corridor with great significance to National Defense. Continued erosion along the San Clemente shoreline would lead to further disruption of rail service, National Security issues, and transportation delays.

4.6.2 Vessel Transportation
Commercial boats, fishing boats, and recreational vessels currently traverse the overall Project area between the coasts of Orange and San Diego counties. Most vessels operate out of Dana Point Harbor, approximately 5.5 mi (8.9 km) upcoast of the Project site, and Oceanside Harbor, approximately 20 mi (32 km) downcoast of the Project site.

4.7 Land Use and Policy

4.7.1 Land Use
The City of San Clemente, including the unincorporated area, is comprised primarily of residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, and vacant properties. The proposed site is along the coast and within the “Pier Bowl” district of San Clemente. The Pier Bowl is a 131
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-69
pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use center accommodating uses that support coastal recreational activities, including retail, restaurant, office, cultural, hotel/motel, bed and breakfast establishments, and residential.

The Pacific Ocean bounds the site to the west. The beach and Pier are public parks and publicly owned open space (OS1). No physical features exist that divide the existing land use along the San Clemente beaches. North and inland of the Pier, the proposed site is bordered by the Metrolink Station and parking lot, coastal related retail (CRC1-p-A), mixed-use including overnight accommodations (MU 4-3-p-A), mixed use including neighborhood and community serving commercial (MU 4-2-p-A), and public areas. South and inland of the Pier, the proposed site is bordered by public areas, mixed use including neighborhood and community serving commercial (MU 4-1-p-A), and coastal related retail (CRC1-p-A).

4.7.2 Policy
This section identifies the local land use policies, in particular the policies of the California Coastal Act (CCA), along with the adopted environmental plans and goals of the City of San Clemente in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15125(b).

4.7.2.1 California Coastal Act
CCA Policy 30251: Scenic and visual qualities.

The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

CCA Section 30230: Marine resources; maintenance.

Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance.

Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.

CCA Section 30231 Biological productivity; water quality.

The biological productivity and the quality of coastal water, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.

132
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-70
CCA Section 30240: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas; adjacent developments. (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. Coastal Plan Policy 9-1:

Prior to the issuance of a development permit, all projects on parcels shown on the land use plan and/or resource maps with a Habitat Area overlay designation or within 250 ft of such designation or projects affecting an environmentally sensitive habitat area [ESHA] shall be found to be in conformity with the applicable habitat protection policies of the land use plan. All development plans, grading plans, etc., shall show the precise location of the habitat(s) potentially affected by the proposed project. Projects which could adversely impact an environmentally sensitive habitat may be subject to a site inspection by a qualified biologist to be selected jointly by the County and the applicant.

CCA Section 30235: Construction altering natural shoreline.

Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply.

Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible.

CCA Section 30607.7: Coastal development permit for sand replenishment requirements. (a) A coastal development permit for sand replenishment requires the project applicant to provide onsite monitoring and supervision during the implementation of the permit.

A permit subject to subdivision a) may not be issued until the project applicant provides the issuing agency a plan for onsite monitoring and supervision during the implementation of the permit.

CCA Section 30244: Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.

CCA Section 30210: Development not to interfere with access.

In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. 133
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-71
CCA Section 30214: Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent.

The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances of each case including, but not limited to, the following: “…(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity, (3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area…”
CCA Section 30220: Protection of certain water-oriented activities.

Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses.

CCA Section 30221: Oceanfront land; protection for recreational use and development.

Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area.

CCA Section 30233: Diking, filling or dredging; continued movement of sediments and nutrients.
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following…
(1) incidental public services (e.g., burying cables and pipes); (2) mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas;
(3) restoration purposes;
(b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems.

4.7.2.2 Coastal Element of San Clemente General Plan
302.V.1: Designate lands for the provision of recreational open spaces on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map which are sufficient to meet the needs of existing and future residents (GP Policy

1.9.1).
302.V.2 Designate lands for the provision of passive and visual open space on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map, which provide a balance to the urban and suburban development of the City (GP Policy 1.9.2).
134
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-72
302.V.3: Designate lands for the protection of significant environmental resources and protection of life and property from environmental hazards on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map (GP Policy 1.9.3).
302.V.4: Provide for the development of additional open spaces for recreational purposes in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan of Parks and Recreation (GP Policy 1.9.10).
302.VII.3: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed:
a. To protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal area. b. To minimize the alteration of coastal bluffs and canyons. c. Where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas (PRC 3025 1).
d. Require that projects be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses and development in accordance with this Element and the Urban Design Element (GP Policy 1.3.6). 302.VII.6: Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources, as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required (PRC 30244).
302.VI1.10: Require a Biological Assessment Report for any development located along a coastal canyon or bluff when the development results in the removal of any native vegetation and when an Initial Study has determined that there is a potential for a significant adverse impact to biological resources. The Biological Assessment Report shall:
a. Be prepared by a qualified professional and addresses the proposed project's impact on State and Federally listed and candidate plants and animals; California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Special Animals; natural communities of high inventory priority with the CDFG's Nongame Heritage Program, and any other special interest species or communities identified in the General Plan Technical Background Report, or those hereafter named by State or Federal trustee agencies;
b. Identify mitigation measures necessary to eliminate significant adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources; and
c. Define a program for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the specified mitigation measures (GP Policy 10.1.3).
303.IX.1: Improvements to beach facilities and beach access points which are administered by the City of San Clemente shall specifically be intended to provide for the maintenance and enhancement of maximum public use of the beach and ocean. 135
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-73
303.IX.4: The maintenance and enhancement of public non-vehicular access to the shoreline shall be of primary importance when evaluating any future public or private improvements in the Coastal Zone.
303.IX.5: The City's five primary beach access points are:
• San Clemente Beach Club
• Linda Lane
• Municipal Pier
• T-Street
• Avenida Calafia (San Clemente State Beach)
303.IX.6: Develop a comprehensive network of improved beach access facilities at all designated primary beach access points which will ultimately provide safe access to all City owned beaches (GP Policy 8.10).
303.IX.7: The City of San Clemente shall promote not only increased access to the shoreline, but increased safety of access. Improved access for the handicapped shall be provided at least one of the primary access points administered by the City. 303.IX.14: Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where:
a. It is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs or the protection of fragile coastal resources;
b. Adequate access exists nearby; or
c. Agriculture would be adversely affected.
303.IX.16: For purposes of this section, "new development" does not include: d. Any repair or maintenance activity for which the Coastal Commission has determined, pursuant to Section 30601, that a coastal development permit will be required unless the Commission determines that such activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access along the beach. 304.XI.1: Coastal areas suited for water oriented recreational activities, including surfing, body boarding, body surfing and other activities that can not readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses (PRC 30220).
304.XI.3: Designate lands for the provision of recreational open spaces on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map which are sufficient to meet the needs of existing and future residents (GP Policy

1.9.1).
304.XI.4: Protect the City's recreational resources including the recreational facilities, parks, surfing areas, and community events identified in section 207 of this plan. 304.XI.5: Provide for the acquisition and development of parks and recreational lands and facilities in accordance with the Growth Management Element (I 1.1, I 1.2, I 1.6, and I 1.7). 136
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-74
304.XI.6: Expand and continue existing public and private cultural and fine art facilities and activities (GP Policy 7.12).
304.XI.9: Increase the community's involvement in the use of recreational spaces encouraging recreational opportunities unique to San Clemente which will contribute to continuing visitation and economic development (GP Policy 8.1).
304.XI.10: Maintain the valuable beach resources as a fundamental element to conserve and develop sensitively, thus enhancing the quality and livability of the City of San Clemente (GP Policy 8.7).
304.XI.11: Locate and enhance the beach areas that will accept limited recreational development without destroying existing natural beauty (GP Policy 8.7.2). 304.XI.13: Emphasize the protection, enhancement, and sensitive development of park and open space areas which possess great scenic, environmental, historic, and cultural values. 305.XII.5: Preserve the aesthetic resources of the City, including coastal bluffs, visually significant ridgelines, and coastal canyons, and significant public views (GP Policy 10.2). 305.XII.8: Work in conjunction with the California Coastal Commission with the expressed intent to develop implementation programs that will preserve and maintain the physical features of the Coastal Zone including bluffs, canyons and beaches (GP Policy 10.2.5). 305.XI1.9: Promote the preservation of significant public view corridors to the ocean (GP Policy

10.2.7).
306.XIV.l: Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored.

Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific and educational purposes (PRC 30230).
306.XIV.2: The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters,…appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of wastewater discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing; depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow and encouraging wastewater reclamation (PRC 3023 1).
306.XIV.3: The diking, filling or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of the California Coastal Act and the City of San Clemente Coastal Element, where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
137
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-75
• In open coastal waters, for new or expanded boating facilities and/or placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and public recreational opportunities.
• Incidental public service purposes, including, but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. • Mineral extraction on City beaches shall be prohibited except for sand used for restorative purposes.
• Restoration purposes.
• Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities.

Dredging and soils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge soils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems. Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal dependent uses or protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impact on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded, where feasible (PRC 30235). 306.XIV.4: Provide a clean and enjoyable marine environment that sufficiently meets the needs of beach users (GP Policy 7.7).
306.XIV.5: Maintain and enhance the City's beaches and marine resources (GP Policy 7.8). 306.XIV.6: Provide adequate marine safety and medical aid services (GP Policy 7.6). 306.XIV.7: Continue monitoring sand movement, researching the impacts of coastal erosion and methods of mitigating further coastal damage to San Clemente's beaches environment (GP Policy 7.8.1).
306:XIV.8: Maintain a healthy coastline, preventing degradation of the community's visual and environmental resources (GP Policy 7.9).
306.XIV.10: Continue to support the creation of a wildlife sanctuary for various habitats along the coast to preserve and protect the natural beach environment (GP Policy 7.9.2). 306.XIV.11: Permit extraction of significant mineral resources, such as borrow material, which may be used for beach replenishment, as an interim use prior to development (GP Policy 10.7). 306.XIV.12: Despite the fact that much of the responsibility for protection of water resources lies with regional and State agencies, there are several measures the City can take to help further protect coastal waters. These include the following:
138
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-76
h. The construction of revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls and other protective devices are discouraged and shall be permitted only when such construction is required to serve coastal dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion. In no way shall such structures prohibit or impact coastal access, beaches or coastal recreational areas. 307.XV.1 Encourage activities which improve the natural biological value, integrity and corridor function of the coastal canyons through vegetation restoration, control of alien plants and animals, and landscape buffering (GP Policy 10.1.9).
307.XV.2: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas. "Environmentally sensitive area" means any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments (PRC 30240(a)).
307.XV.3: Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas (PRC 30240(b)).
307.XV.4: Designate lands for the protection of significant environmental resources and protection of life and property from environmental hazards on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map (GP Policy 1.9.3).
307.XV.6: Require that applications for development in the areas which an Initial Study has determined there is potential for significant adverse impacts to biological resources [therefore requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)] shall include a Biological Assessment Report which:
a. Is prepared by a qualified professional which addresses the proposed project's impact on State and Federally listed and candidate plants and animals; California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Special Animals; natural communities of high inventory priority with the CDFG's Nongame Heritage Program, and any other special interest species or communities identified in the General Plan Technical Background Report, or those hereafter named by State or Federal trustee agencies;
b. Identifies mitigation measures necessary to eliminate significant adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources; and
c. Defines a program for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the specified mitigation measures (I 10.2, I 10.3, and I 10.9).
307.XV.7: Review of all projects within the Coastal Zone shall include an assessment of the potential impact on natural habitat areas.
139
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-77
307.XV.8: The City shall pursue grants and other funding sources to perform a biological study of the designated natural habitat areas in the Coastal Zone. 307.XV.10: The analysis and evaluation of large-scale development projects shall include a comprehensive inventory of biologic resources prepared by a qualified biologist. A determination should be made of the area's importance as a native habitat, including identification of rare and endangered species.
307.XV.15: Identify the key beach areas which are important to protect through land use regulation because of their inherent environmental, ecological, and/or aesthetic contributions. 307.XV.16: Maintain the presence of parklands and open space in the Coastal Zone in order to conserve and enhance the natural environment thereby improving the quality and livability of the City of San Clemente.
307.XV.17: Identify those major areas of the City which are important to protect through land use regulation or public ownership because of their inherent environmental, ecological, and/or aesthetic contribution to the scenic and natural qualities of San Clemente. 307.XV.18: Operate and maintain San Clemente Park and Recreation facilities through programs that are designed for the most effective use and enhancement of the park site at the minimum possible cost.

4.7.2.3 San Clemente General Plan
GP 1.7.1: Designate lands for the development of coastal related commercial, recreational, lodging, and supporting uses on the Land Use Plan Map and establish standards to ensure their compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial districts (I 1.1, I 1.3, and I

1.5).

GP 1.7.3: Allow for the continued use of the City's public beaches for coastal recreational uses (I 1.1 and I 1.3)
GP 1.9.3: Designate lands for the protection of significant environmental resources and protection of life and property from environmental hazards on the Land Use Plan Map (I 1.1, I

1.3, and I 1.5).

GP 1.9.4: Accommodate active parklands, beaches, or other open space uses in areas designated as "OS 1" (encompasses publicly owned properties) in accordance with the standards stipulated in Table 1-3 of the General Plan (I 1.1, I 1.2, I 1.3, I 1.5, and I 1.6 ).

GP 1.14.8: Accommodate the development of public recreational uses (I 1.1, I 1.5, and I 1.8).

GP 4.3.1: Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) not exceeding LOS "D" for intersections during the peak hours, with the exception of the intersection of the I-5 southbound ramps at Avenida Pico, unless the City determines an exception is warranted on an interim basis in 140
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-78
accordance with the adopted "exception process" specified in the Growth Management Element (I 4.2).

GP 4.3.2: Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) for links not to exceed LOS "C" for Primary arterials, Secondary arterials and Local streets; not to exceed LOS "D" for Major arterials; and not to exceed LOS "E" for Commercial facilities (I 4.2).

GP 6.1.1: Require that new development does not degrade surface or groundwater (I 6.1, I 6.3, I

6.4 and I 6.5).

GP 7.8.1: Continue monitoring sand movement, researching the impacts of coastal erosion and methods of mitigating further coastal damage to San Clemente's beaches environment (I 7.18).

GP 7.9.2: Continue to support the creation of a wildlife sanctuary for various habitats along the coast to preserve and protect the natural beach environment (I 7.21).

GP 8.7.1: Identify the key beach areas which are important to protect through land use regulation because of their inherent environmental, ecological and/or aesthetic contributions (I 8.16, I 8.17 and I 8.35).

GP 8.7.2: Locate and enhance the beach areas that will accept limited recreational development without destroying existing natural beauty (I 8.21).

GP 8.7.3: Enhance the Pier and North Beach area to function as the "hubs" of San Clemente beach facilities (I 8.21).

GP 8.8.1: Identify those major areas of the City that are important to protect through land use regulation or public ownership because of their inherent environmental, ecological and/or aesthetic contribution to the scenic and natural qualities of San Clemente (I 8.16, I 8.17 and I

8.35).

GP 8.8.2: Provide cooperative leadership between private interests and other public agencies to protect and enhance both land and water resources (I 8.22).

GP 10.1.1: Acquire and maintain the most current information available regarding the status and location of sensitive biological elements (species and natural communities) within the City (I

10.1).

GP 10.1.3: Require that applications for development in the UA, and for areas which an Initial Study has determined there is potential for significant adverse impacts to biological resources [therefore requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)] shall include a Biological Assessment Report which:
a. Is prepared by a qualified professional which addresses the proposed project's impact on State and Federally listed and candidate plants and animals; California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Special Animals; natural communities of high inventory priority with the CDFG's Nongame Heritage Program, and any other special interest species or 141
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-79
communities identified in the General Plan Technical Background Report, or those hereafter named by State or Federal trustee agencies;
b. Identifies mitigation measures necessary to eliminate significant adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources; and
c. Defines a program for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the specified mitigation measures (I 10.2, I 10.3, and I 10.9).

GP 10.1.4: Review proposed projects in the UA to evaluate their conformance with the following policies and standards.
a. The development plan shall fully consider the nature of biological resources present, and all reasonable measures shall be taken to avoid significant impacts, including retention of sufficient natural space where appropriate.
b. The development plan shall retain watercourses, riparian habitat, and wetlands in natural condition to the maximum extent feasible.
c. The development shall incorporate habitat linkages (wildlife corridors) to adjacent open spaces, as appropriate.
d. The development shall incorporate fences, walls, or vegetative cover to buffer habitat areas, linkages or corridors from development, as appropriate. e. Roads and utilities shall be located and designed such that conflicts with biological resources, habitat areas, linkages or corridors are minimized. f. The development shall utilize appropriate open space or conservation easements when necessary in order to protect sensitive species or their habitats. g. The development shall mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts to sensitive habitats by replacement on an in-kind basis, i.e.; riparian habitat is to be replaced by riparian habitat of the same type. Furthermore, replacement shall be based on a ratio determined by the California State Fish and Game Department and/or USFWS in order to account for the potentially diminished habitat values of replacement habitat. Such replacement should occur on the original development site whenever possible. Alternatively, replacement can be effected by protection of similar intact habitats elsewhere (off-site but preferably within the City's Sphere of Influence) in perpetuity through acquisition and provision for an appropriate conservation easement or dedication (I 10.2, I 10.3, and I 10.9).

GP 10.1.8: Preserve, where possible, the habitat of several in-fact endangered species, including those listed in Table 10-1 (of the General Plan) and those which may be considered by the City in the future (I 10.2, and I 10.3).

GP 10.1.10: Continue to support the City's participation and enrollment in the State's Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program (NC.P.) (I 10.4).

GP 10.3.3: Continue the implementation of the City's existing ordinance for preservation of designated historic sites and structures. Adopt a Preservation Ordinance that will authorize the City to designate any vegetation or archaeological site deemed to be of historical, archaeological, 142
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-80
or cultural significance a San Clemente City Historical Point, Site or District. Such ordinance shall conform to State and Federal criteria for establishing a preservation ordinance (I 10.16).

GP 10.3.7: Require that all City-owned properties designated as historic resources are maintained in a manner that is aesthetically and/or functionally compatible with such resources (I

10.18 and I 10.19).

GP 10.9.1: Require that new development utilize appropriate AQMD air quality mitigation measures (SMMs and BAMMs) (I 10.32).

GP 13.3.1: Identify tsunami susceptible areas, and require that specific measures be taken by the developer, builder or property owner, as necessary, to prevent or reduce damage from these hazards and the risks upon human safety (I 13.1 and I 13.4).

GP 13.3.2: Consider the City's participation in and, receipt of, information from the National Weather Service's Weather Wire System for Local Tsunami Warnings (I 13.5).

GP 14.2.1: Require that in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 60 dB (A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB (A) interior, all development of new housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities, and other "noise sensitive" land uses include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits (I 14.3, I 14.4 and I 14.5).

GP 14.2.2: Require new industrial, commercial, and related land uses, or the expansion of existing land uses demonstrate that such new or expanded uses would not be directly responsible for causing ambient noise levels to exceed and Ldn of 65 dB (A) exterior upon areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities, or other "noise sensitive" land uses as depicted in the General Plan) (I 14.4 and I 14.7).

GP 14.2.3: Require development in all areas where the ambient noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60 dB (A) to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate special design and construction measures in their construction, as necessary, to reduce interior noise levels to within the 45 dB (A) Ldn level (I 14.3).

GP 14.3.3: Require that any municipal vehicles or noise-generating mechanical equipment purchased or used by the City of San Clemente comply with noise performance standards consistent
with the best available noise reduction technology (I 14.10).

GP 14.6.1: Ensure that the prohibitions relative to legal hours of operation for construction activities contained within the existing City of San Clemente Noise Ordinance and/or any future/revised Noise Ordinance be strictly adhered to and enforced (I 14.15).

GP 14.6.2: Require that construction activities adjacent to residential land uses and dwelling units be regulated, as necessary, to prevent the generation of adverse and/or excessive noise impacts (I 14.15).
143
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-81
GP 14.6.3: Require construction activities to employ feasible and practical techniques and practices which minimize the generation of adverse and/or excessive noise impacts on adjacent land uses (I 14.15).

4.7.2.4 Local Coastal Program
GP I 1.3 On adoption of the updated General Plan, it will be necessary to revise the City of San Clemente's Local Coastal Element, LCP (as required by the California Coastal Act) to ensure consistency between the two documents. The LCP Land Use Plan was adopted in 1984 and updated in 1988 and the Local Implementing Ordinance has not been finalized. Land use provisions of the LCP will need to be adjusted to reflect the Land Use Element, including the use of common classification and development standards. Among the policies which will necessitate review of the LCP are those for the Pier Bowl and North Beach which permit some intensification of coastal-related visitor-serving uses. Policies and standards pertaining to open space, biological resource management, and environmental hazards will also require review and potential modification to reflect the Land Use Element and Environmental Resources and Hazards Sections. In concert, it will be necessary to complete the (unfinished) Local Implementing Ordinance. Both documents shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification.

4.8 Noise
The Project beach site is currently beach property. Residential land uses exist approximately 200 ft (60 meters) north-northeast along the majority of the Project length interspersed with minimal amount of commercial property. The beach continues to meander along the shore generally northwest and southeast of the Project site, and the San Clemente Pier and Pacific Ocean are adjacent to the Project site to the west. The Project’s borrow pit site is approximately 2,624 ft (800 m) offshore of the coast of Oceanside Harbor. The nearest residential properties are located approximately 4,265 ft (1,300 m) east of the borrow pit location.

4.8.1 Noise Terminology
Noise is defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance and, in the extreme, hearing impairment. The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB). The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. Therefore, the “A weighted” noise scale, which weights the frequencies to which humans are sensitive, is used for measurements. Noise levels using A weighted measurements are written dB(A) or dBA. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, which quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes. Thus, a doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling a traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dBA; a halving of the energy would result in a 3-dBA decrease. Table 4-18 shows the relationship of various noise levels to commonly experienced noise events. 144
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-82
Table 4-18 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments Noise Source
(at a Given Distance)
Scale of
A-Weighted
Sound Level
in Decibels Noise Environment
Human Judgment of
Noise Loudness
(Relative to a Reference
Loudness of 70
Decibels*)
Military Jet Take-off with After-burner
(50 ft [15m])
Civil Defense Siren (100 ft [30 m])
130 Carrier Flight Deck
Commercial Jet Take-off (200 ft [61 m]) 120 Airport Runway Threshold of Pain *32 times as loud
Pile Driver (50 ft [15 m]) 110 Rock Music Concert *16 times as loud Ambulance Siren (100 ft [30 m])
Newspaper Press (5 ft [1.5 m])
Power Lawn Mower (3 ft [0.9 m])
Motorcycle (25 ft [8 m])
Propeller Plane Flyover (1,000 ft [305
m])
Diesel Truck, 40 mph (64 kmph) (50 ft
[15 m])
Garbage Disposal (3 ft [0.9 m])
100
90 80
Boiler Room
Printing Press Plant
High Urban Ambient
Sound
Very Loud
*8 times as loud
*4 times as loud
*2 times as loud
Passenger Car, 65 mph (105 kmph) (25 ft
[8 m])
Living Room Stereo (15 ft [5 m])
Vacuum Cleaner (3 ft [0.9 m])
Electronic Typewriter (10 ft [3 m])
70 Busy Shopping Mall
Indoor Sports Park
Moderately Loud
*70 dB
(Reference Loudness)
Normal Conversation (5 ft [1.5 m])
Air Conditioning Unit (100 ft [30 m])
60 Data Processing Center
Department Store
*1/2 as loud
Light Traffic (100 ft [30 m]) 50 Private Business Office *1/4 as loud Bird Calls (distant) 40 Lower Limit of Urban
Ambient Sound
Quiet
*1/8 as loud
Soft Whisper (5 ft [1.5 m]) 30 Rural Residential Area
20 Quiet Bedroom Just Audible
10 Threshold of Hearing
Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours are usually expressed as dB Leq, or the equivalent noise level for that period of time. For example, Leq(3) would represent a three-hour average. When no period is specified, a one-hour average is assumed. Noise standards for land use compatibility, which are addressed in the Hesperia General Plan Noise Element, are stated in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ), and the Day-Night Average Noise Level (Ldn). CNEL is a 24-hour weighted average measure of community noise. The computation of CNEL adds 5 dBA to the average hourly noise levels between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. (evening hours), and 10 dBA to the average hourly noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (nighttime hours). This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to noise in the evening and nighttime hours. Ldn is a very similar 24-hour weighted average that weights only the nighttime hours and not the evening hours. 145

I I I I I
-
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-83
It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increases or decreases; that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible, and that an increase (decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (Caltrans 1998).

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
The City of San Clemente noise standards are identified in the City’s Municipal Code (Ch 8.48 Noise Control). The Municipal Code states that ambient noise levels shall be no greater than the noise levels identified for each land use. Table 4-19 is a re-creation of the City of San Clemente’s Noise Standard Table.

Table 4-19 San Clemente Noise Standards
7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.

Residential
Exterior 55 dBA 50 dBA
Interior 50 dBA 40 dBA
Commercial 65 dBA 60 dBA
Industrial 70 dBA 70 dBA
Sensitive Receptors
Also of concern are project-generated impacts to sensitive receptors in the Project area.

Sensitive receptors of noise include residences and schools. Noise generated on the proposed beach nourishment property that impacts noise sensitive receptors are subject to the Exterior Noise Standards cited above. Sensitive receptors are activities or land uses that may be subject to the stress of significant interference from noise. Land uses associated with sensitive receptors often include residential dwellings, mobile homes, hospitals, nursing homes, education facilities, and libraries. Existing residential units approximately 190 feet (58 meters) to the north-northeast of the beach restoration site, 2,500 ft (762 m) from the dredge (while traveling between borrow pit and beach site), and 4,200 ft (1,280 m) to the east of the borrow pit area are the closest sensitive receptors in the Project area.

4.9 Recreation
This section presents information on recreational activities and opportunities within the San Clemente Beach area, and summarizes the recreation setting. Residential and open space (including recreation) are the predominant land uses within the study area. The Beaches, Parks and Recreation Department are responsible for citywide maintenance and management of recreational programs and facilities. Its operating divisions include, among others: Marine Safety, Beaches and Parks Maintenance, and Recreation.

4.9.1 Beaches
San Clemente is home to 4.7 miles (7.6 km) of white, sandy beaches that parallel the southwest side of the City. Popular activities for beachgoers are surfing, sunbathing, jogging, skin diving, 146
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-84
swimming, body surfing, picnicking, camping, and hiking along the many trails located on the bluffs overlooking the beach. Because there are no paved paths on the beach, beach wheelchairs are available at the lifeguard station at the Pier. Within a mile of the borrow site are Camp Pendleton and Oceanside Beaches.

4.9.1.1 Linda Lane
Linda Lane Park is the approximate northern boundary of the Project site and is located at the end of Linda Lane. It has beach access through a short tunnel under the railroad tracks, a children's play area, a grassy area, an ocean view, and picnic tables, but no restrooms. Linda Lane has a metered parking area available between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m.

4.9.1.2 San Clemente Beach and Pier
The San Clemente City Beach and Fishing Pier (Pier Bowl) is accessible through a tunnel under the railroad tracks from the large public parking lot at the bottom of Avenida Del Mar. Surfing is more popular on the immediate north side of the Pier than the south. However, immediately south of the Pier is popular with swimmers and bodyboarders. T-Street, further south of the Pier, is a more popular surfing location within the Project area. The beach near the Pier provides lifeguards, bus stop, food stands, picnic tables, rentals, showers, basketball courts, volleyball, firepits, and easy access to the Amtrak station platform and shopping. The beach at the Pier Bowl has a parking lot with free parking available between 5 p.m. and 10 a.m. and paid parking between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., as well as parking meters from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Parking on residential streets also is available for beachgoers.

San Clemente Pier is an approximately 1,296 ft (395 m) long pier with fantastic views of the Pacific Ocean. The Pier was built by Ole Hanson in 1928. In 1939, and again in 1983, strong storms damaged the Pier, which required it to be rebuilt in both instances. The Pier offers free fishing, has indoor/outdoor restaurant dining, restrooms, a bait and tackle shop, fish cleaning sinks, and is a great location to watch sports activities, such as surfing competitions. Anglers fishing from the Pier have caught small sharks, halibut, sand bass, sculpin, barracuda, and small yellowtail. Parque del Mar is located across the railroad tracks from the Pier at Avenida del Mar and Alameda Lane and provides easy beach access, walking/jogging opportunities, a grassy area, an ocean view, and picnic area/tables/benches.

4.9.1.3 T-Street
T-Street is the approximate southern boundary of the Project site and is located at the end of Esplanade following Trafalgar Lane. Access to the beach is by an overpass to the train tracks and a flight of stairs. A large sand bar makes the water shallow and the beach popular for most beachgoers. This beach also provides a snack bar, restrooms, lifeguard tower, and easy access to shopping. T-Street has a metered parking area available between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. 147
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-85

4.9.2 Annual Events
San Clemente hosts many yearly events. The San Clemente Ocean Festival is held annually in July. It includes activities and events, such as waterman and waterwoman competitions, surfing contests, a sand castle building competition, and fishing. The Festival also includes a woody car exhibit, art show, and a free concert. Another annual event is the Fourth of July fireworks show located at the San Clemente Pier. Finally, San Clemente hosts a Seafest every October. The Seafest features a chowder cook-off with the whole community competing for the best chowder, as well as a surf contest, business expo, and arts & crafts show. Oceanside Harbor Days are held annually at the end of September/beginning of October.

4.9.3 Beaches, Parks and Recreation Department

4.9.3.1 Marine Safety
The Marine Safety Division is responsible for the lifeguard operation on the City's 20 acres (8 hectares) of sand beach. In addition, the division manages seven snack bars, restaurants (including the Fisherman's Restaurant), bait and tackle shops, and pier telescope concession operations. This division provides ocean rescue, first aid, law enforcement and various public education programs including a junior lifeguard and instructional surfing. Other duties include monitoring related environmental issues such as offshore oil and coastal erosion and water quality monitoring on an ongoing basis. The division also assists in planning related capital improvement projects. The Marine Safety Division also manages beach-related special events.

4.9.3.2 Beach and Park Maintenance
The Beaches and Parks Maintenance Division promotes, provides and facilitates park and recreational services. The department is responsible for the maintenance of the City's 20 acres (8 hectares) of beach, which is the primary attribute within the Project area. The department is also responsible for other recreational type facilities, including 147.77 acres (59.8 hectares) at 25 parks and beach accesses, trees located in parks and on the beaches, and the San Clemente Pier.

4.10 Aesthetics
The views to the west of the entire Project site are of the Pacific Ocean. Nearly the entire Project site is lined with palm trees beachside of the railroad tracks. At the northern portion of the Project site, the Project site is viewable from adjacent beach areas, residential areas located atop the bluffs adjacent to the beach, visitors at Linda Lane Park, and the Pier. At the center of the Project site, the Project site is viewable from the Pier, from commercial businesses, located both on the Pier and east of the railroad tracks, residences, and visitors at Parque del Mar and Linda Lane Park. At the southern end of the Project site, the Project site is viewable from adjacent beach areas, the parking meters at West Paseo de Cristobal, pedestrians on the overpass, residential areas located atop the bluffs adjacent to the beach, and the Pier. In addition, the entire Project site is visible to nearshore and offshore recreational users, as well as to passengers on passing trains.
148
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-86
The California Coastal Act includes the protection of the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, including the protection of views to and along the ocean, minimization of the alteration of natural landforms, and necessary actions to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. The Project is consistent with Policy 10.2.5 of the City of San Clemente General Plan Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Element, which promotes development of programs “that will preserve and maintain the physical features of the coastal zone including bluffs, canyons, and beaches.”

4.11 Public Health and Safety
For purposes of this EIS/EIR, public health and safety issues are defined as those that directly affect the continued ability to protect and preserve life and property at locations along the proposed Project site. Specifically, these issues are lifeguard services, recreational safety, and vessel safety. Sediment and chemical comparisons of dredged material and the Project site have been completed and there would be no risk to health or safety. This issue is not addressed further.

The lifeguards are responsible for all recreational safety measures along the beach. Safety measures include manned lifeguard towers and regular vehicle patrols during the summer months. The Marine Safety Division is normally staffed from 8:00 am until dusk (changes seasonally). The main lifeguard tower on the Pier is normally manned by 8:20 each morning, with lifeguard towers on the beach staffed as needed during the off-season. Lifeguard towers are typically more heavily staffed on weekends during summer months. Normal summer staffing for the Project site is listed below. Lifeguard towers between those listed below open later and close earlier, depending upon crowd conditions.

Tower 4 (Linda Lane) – 10 a.m. until 6 p.m.

Tower 1 (South side of Pier) – 10 a.m. until 6 p.m.

Tower 5 (T-Street) – 9 a.m. until 7 p.m.

4.12 Socioeconomics/Environmental Justice

4.12.1 Local Socioeconomic Conditions
Socioeconomic data for the City of San Clemente are sourced from the City of San Clemente Housing Element of the General Plan, last updated in June 2002. San Clemente is the southernmost city in Orange County. Its coastal setting, Mediterranean climate, and rolling hills provide a unique and attractive living environment. This resort setting affects the City’s employment characteristics and economic base.

San Clemente has been one of the fastest growing cities in Orange County (County) since 1980.

This growth peaked by 1985 and 1990 with a 6.7 percent annual growth rate compared to 149
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-87

1.7 percent for the rest of the County, and although growth slowed following this period, San Clemente’s average annual growth rate has been slightly higher than the County’s growth rate to the present. Since 1980, the City’s population nearly doubled from 27,322 persons to 50,032 persons in 2000.

Housing development grew proportionately with this fast pace of growth. The City’s housing stock grew from 13,233 units in 1980 to 20,872 units in 2000, with the largest increase in housing growth occurring between 1985 and 1990. Based on the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Income Categories for Orange County in 2000, 54 percent of San Clemente households ranged in the very low ($34,800) to moderate (up to $83,500) income categories. Based on the 1990 Census, the ratio of owner to renter in San Clemente was 59 percent to 41 percent. Households consisted of 66 percent families, 24 percent single persons, and 10 percent other. The race/ethnicity ratio of San Clemente residents based on the 1990 Census was 84 percent Caucasian, 12 percent Hispanic, 6 percent Black, 3 percent Asian, and 4 percent Other.

San Clemente is located within relatively easy commuting distances from employment centers in Los Angeles and Orange counties, as well as fast-growing northern San Diego County and Camp Pendleton. Based on the 1990 Census, 68 percent of San Clemente residents were employed in either managerial/professional, technical, sales, or administrative occupations. In contrast, the labor market within San Clemente in 1996 was predominantly retail (24 percent) or services (30 percent). Due to the higher wages offered in nearby areas and the relatively low cost of living in San Clemente, the City hosts a large number of commuters. However, a need for lowerwage labor in the commercial and service centers continues to increase in San Clemente, especially in relation to the tourism industry.

In a study by King and Symes (2003), nine California beaches were evaluated based on their economic impact on California. King and Symes (2003) suggest that the California economy would suffer a net loss of billions of dollars if California beaches were to decline to the point where tourism was significantly affected. Beach visitors help create employment at the beach and other facilities used by visitors. Given the importance of tourism in California, tens of millions of visits and billions of dollars per year depend on beaches (King and Symes 2003).

4.12.2 Onsite Socioeconomic Conditions
The Project area is located along the San Clemente shoreline, which is characterized by narrow, linear sandy beach, backed by high coastal bluffs. Thus, development within the confines of the Project area boundaries is generally limited.

Several commercial structures are located along the shoreline and within the Project area. The focal point of the beach is a 1,312 ft (400m) fishing pier, which houses a bait-and-tackle shop and a full-service restaurant. Semi-permanent rental shops, which offer umbrellas, surfboards, body boards, and other beach accessories, are also located along the beach. Several fast-food restaurants are located at T-Street Beach. These commercial uses provide employment opportunities, mostly in the relatively low-paying retail and service sectors. Most of these commercial uses are directly related to the tourist trade associated with beach visitors. 150
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-88
Public facilities within the Project area are operated and maintained by the City of San Clemente and the Orange County Department of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks. These facilities include the Marine Safety Building, public restroom facilities, lifeguard stations, parking areas, and paving near the Pier. These facilities also provide employment opportunities similar to the commercial uses and directly related to beach visitors.

Surfing as well as camping, picnicking, and other dispersed recreation are a large recreational economic base to the local and, in particular, to the City of San Clemente economies. Surfing is a major component of San Clemente’s recreational base. Surfing has been recorded at the north side and south side of San Clemente Pier, including T-Street since the early 1960s. 151
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-1

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED ACTION AND

ALTERNATIVES

5.1 Air Quality and Meteorology

5.1.1 Significance Criteria
Projected air emissions are prepared in accordance with the methodologies provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as included in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993 (Handbook) as well as its Internet updates included on its web site. For the purposes of this analysis, construction is estimated to occur in 2012 with the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative taking approximately 46 working days and the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative taking 108 working days. This analysis also considered the on-going, daily operations of the railroad.

Thresholds of significance for individual projects used the SCAQMD Handbook as well as updates included on the SCAQMD Internet Web site. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROG) as an indicator of ozone. For ease of the reader, the included analysis follows the outline of the CEQA Checklist.

The San Diego Air Pollution Control District does not provide quantitative thresholds for determining the significance of construction or mobile source-related impacts. However, the District specifies Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) trigger levels for new or modified stationary sources. If these incremental levels for stationary sources are exceeded, an AQIA must be performed for the proposed new or modified source. Although these trigger levels do not generally apply to mobile sources or general land development projects, for comparative purposes San Diego County has established AQIAs as screening-level thresholds (SLTs). The County has stated that the SLTs may used to evaluate the increased emissions which would be discharged to the SDAB from proposed land development projects.

The information on San Diego’s thresholds are presented for informational purposes since all onshore emissions are located in the SCAB and off-shore sources are not under the jurisdiction of the local air district’s, therefore not subject to thresholds.

5.1.1.3 Regional Thresholds of Significance
The following significance thresholds (Table 5-1) for air quality have been established by the SCAQMD on a daily basis for construction and operations emissions and Table 5-1 also shows the SLTs for San Diego County:
152
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-2
Table 5-1 Thresholds of Significance
SCAG Regional SDAG Screening Level
Construction
Emissions
Operations
Emissions
Total
Emissions
Total
Emissions
Total
Emissions
Pollutant (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/hr) lbs/day tons/year ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55 25 250 40
CO 550 550 100 550 100
PM10 150 150 ---- 100 15
PM2.5 55 55 ---- 55 10
SOx 150 150 25 250 40
Lead and lead
compounds
NA NA ---- 3.2 0.6
VOC NA NA ---- 75 13.7
During construction or operation, if any of the identified daily SCAG air pollutant thresholds are exceeded by the proposed Project, then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered significant. The SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of its Handbook that it considers a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its primary effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above.

In the SDAG, in the event that project emissions exceed the SLTs, specific modeling will be required for NO2, SO2, CO, and lead to demonstrate that the project’s ground-level concentrations, including appropriate background levels, do not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. For ozone precursors, PM10 and PM2.5, exceedances of the SLTs results in a significant impact.

5.1.1.4 Localized Thresholds of Significance (LST)
In addition to the mass daily threshold values presented above, the SCAQMD has established the following threshold criteria to determine if a project has the potential to contribute to an exceedance of the State Ambient Air Quality Standards as included in Table 4-2. • California State 1-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm
• California State 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm
• California State 1-hour NO2 standard of 0.25 ppm
• SCAQMD 24-hour construction PM10 LST of 10.4 μg/m3
• SCAQMD 24-hour construction PM2.5 LST of 10.4 μg/m3
• SCAQMD 24-hour operational PM10 LST of 2.5 μg/m3
• SCAQMD 24-hour operational PM2.5 LST of 2.5 μg/m3
153
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-3
The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State standards. In the case of CO and NO2, if ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. This would apply to both PM10 and PM2.5; both of which are non-attainment pollutants. In these cases, local emissions are considered significant if they exceed 10.4 μg/m3
during construction or 2.5 μg/m3 during the
subsequent operation of the site, both as measured at the proximate sensitive receptor locations.

5.1.1.5 Additional Indicators
The SCAQMD recommends that “additional indicators” should be used as screening criteria with respect to air quality. Additional factors relevant to the Project at hand identified in the Handbook include the following significance criteria:
• Interference with the attainment of the federal or State ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million.

Again, the SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of its Handbook that it considers a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above.

5.1.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative Impact AQ-50-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan The Project action represents the placement of sand on the beach. The Project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts at the proximate receptor locations and would implement those measures included in the AQMP considered as feasible and, as such, the Project is consistent with the goals of the AQMP and does not present a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact AQ-50-2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
Air quality impacts may occur during site preparation, grading, and sporadic maintenance activities required for implementation of the proposed land use. Maintenance could take place once every 6 years depending on need and financial ability. Maintenance would result in a repetition of the initial construction activities. The Project involves approximately 4 ac of 154
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-4
resultant dry beach nourishment for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative. There are no building construction or paving activities associated with this Project. Construction would occur over approximately 46 working days over a four month period. Values used for analysis are included in Appendix C.

Localized Construction Impacts
In addition to the mass Project and daily regional thresholds, Project construction has the potential to raise local ambient pollutant concentrations, which are existing pollutant concentrations within the Project area, not including the construction activities of the Project (e.g., exhaust from regular traffic to/from the beach, along the highways, etc). This could present a significant impact if these concentrations were to exceed the allowable emissions as a function of receptor distance from the site boundary.

The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Methodology). In accordance with the Methodology, analysis is only to include exhaust and dust emissions associated with those pieces of equipment that actually operate onsite and omits vehicle trips that are distributed over a large area. In the Methodology, the SCAQMD notes receptor locations as “offsite locations where persons may be exposed to the emissions from project activities. Receptor locations include residential, commercial, and industrial land use areas; and any other areas where persons can be situated for an hour or longer at a time.”
In accordance with the Methodology, receptor locations are to consider the actual location of the receptors. If these locations are unknown, or varied, they may be assumed to be located at distances of 82, 164, 328, 656, and 1,640 feet (25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 m). In cases where proximate receptors may be closer than 82 ft (25 m), as per the Methodology, a value of 82 ft (25 m) is to be used in the analysis as a worst-case scenario. Because the closest receptor to the Project area is approximately 180 ft (55 m) away, the recommended SCAQMD default distance is used for this analysis comparison.

In the cases of CO and NO2, the projected concentration is then added to an assumed ambient concentration in order to determine if the CAAQS would be exceeded. This ambient concentration is source-area dependant and is based on the peak value observed over the last three years of accumulated data at the nearest air monitoring station (previously provided in Table 4.1). Because PM10 and PM2.5 are non-attainment pollutants, no ambient concentration is added. Instead, in both cases, a short-term construction standard defined as a measurable increase of 10.4 μg/m3
is to be applied at the proximate sensitive receptor locations. Table 5-2 presents the daily projected emissions from onsite construction as well as the projected concentrations at the various default and actual receptor distances. Note that all concentrations are within their respective criteria and the impact is less than significant. 155
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-5
Table 5-2
Localized Construction Emissions Concentrations1
Distance
CO
(1-Hr
Conc.)2
CO
(8-Hr
Conc.)3
NO2
(1-Hr
Conc.)4
PM10
(24-Hr
Conc.)
PM2.5
(24-Hr
Conc.)
Peak Daily On-site
Emissions (lb/day) 43.6 43.6 94.9 9.7 4.0
Concentration at 25 m 3.08 2.16 0.11 10.31 3.83
Concentration at 50 m 3.07 2.15 0.11 8.50 3.31
Concentration at 55 m
(Nearest Actual Receptor) 3.07 2.15 0.11 8.20 3.21
Concentration at 100 m 3.06 2.14 0.11 6.25 2.51
Concentration at 200 m 3.04 2.13 0.11 4.10 1.67
Concentration at 500 m 3.02 2.11 0.11 1.91 0.78
Ambient Air Quality
Standard 20 ppm 9.0 ppm 0.18 ppm 10.4 μg/m3

10.4 μg/m3
Exceeds Standard? NO NO NO NO NO
1 CO and NO2 are in ppm, PM10 and PM2.5 are in μg/m3. 2 Includes a background concentration of 3.0 ppm.
3 Includes a background concentration of 2.1 ppm.
4 Includes a background concentration of 0.10 ppm.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact AQ-50-3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards.

Site Construction Impacts
Emissions associated with on-shore heavy equipment are based on the OffRoad2007 model runs as provided by the SCAQMD on their Internet web site for year 2010 construction equipment.

The SCAQMD presents emissions for most pieces of heavy construction equipment at differing horsepower levels generated using the OffRoad2007 Computer Model. The actual horsepower of the anticipated pieces of equipment (e.g., Cat D10 dozers at 580 hp and 988 Front-end loaders at 430 hp) were then extrapolated from the two pieces of similar equipment with the nearest horsepower ratings above and below the expected piece of equipment. 156

I I I I I I I
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-6
Some dust with its attendant PM10 and PM2.5 would also be generated from the onshore movement of sand. The 50 ft Beach Width Alternative would result in approximately 4 ac dry beach. The area of disturbance would occur over approximately 46 work days.

The URBEMIS2007 model developed to determine the emissions associated with land-use projects estimates that each acre disturbed generates 20 pounds of PM10 and that 25 percent of the construction area is active at any one time. As such, using the URBEMIS model would result in 1 acre of disturbance daily for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative. As a conservative approach, this analysis assumes that 25 percent of the larger area is disturbed for either alternative resulting in a disturbance of approximately 2.25 acres daily and, in the absence of any dust suppression, 45 pounds of PM10.

Like all projects in the South Coast Air Basin, the construction would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring dust control. The URBEMIS2007 model estimates that twice daily watering reduced the dust by about 50 percent whereas thrice daily watering raises this value to about 65 percent. The materials to be placed on the beach are ocean bottom sediment and are pumped onto the beach as a slurry. Because the material is totally saturated, little if any dust is released during its movement. As such, a control efficiency value of 85 percent was assumed for dust suppression as a conservative estimate.

In accordance with Rule 403, the SCAQMD requires that contractors implement Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for construction activities. Rule 403 identifies a set of specific measures for projects less than 50 acres. These requirements, as applicable to this Project, are included in Table 5-3 Note that these measures are regulatory requirements and as such, do not constitute mitigation under CEQA. The conditions included in Table 5-3 apply to construction activities conducted during normal wind conditions (i.e., with wind gusts less than 25 mph). The contingency measures, included in Table 5-4, shall be applied to those periods when instantaneous wind gusts meet or exceed 25 mph.

Data and emissions for the watercraft are based on data supplied by Moffatt & Nichol. The barge is estimated at approximately 4,300 hp for propulsion and 1,700 hp for the dredge pump.

Additionally, a generator and auxiliary power source would also be used and are each rated at 565 hp. A tug would assist unloading operations and is estimated at 4,268 hp.

Emissions would also be generated from the construction crew in their daily commutes and by the onsite use of two pick-up trucks. Emissions for these vehicles were based on the EMFAC2007 computer model and assume Year 2010 emission factors. The total daily emissions generated by vehicle travel in Orange County projected by the EMFAC2007 model was divided by the total number of daily miles by vehicle type and a grams-per-mile by vehicle type is determined. Members of the construction crew are each estimated to travel 25.4 miles round-trip in accordance with the URBEMIS2007 computer model for home-to-work travel distances in Orange County.
157
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-7
Table 5-3
Required Best Available Control Measures for Fugitive Dust (Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources)
Source
Category
Control Measures Guidance
Disturbed soil • Stabilize disturbed soil throughout
the construction site; and
• Stabilize disturbed soil between
structures.
• Limit vehicular traffic and
disturbances on soils where
possible;
• If interior block walls are planned,
install as early as possible;
• Apply water or a stabilizing agent
in sufficient quantities to prevent
the generation of visible dust
plumes; and
• This measure applies to both
inactive and active sites, during
workdays, weekends, holidays, and
windy conditions.

Earth-moving
activities
• Pre-apply water to depth of
proposed cuts;
• Re-apply water as necessary to
maintain soils in a damp condition
and to ensure that visible emissions
do not exceed 100 feet in any
direction;
• Stabilize soils once earth-moving
activities are complete; and
• Limit speed of earthmoving
equipment to 10 mph.
• Grade each project phase
separately, timed to coincide with
construction phase;
• Upwind fencing can prevent
material movement on site; and
• Apply water or a stabilizing agent
in sufficient quantities to prevent
the generation of visible dust
plumes.

Staging areas • Stabilize staging areas during use;
and
• Stabilize staging area soils at
project completion.
• Locate construction equipment and
staging zones away from sensitive
receptors and fresh air intakes to
buildings and air conditioners.
• Limit size of staging area;
• Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles
per hour (24 kilometers per hour);
and
• Limit number and size of staging
area entrances/exits.

Paved road
track-out
• Cover all haul vehicles • Comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of
the California Vehicle Code for
158
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-8
both public and private roads.

Traffic areas for
construction
activities
• Stabilize all off-road traffic and
parking areas;
• Stabilize all haul routes;
• Direct construction traffic over
established haul routes; and
• Limit speeds to 15 miles per hour
(mph).
• Apply gravel/paving to all haul
routes as soon as possible to all
future roadway areas; and
• Barriers can be used to ensure
vehicles are used only on
established parking areas/haul
routes.

Table 5-4
Contingency Control Measures for Fugitive Dust During High Winds in Excess of 25 MPH Fugitive Dust Source Category Control Measures
Earth-moving • Cease all active operations; or
• Apply water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil.

Disturbed surface areas • Apply water to all unstabilized disturbed areas three times per day. If there is any evidence of wind-driven fugitive dust, watering frequency is increased to a minimum of
four times per day.

Unpaved roads • Apply water twice per hour during active operation.

Open storage piles • Apply water twice per hour; or
• Install temporary coverings.

All categories Executive Officer and the USEPA as equivalent to the methods specified in this table may be used.

In this case, the total number of vehicles was raised from 10 to 12 to account for the use of two onsite pick-up trucks during the day. Actual miles for these two pick-ups would be less than the

25.4-mile value used in the analysis, but these emissions are minimal relative to those of the offshore and heavy equipment and more accurate data as to their use would not change the outcome of the analysis.

The 50 ft Beach Width Alternative would use the same level of equipment on a daily basis. As shown in Table 5-5, NOx, ROG, and PM2.5 emissions for on-shore sources would not exceed their respective thresholds of 100, 75, and 55 pounds per day. Other on-shore sources in the project area include the railroad operations (an off-road source); project emissions would not cumulatively contribute to these background emissions due to the infrequent stops at this particular unstaffed, platform station. Project emissions, therefore, would not be significant. For informational purposes, the off-shore source emissions would be divided into 68 percent in the SDAB and 32 percent in the SCAB. Model results appear in Appendix C. Because this alternative will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds, no cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant would be anticipated. In addition, this alternative does not exceed the 159
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-9
general conformity de minimis levels, identifying it as a conforming project and does not need a Conformity Determination.

Mitigation Measures: Site construction may approach the daily threshold for NOx emissions.

Applicable mitigation for NOx is included below. The included measures would also reduce ROG and PM2.5 for on-shore heavy equipment exhaust.

MM-AQ-50-3.1: The construction contractors shall use on-shore heavy equipment that meets Tier II or higher air pollutant emission standards where these standards are applicable and equipment available.

Table 5-5 Comparison of Unmitigated Projected Construction Emissions and Criteria Values for 50 ft Beach Width Alternative
CO NOx ROG SOX
Total
PM101
Total
PM2.52 CO2
Lbs/Day
On Shore
Equipment 43.2 94.9 12.4 0.1 3.9 3.4 8,277.0
Dust 0 0 0 0 6.8 1.4 0
On Shore Vehicles 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.8
Off Shore Sources 327.4 2,185.5 63.9 140.4 66.2 58.9 108,722.6 All Sources 373.1 2,280.6 76.6 140.5 76.98 63.7 117,291.4 On Shore Sources 45.7 95.1 12.7 0.1 10.7 4.8 8,568.8
Daily Threshold4 550 100 75 150 150 55 NT3
Significant? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Tons/year presented for Conformity purposes
On Shore Sources 1.1 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 197.1
De minimis level5 100 10 10 NT3 70 NT3 NT3
Significant? NO NO NO --- NO --- --- 1
Assumes 85 percent control efficiency for wet material. 2 Based on 99 percent of the PM10 for on-road emissions, 89 percent of the PM10 for off-road emissions, and 21 percent of the PM10 for fugitive dust.
3 NT – No Threshold.
4 Thresholds apply only to onshore sources.
5 General conformity de minimis levels
MM-AQ-50-3.2: All heavy equipment shall be maintained and tuned per manufacturer's specifications to perform at California Air Resources Board (CARB) and/or EPA certification, where applicable, levels and to perform at verified standards applicable to retrofit technologies.

The requirement for Tier II heavy equipment, where applicable, could reduce NOx emissions by about 40 percent and particulate emissions by about 25 percent over Tier I equipment levels. A higher percentage reduction would be achieved over the use of equipment-produced prior to Tier I requirements. Because the status of the actual equipment assemblage, as well as those pieces subject to Tier II requirements, is variable, the overall reduction in NOx emissions could be less than the 40 percent reduction noted for the use of Tier II equipment. PM2.5 emissions, assuming TIER II equipment, reduces particulate levels by 25 percent. 160
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-10
CO and ROG levels associated with on-shore heavy equipment construction would also be reduced. If the 40 percent reduction associated with NOx control is also applied to ROG, onshore heavy equipment ROG would be reduced from 12.4 to 7.4 pounds per day.

Table 5-6 presents the results of the mitigation. Modeling details are included as Appendix C.

Table 5-6 Comparison of Mitigated Construction Emissions and Criteria Values for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative
CO NOx ROG SOX
Total
PM101
Total
PM2.52 CO2
Lbs/Day
On Shore Equipment 43.2 56.9 7.4 0.1 2.9 2.6 8,277.0
Dust 0 0 0 0 6.8 1.4 0
On Shore Vehicles 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.8
Off Shore Sources 327.4 2,185.5 63.9 140.4 66.2 58.9 108,722.6 All Sources 373.1 2,242.6 71.6 140.5 75.98 62.9 117,291.4 On Shore Sources 45.7 57.1 7.7 0.1 9.7 4.0 8,568.8
Daily Threshold6 550 100 75 150 150 55 NT3
Significant? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Tons/year presented for Conformity purposes
On Shore Sources 1.1 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 197.1
De minimis level5 100 10 10 NT3 70 NT3 NT3
Significant? NO NO NO --- NO --- -- 1
Assumes 85 percent control efficiency for wet material. 2 Based on 99 percent of the PM10 for on-road emissions, 89 percent of the PM10 for off-road emissions, and 21 percent of the PM10 for fugitive dust.
3 NT – No Threshold.
4 Based on 46 working days.
5 Based on 108 working days.
6 Thresholds apply only to onshore sources.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact AQ-50-4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations As demonstrated in Section 4.2.1, daily emissions for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 were modeled to determine their concentration and contribution to the ambient concentrations within the Project vicinity and as shown in Table 5-2, the concentrations of emissions are below the localized significance threshold criteria. As such, construction activities will not result in potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
161
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-11
Impact AQ-50-5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from onsite earth. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the Project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.

Sediments to be placed on the beach would not contain a high level of organic debris and thus, while an odor may be noted, it would be typical of any odor associated with low tide conditions.

This impact is, therefore, considered not significant.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact AQ-50-6: Generate greenhouse gases
At this time, greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significance criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision-makers with as much information as possible, this analysis quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development.

Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of greenhouse gases.

Construction CO2 emissions associated with the use of on-shore heavy equipment are as projected by the OffRoad2007 model included on the SCAQMD Internet web site. CO2 emissions for the ocean-going vessels are based on fuel use factors included in Table A9-3-E (Fuel Use Estimates Per Horsepower Hour) of the SCAQMD Handbook and CO2 emissions are based on the BAAQMD document, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Table B: Generalized GHG Emission Factors (Lbs/Usage Unit) and are included in Table 5-5. In accordance with the construction schedule, approximately 5,395,405.4 lbs (2,697.7 tons) of CO2 would be produced during the 46 working days associated with the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative.

In accordance with the 2007 AQMP, the emission levels in California are estimated to be 532 million metric tons (568.4 short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2010. At approximately 2,697.7 tons, the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative represents about 0.0005 percent of this State’s annual CO2 emissions budget.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
162
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-12

5.1.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative Impact AQ-115-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan The Project action represents the placement of sand on the beach. The Project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts at the proximate receptor locations and would implement those measures included in the AQMP considered as feasible and, as such, the Project is consistent with the goals of the AQMP and does not present a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact AQ-115-2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
As with the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, air quality impacts may occur during site preparation, grading, and sporadic maintenance activities required for implementation of the proposed land use. Maintenance could take place once every 10 years depending on need and financial ability.

Maintenance would result in a repetition of the initial construction activities. The Project involves approximately 9 ac of resultant dry beach nourishment for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative. No building construction or paving activities are associated with this Project.

Construction would occur over approximately 108 working days over a four month period.

Values used for analysis are included in Appendix C.

Localized Construction Impacts
As with the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, Project construction has the potential to raise local ambient pollutant concentrations, which are existing pollutant concentrations within the Project area, not including the construction activities of the Project (e.g., exhaust from regular traffic to/from the beach, along the highways, etc). This could present a significant impact if these concentrations were to exceed the allowable emissions as a function of receptor distance from the site boundary. Because construction equipment will be similar to the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative on a daily basis, all concentrations are within their respective criteria and the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact AQ-115-3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards.
163
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-13
Site Construction Impacts
As with the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, emissions associated with on-shore heavy equipment are based on the OffRoad2007 model runs as provided by the SCAQMD on their Internet web site for year 2010 construction equipment. The actual horsepower of the anticipated pieces of equipment (e.g., Cat D10 dozers at 580 hp and 988 Front-end loaders at 430 hp) for this Project were then extrapolated from the two pieces of similar equipment with the nearest horsepower ratings above and below the expected piece of equipment. Some dust with its attendant PM10 and PM2.5 would also be generated from the onshore movement of sand. The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would result in approximately 9 ac dry beach. The area of disturbance would occur over approximately 108 work days.

The URBEMIS2007 model developed to determine the emissions associated with land-use projects estimates that each acre disturbed generates 20 pounds of PM10 and that 25 percent of the construction area is active at any one time. As such, using the URBEMIS model would result in

2.25 acre of disturbance daily for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative. As a conservative approach, this analysis assumes a disturbance of approximately 2.25 acres daily and, in the absence of any dust suppression, 45 pounds of PM10.

Like all projects in the South Coast Air Basin, the construction would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring dust control. The URBEMIS2007 model estimates that twice daily watering reduced the dust by about 50 percent whereas thrice daily watering raises this value to about 65 percent. The materials to be placed on the beach are ocean bottom and are pumped onto the beach as a slurry. Because the material is totally saturated, little if any dust is released during its movement. As such, a control efficiency value of 85 percent was assumed for dust suppression as a conservative estimate.

Data and emissions for the watercraft are based on data supplied by Moffatt & Nichol. The initial beach nourishment would involve a barge and associated tow boats traveling from Oceanside Harbor to the Project site. The hopper dredge will be filled at the designated borrow site approximately one mile offshore of Oceanside and hauled approximately 21 miles (35 km) to San Clemente. The barge is estimated at approximately 4,300 hp for propulsion and 1,700 hp for the dredge pump. Additionally, a generator and auxiliary power source would also be used and are each rated at 565 hp. A tug would assist unloading operations and is estimated at 4,268 hp.

Since the borrow site is in the SDAB and the project site is in the SCAB, emissions were assigned to the separate basins by assigning all of the loading emissions, half of the idling emissions and 81 percent of the vessel travel emissions to the SDAB and all of the unloading emissions, half of the idling emissions, 19 percent of the vessel travel emissions and all of the onshore emissions to the SCAB. In total, all the on-shore and 32 percent of the off-shore emissions will be in the SCAB and the other 68 percent of the off-shore emissions would be in the SDAB.

Emissions also would be generated from the construction crew in their daily commutes and by the onsite use of two pick-up trucks. Emissions for these vehicles were based on the EMFAC2007 computer model and assume Year 2010 emission factors. The total daily emissions generated by vehicle travel in Orange County projected by the EMFAC2007 model was divided 164
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-14
by the total number of daily miles by vehicle type and a grams-per-mile by vehicle type is determined. Members of the construction crew are each estimated to travel 25.4 miles round-trip in accordance with the URBEMIS2007 computer model for home-to-work travel distances in Orange County.

In this case, the total number of vehicles was raised from 10 to 12 to account for the use of two onsite pick-up trucks during the day. Actual miles for these two pick-ups would be less than the

25.4-mile value used in the analysis, but these emissions are minimal relative to those of the offshore and heavy equipment and more accurate data as to their use would not change the outcome of the analysis.

The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would use the same level of equipment on a daily basis. As shown in Table 5-7, NOx, ROG, and PM2.5 emissions for onshore sources would not exceed their respective thresholds of 100, 75, and 55 pounds per day. Other on-shore sources in the project area include the railroad operations (an off-road source); project emissions would not cumulatively contribute to these background emissions due to the infrequent stops at this particular unstaffed, platform station. Project emissions, therefore, would not be significant.

Model results appear in Appendix C. Because this alternative will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds, no cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant would be anticipated.

Mitigation Measures: Implement MM-AQ-50-3.1 and MM-AQ-50-3.2.

The requirement for Tier II heavy equipment, where applicable, could reduce NOx emissions by about 40 percent and particulate emissions by about 25 percent over Tier I equipment levels. A higher percentage reduction would be achieved over the use of equipment-produced prior to Tier I requirements. Because the status of the actual equipment assemblage, as well as those pieces subject to Tier II requirements, is variable, the overall reduction in NOx emissions could be less than the 40 percent reduction noted for the use of Tier II equipment. PM2.5 emissions, assuming use of TIER II equipment, reduces particulate levels by 25 percent. In addition, this alternative does not exceed the general conformity de minimis levels, identifying it as a conforming project and does not require a Conformity Determination.

CO and ROG levels associated with on-shore heavy equipment construction would also be reduced. If the 40 percent reduction associated with NOx control is also applied to ROG, on-shore heavy equipment ROG would be reduced from 12.4 to 7.4 pounds per day.

Table 5-8 presents the results of the mitigation. Modeling details are included as Appendix C.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
165
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-15
Table 5-7 Comparison of Unmitigated Projected Construction Emissions and Criteria Values for 115 ft Beach Width Alternative
CO NOx ROG SOX
Total
PM101
Total
PM2.52 CO2
Lbs/Day
On Shore Equipment 43.2 94.9 12.4 0.1 3.9 3.4 8,277.0
Dust 0 0 0 0 6.8 1.4 0
On Shore Vehicles 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.8
Off Shore Sources 327.4 2,185.5 63.9 140.4 66.2 58.9 108,722.6 All Sources 373.1 2,280.6 76.6 140.5 76.98 63.7 117,291.4 On Shore Sources 45.7 95.1 12.7 0.1 10.7 4.8 8,568.8
Daily Threshold4 550 100 75 150 150 55 NT3
Significant? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Tons/year presented for Conformity purposes
On Shore Sources 2.5 5.1 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 462.7
De minimis level5 100 10 10 NT3 70 NT3 NT3
Significant? NO NO NO --- NO --- --- 1
Assumes 85 percent control efficiency for wet material. 2 Based on 99 percent of the PM10 for on-road emissions, 89 percent of the PM10 for off-road emissions, and 21 percent of the PM10 for fugitive dust.
3 NT – No Threshold.
4 Thresholds apply only to onshore sources.
5 General conformity de minimis levels
Table 5-8 Comparison of Mitigated Construction Emissions and Criteria Values CO NOx ROG SOX
Total
PM101
Total
PM2.52 CO2
Lbs/Day
On Shore Equipment 43.2 56.9 7.4 0.1 2.9 2.6 8,277.0
Dust 0 0 0 0 6.8 1.4 0
On Shore Vehicles 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.8
Off Shore Sources 327.4 2,185.5 63.9 140.4 66.2 58.9 108,722.6 All Sources 373.1 2,242.6 71.6 140.5 75.98 62.9 117,291.4 On Shore Sources 45.7 57.1 7.7 0.1 9.7 4.0 8,568.8
Daily Threshold: 550 100 75 150 150 55 NT3
Significant? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Tons/year presented for Conformity purposes
On Shore Sources 2.5 3.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 462.7
De minimis level5 100 10 10 NT3 70 NT3 NT3
Significant? NO NO NO --- NO --- --- 1
Assumes 85 percent control efficiency for wet material. 2 Based on 99 percent of the PM10 for on-road emissions, 89 percent of the PM10 for off-road emissions, and 21 percent of the PM10 for fugitive dust.
3 NT – No Threshold.
4 Thresholds apply only to onshore sources.
5 General conformity de minimis levels
166
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-16
Impact AQ-115-4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations As demonstrated in Section 4.1.3 above, daily emissions for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 were modeled to determine their concentration and contribution to the ambient concentrations within the Project vicinity and as shown in Table 5-2, the concentrations of emissions are below the localized significance threshold criteria. As such, Project construction activities will not result in potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact AQ-115-5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from onsite earth. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the Project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.

Sediments to be placed on the beach would not contain a high level of organic debris and thus, while an odor may be noted, it would be typical of any odor associated with low tide conditions.

This impact is therefore considered not significant.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact AQ-115-6: Generate greenhouse gases
As with the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of greenhouse gases. In accordance with the Project construction schedule, approximately 582,703,786.0 lbs (291,351.9 tons) would be produced during the 108 working days associated with the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative.

In accordance with the 2007 AQMP, the emission levels in California are estimated to be 532 million metric tons (568.4 short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2010. At about 291,351.9 tons, the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative represents about 0.05 percent if the State’s annual CO2 emissions budget.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
167
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-17

5.1.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would not involve any dredging or beach nourishment activity and no impacts to air quality would occur from the lack of these construction activities. However, under the No Action Alternative, potential maintenance activities by SCRRA may create emissions associated with equipment used to maintain and protect the railroad ballast and tracks, such as emergency seawalls.

5.2 Geology and Topography

5.2.1 Significance Criteria
An impact to geology and topography will be considered significant if a project alternative results in:
• Substantial adverse modification of any unique geologic features; • Substantial adverse increase in coastal erosion; and/or • Substantial adverse modification of beach or nearshore topography.

5.2.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative Impact ER-50-1: Substantial adverse modification of any unique geologic features.

The 50 ft Beach Width Alternative will alter topography by excavating soft bottom offshore of Oceanside and placing the sediment on the beach at San Clemente to widen the beach. Neither the relatively featureless ocean bottom offshore Oceanside or the sand beach at San Clemente is a unique geologic feature. Subtidal soft bottom areas and sandy beaches are widespread in southern California. Therefore, the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative would not result in substantial adverse modification of any unique geologic feature.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact ER-50-2: Substantial adverse increase in coastal erosion.

Currently, beach erosion threatens City facilities and private properties as well as the railroad.

The proposed action would provide sand to San Clemente beach to offset beach erosion and protect structures. Therefore, the impacts of the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative would offset coastal erosion and would be beneficial.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
168
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-18
Impact ER-50-3: Substantial adverse modification of beach or nearshore topography.

Dredging at the Oceanside source site would deepen the bathymetry of a portion of the site by several feet. The proposed dredging would follow accepted marine engineering practices regarding construction and geotechnical limitation associated with borrow site cut slopes. The proposed borrow site has been previously dredged for beach sand. The site is outside the depth of closure and, therefore, the pit would not intercept the littoral sand that typically rebuilds beaches in the summer. Excavation of sand offshore Oceanside would not result in a substantial adverse modification of nearshore bathymetry. The impacts to geology and topography of dredging would not be significant.

The 50 ft Beach Width Alternative would use the dredged sand to widen approximately 3,411 ft (1,040 m) of San Clemente Beach coastline. The immediate post-construction width of the beach would be approximately 76 ft (23 m), but through winnowing and adjustment the eventual beach width would be about 50 ft (15 m). Figure 3-2 shows the construction footprint and the equilibrium footprint of the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative. The construction footprint for this alternative would be approximately 28 acres (ac) (113,242 m2 ). The equilibrium footprint,
resulting from some of the placed sand moving offshore, would be approximately 124 ac (499,286 m2
).

The proposed fill would be expected to have varying levels of burial impacts due to seasonal crossshore movement of sediment (Appendix D). During the summer months, the equilibrium profile is expected to be biased towards the shoreline. During the summer, when lower wave energy conditions are prevalent, sediment typically migrates across the profile from deeper water to shallower water, resulting in a net accumulation of sediment in the foreshore. During the winter months, the equilibrium profile would be biased toward the offshore bar. Higher energy winter wave conditions cause sediment to move across the profile from shallower water to deeper water, resulting in a net gain of sediment towards the offshore tail of the profile.

The beach fill proposed for San Clemente would be expected to perform in a manner consistent with other recent beach fills. Figure 5-1 shows the profile for a recent fill by SANDAG of 421,000 cy (319,960 m3
) along 4,400 ft (1,321 m) of beach at Oceanside. This profile shows a movement of up to 6 ft (2 m) of thickness across the profile. In general, beyond about 0 MLLW, the post beach fill profiles were within the range observed prior to the beachfill. Figure 5-2 shows the cross sectional distribution of this sediment for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative.

These temporary burial impacts in the nearshore area could result in temporary adverse effects, including partial burial of T-Street reef. Although these effects would be adverse, because they would be short-term and only would occur in the inshore portions of the reef, they would not result in a substantial adverse modification of nearshore topography.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
169
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-19
Figure 5-1 SANDAG Oceanside Beach Fill Profiles (Before and After Construction) 170
25 :?Q
15 ~ LO
:ii :,
~ W.SL
~ " 0
<I
0 - 5 :::l
~
fa "-10
- 15
- 20
100 200 300
Fall 2008 Spring 2006 Fall 2005 Fall 2004
Transect 0S-0930
400 600 700 600 ?00
R~oge {Feet Sea-r<:I of Transect Origin)
Fall 2003 Fall 2002 Fall 2001 Spring 2001
I
r Profile B_nvctopc
Spl'inS 1996 - Sprlns 2001
1000 ll00 1200 1300
Post- Nourishment - June 5, 2001 (Ba un: : JriabUI -C.U--.illania, ~ Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5-20
Figure 5-2 Cross Section Profile of the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative 171
N0il~/\373
lD !SI
!SI ....... !SI lD !SI I
!SI
c..o I + I
I !SI I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I !SI I !SI I lD I
I + I !SI I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I !SI I
' !SI I
""" I + I !SI I
I
•
, ' w I u ' • z
<[ I w I f- ...J I CJ) I
... I ...... 0 !SI D cc
D.. !SI w 0 M a: w + 0 ... !SI :r: cc ◄ CJ)
m
...J CJ)
CJ)
0 a: w u ...J
...
0 !SI cc
D.. !SI
z N
+ 0 !SI ...
u
::I
cc
IIll
z
0 u
N
'f !SI
!SI
.......
,:;jl w + ...J !SI
~L c.:>
z
...

Ill
u· ><
w !SI
... -- -- !SI
!SI
+ !SI lD !SI lD ~ !SI I I NOi l~/\ 373
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-21

5.2.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative Impact ER-115-1: Substantial adverse modification of any unique geologic features.

The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative will alter topography by excavating soft bottom offshore of Oceanside and placing the sediment on the beach at San Clemente to widen the beach. Neither the relatively featureless ocean bottom offshore Oceanside or the sand beach at San Clemente is a unique geologic feature. Subtidal soft bottom areas and sandy beaches are widespread in southern California. Therefore, the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would not result in substantial adverse modification of any unique geologic feature.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact ER-115-2: Substantial adverse increase in coastal erosion Currently, beach erosion threatens City facilities and private properties as well as the railroad.

The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would provide sand to San Clemente beach to offset beach erosion and protect structures. Therefore, the impacts of this alternative would be beneficial.

Because the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would provide a wider beach than the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would be more effective in off-setting the impacts of beach erosion.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact ER-115-3: Substantial adverse modification of beach or nearshore topography Dredging at the Oceanside source site for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would deepen the bathymetry of a portion of the site by several feet. The proposed dredging would follow accepted marine engineering practices regarding construction and geotechnical limitation associated with borrow site cut slopes. The proposed borrow site has been previously dredged for beach sand. The site is outside the depth of closure and, therefore, the pit would not intercept the littoral sand that typically rebuilds beaches in the summer. Excavation of sand offshore Oceanside would not result in a substantial adverse modification of nearshore bathymetry. The impacts to geology and topography of dredging would not be significant.

To achieve a design beach width of 115 ft (35 m), the construction beach width would be 174 ft (53 m). This sand will move alongshore (primarily downcoast) and offshore. For the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative, the sand would cover an area of approximately 39 ac (158, 248 m2 )
after construction. At equilibrium, the sand would cover a footprint of 205 ac (828, 281 m2) (Figure 3-3). Figure 5-3 shows the cross sectional distribution of this sediment for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative. At equilibrium, the depth of burial would be greatest at the shoreline where it would be up to 19 ft (6 m) thick. At the seaward toe of the equilibrium profile, burial 172
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-22
would range between 1 to 3 ft (0.3 and 1.0 m) thick (Appendix D). The sediment would be expected to gradually move out of the project area within 10 years.

As shown in Figure 5-3, the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would result in substantial burial impacts to T-Street reef. The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative also would bury other shallow rocky habitat within the Project area. The burial of T-Street reef would be expected to result in adverse impacts for up to 10 years. In addition, the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would result in likely sedimentation of offshore reefs that support biological resources. Monitoring efforts of a slightly smaller beach fill project off the coast at Oceanside (SANDAG project) indicated that below a water depth of 0 MLLW, the profiles after the fill event were within the same range of profiles observed prior to the fill event, which was in water depths up to about -10 ft (-3 m).

Some of the post-fill profiles were within the upper range of pre-fill depths observed. It is possible that the greater volume of fill proposed for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative (448,000 m3
for this Project compared to 319,960 m3 for SANDAG) could result in burial beyond existing profiles. If the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative modifies nearshore bathymetry in such a way as to result in burial and degradation of rocky subtidal habitat, it would have a significant adverse impact on geology and topography.

Mitigation Measures:

MM-ER-115-2.1: Sediment profiles shall be monitored following the beach fill. If significant burial of natural reef occurs, future fill events beyond the initial fill shall not occur. If the reef does not return, an equivalent amount of mitigation reef shall be constructed at a water depth that would create nearshore topography similar to that of T-Street reef.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would result in substantial burial of reef that would result in modification of the nearshore topography. These impacts would occur for up to 10 years. Monitoring and documentation of impacts and the avoidance of future beach fills would allow the reefs off San Clemente to eventually recover to their existing values. Creation of a mitigation reef would replicate some of the topography lost to the beach fill, but a mitigation reef may not support the biological or recreational uses it currently sustains.

5.2.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no alteration of bathymetry and topography by dredging sand from offshore Oceanside and placing it on the beach near San Clemente Pier. The sediment at the Oceanside borrow site may be dredged for other projects.

Under the No Action alternative, the beach at San Clemente would continue to erode, resulting in a further loss of sand depth and width. The denuded beach would provide little protection for the railroad and to public and private structures. Damage to structures may occur under high wave conditions. The narrow beach would limit recreational opportunities for beachgoers and would provide little foraging area for shorebirds and spawning area for grunion. Continued erosion of San Clemente Beach would be a substantial adverse modification of beach or nearshore topography and, therefore, a significant impact.
173
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5-23
Figure 5-3 Cross Section Profile of 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative 174
NOil i;;JA :37:3
IS)
...... LO IS)
LO
I
IS)
7 IS)
IS)
_ __ .,.....,...._ .,....,... ___ .................... - ..................... - (.0 , + : IS) ,
,
IS)
IS)
1-------+---------,1-------+-- +-------l,- LO
.....
...I
...
0 a:

0..
z
0 N
':t'
L
11'1
,.,
I?' .
c ··
IS) LO
.....
...I
...
0 a:

0..
0 .....
,- I
~---..1
m •,
I
...I , ::, • '0 • ..... • ,
,
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
I.LI
...I
(,:,
z
,-
VI
)C
I.LI
IS)
NOill;;JA:373
LO
I
+
IS)
IS)
IS)
-st"
+
IS)
IS)
IS)
(")
+
IS)
IS)
IS)
N
+
IS)
IS)
IS)
......
+
IS)
IS)
IS)
IS)
+ ~ IS)
I
w
u
z
<I
I-
(f)
>-<
0 w
0::

D
I
(f)
(f)
(f)
D
0::
u
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-24
Under the No Action alternative, emergency seawalls may be constructed to protect structures from wave damage. Construction of seawalls would be an adverse modification of beach topography. However, because a relatively small amount of beach would be affected, the impact would not be substantial and would not be considered significant.

5.3 Water Resources (Water Quality, Sediments, and Oceanography)

5.3.1 Significance Criteria
Impacts to marine water quality are considered significant if any of the following apply:
• The water quality objectives in the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2005) are violated; and/or
• Project operations or discharges that change background levels of chemical and physical constituents or elevate turbidity would produce long-term changes in the receiving environment of the site, area, or region that would impair the beneficial uses of the receiving water.

Impacts are considered less than significant if the project would result in elevation of contaminants, but the levels remain below water quality criteria or if elevation of contaminant concentrations above criteria occurs only within a couple of hundred feet or less of the point of discharge for a few hours or less.

An impact to oceanographic conditions or coastal processes would be considered significant if any of the following apply:
• Nearshore wave characteristics are substantially and adversely altered; • Nearshore sediment transport is substantially and adversely altered; and/or • Shoreline erosion is substantially increased.

5.3.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative Impact WR-50-1: The water quality objectives in the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2005) are violated.

As described in Section 4.3 and shown in Table 4-6, the sediment at the Oceanside borrow site has very low levels of contaminants. Therefore, resuspension of sediments during dredging and run-off into the ocean from sediments placed on the beach at San Clemente would not result in an increase in the concentration of contaminants in ocean waters or cause a violation of any water quality objective related to contaminants.

Dredging and beach construction activities will involve the use of vessels and construction vehicles on and near the ocean. An accident or the improper handling of materials could result in 175
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-25
the introduction of fuels or other hazardous material to the ocean. The introduction of fuels or other contaminants to marine waters would be a potentially significant impact. Impacts may be reduced to not significant through adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Oil Spill Prevention and Response Plan (OSPRP).

The primary potential for degradation of water quality from the proposed beach nourishment is through the generation of turbidity during dredging and sediment discharge to the beach. The California Ocean Plan states "Natural light shall not be significantly reduced at any point outside the initial dilution zone as the result of the discharge of waste." The sediment at the Oceanside source site is generally fine-grained sands with local silty intervals (USACE 2005b). The calculated fines content of the composite gradation is 8.0 percent. Because the material at the borrow site consists primarily of sand-sized particles that settle rapidly, these plumes would not be extensive. As material is loaded into the hopper bins, the dredge may overflow elutriate down the center of the hull through vertical overflow pipes. Thus, the hopper dredge may create a surface turbidity plume, which, under worst-case conditions, may extend for 1,000 ft (300 m) or more. SANDAG estimated the average turbidity plumes expected from dredging at the Oceanside borrow site using the overall mean grain size diameter and the average current speed (SANDAG 2000). The estimated average down current distance of the turbidity plume was estimated to be 272 to 329 ft (82 to 99 m) (SANDAG 2000). Turbidity monitoring of dredging with a hopper dredge during the SANDAG Regional Beach Sand project identified only small plumes in the vicinity of the dredge (AMEC 2002); plumes did not exceed 2,700 yd2 (2,100 m2).

Therefore, the amount of turbidity expected during dredging at the Oceanside source site is expected to be minor. However, in a worst-case scenario, if a silt layer is encountered during conditions of high currents, the creation of extensive turbidity plumes during dredging would be a significant impact.

Turbidity plumes generated during discharge of offshore sediments to receiver sites also have the potential to degrade nearshore waters. However, turbidity plumes would be expected to be confined primarily to the naturally turbid surf zone and associated rip currents. Construction monitoring during the SANDAG project in San Diego County documented that beach fill operations generated turbidity plumes that ranged between 2,640 and 10,000 ft (800 and 3,000 m) and were greatly influenced by rip currents. The turbidity plumes remained in the surf zone unless rip currents carried them offshore (SANDAG 2002). The proposed Project method of discharging the sediments behind an L-shaped berm allows fine particles to settle prior to introduction to the ocean and reduces the potential for nearshore turbidity. Because turbidity plumes generated during initial placement of sediments on receiver beaches would primarily be confined to the surf zone and rip currents, areas that are naturally turbid, degradation of coastal waters by turbidity from the proposed Project would not be expected to occur. However, should a worst-case scenario of more extensive turbidity plumes be created during beach construction, impacts would be significant.

Water quality impacts due to turbidity at the borrow site during construction are expected to be minor and temporary. The geotechnical analysis indicates that variations in sediment quality occur within the borrow sediments. The borrow area tends to have small pockets and/or lenses of sediment that contain higher fines content than are customarily acceptable as beach fill.

However, the overall gradation of the borrow area as a unit indicates the borrow area is 176
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-26
acceptable for beach placement. It is expected that this project will be constructed by hopper dredge methods instead of hydraulic cutter head methods. Hopper dredge methods result in shallow excavations as opposed to excavating the borrow area as a larger unit that can be achieved by hydraulic cutter head. Thus, the pockets and/or lenses of finer grained materials will tend to be delivered to the fill site. The simplifying assumption was made that the fill will be comprised of a blended mix of sediments represented by the mean grain size of the borrow materials. Observations from numerous nearshore and beach fill construction projects within the Los Angeles District indicate a significant percentage of borrow material fines are winnowed immediately during placement operations in the surf zone. Standard construction practice includes turbidity monitoring both updrift and downdrift of the dredge. Due to rapid winnowing and naturally elevated ambient turbidity levels within the surf zone, insignificant turbidity impacts from dredging/fill operations are typically the rule rather than the exception. Therefore, construction related turbidity impacts are expected to be temporary.

Impacts to water quality during periodic maintenance renourishment would be similar to those for initial beach construction. Each renourishment event would involve approximately 251,000 cy (192,000 m3
) every six years for an estimated eight renourishment cycles over the Project life.

Degradation of water quality due to periodic maintenance is not expected to occur; however, if extensive turbidity were to occur, the impact would be potentially significant, but temporary.

Mitigation Measures:

MM-WR-50-1.1: A SWPPP and an OSPRP shall be prepared for all construction activities.

These plans shall specify specific measures that shall be taken during dredging and beach construction to avoid introducing contaminants to the ocean via leaks and spills. All measures shall be adhered to during Project construction.

MM-WR-50-1.2: Turbidity shall be monitored during dredging. If a visible turbidity plume is observed beyond the immediate dredging area, dredging activities shall be modified (e.g., decrease the rate of dredging, move to a new dredge location) until the turbidity plume disperses.

Turbidity also shall be monitored during beach fill operations. If significant turbidity (i.e., a visible turbidity plume beyond the surf zone or rip current area) is observed, beach fill operations shall be modified (e.g., by slowing the rate of fill) until the turbidity plume disperses.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None

Impact WR-50-2: Project operations or discharges that change background levels of chemical and physical constituents or elevate turbidity would produce long-term changes in the receiving environment of the site, area, or region that would impair the beneficial uses of the receiving water.

Beneficial uses of ocean waters off San Clemente and Oceanside include marine habitat, wildlife habitat, navigation, water-related recreation that involves body contact with water, non-contact water recreation, and habitat for threatened and endangered species, (RWQCB 1994). The sediment that will be dredged at the Oceanside source site and discharged on San Clemente 177
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-27
Beach will not expose wildlife, marine life, or recreational ocean users to elevated levels of pollutants.

Based on information discussed above under Impact WR-50-1, turbidity during dredging at the Oceanside source site is expected to be minimal, and turbidity during discharge of sediments to the beach is expected to be confined to the surf zone and rip currents. The proposed Project is scheduled to occur between late August/early September through March, outside of the least tern breeding and grunion spawning seasons. The closest breeding colony to the San Clemente Beach receiver site is at Red Beach, approximately 12 mi (19 km) south of the receiver site. The large least tern nesting colony at the Santa Margarita River is within about 1.5 mi (2.4 km) from the Oceanside borrow site. Turbidity generated during sand placement on San Clemente Beach would have little effect on the foraging activity of least terns, but turbidity generated during excavation of sediment at the Oceanside borrow site would be within the foraging range of nesting least terns. However, because the proposed Project is scheduled to occur outside of the California least tern breeding season, there would be no impact on breeding least terns. In addition, if turbidity plumes were to occur at the Project site, any least terns foraging in the Project area would be expected to move to a nearby, more suitable foraging site. Therefore, impacts to California least tern due to turbidity would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: Implement MM-WR-50-1.2.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact WR-50-3: Nearshore wave characteristics are substantially and adversely altered.

Dredging at an offshore borrow site may have the potential to alter the nearshore wave conditions over the depression. Theoretically, waves passing over the deepened pit could increase or decrease in height compared to the existing condition. However, the proposed dredge borrow area has a very small footprint in relation to the overall bathymetric field traversed by waves approaching shore (USACE 2005, Chambers Group 2007). Therefore, the dredge pit will function as a nearly imperceptible variation to approaching waves. Similar offshore dredging projects have occurred off Southern California with no impacts to waves (Chambers Group 2007). For example, the USACE regularly dredges sand for beach nourishment at Surfside and Sunset Beaches in Orange County from a borrow area at similar depth to the Oceanside source site. No perceptible effects have been documented to waves traversing the site (Patterson and Young 1989).

Another concern is that erosion of sediment from the beach fill will alter nearshore bathymetry and change wave characteristics. T-Street is a popular surfing site located immediately south of San Clemente Pier and directly offshore of the T-Street overpass. The T-Street break is due to a permanent, hard bottom reef that rises above the seabed (Appendix D). Figure 5-4 is a plan view plot of the bathymetric contours that show this seabed feature. The immediately adjacent contours are straight and parallel, while the reef at T-Street is a seabed perturbation such that its elevation, shape, and orientation to incoming waves are a unique combination that tends to shoal waves to a peak with a resulting plunging “left” (from the ocean facing the shore, wave that breaks from right to left) and “right” (from the ocean facing the shore, wave that breaks from left 178
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-28
to right). The slope of the beach and the types of waves approaching the surf zone determine which type of breaker (i.e., form of the wave at breaking) will be predominant. Because of the hard bottom bathymetry, there is a wide range of incident wave conditions (Appendix D). The configuration and orientation of the reef to incoming waves create consistent surfing waves, making T-Street a popular break in the Orange County coastal area. High steepness waves result in plunging breakers, which are associated with beaches with steeper gradients. Types of breakers identified by Galvin (1968) that are discussed for this Project include spilling and plunging breaks. Spilling breakers occur gradually over a distance, where the wave crest becomes unstable and cascades (“spills”) down the shoreward face of the wave producing a foamy, white water surface. Plunging breakers are waves that occur when the crest advances faster than the base of the breaker, curls over the shoreward face of the wave, and then falls forward into the trough of the wave, resulting in a high splash.

Figure 5-5 is a cross section plot of the bathymetric contours at T-Street. The measured bathymetry data indicate that the reef extends from the shoreline to approximately 1,200 ft (400 m) offshore. The surfing extends from the beach to about 600 ft (200 m) offshore and typically is in water depths less than 15 ft (5 m). The surfing area is closer to the beach than the actual reef location, as incoming waves require time and space to be transformed by the reef bathymetry.

Some of the sand placed on the beach for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative would move offshore. At T-Street reef, most of this sand would accumulate in the shallower portions of the reef. The potential effects on the nearshore wave characteristics could be considered adverse depending on the wave use under consideration (e.g., surfing or sand transport). Sand from the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative would be present for up to 6 years, however, the level of burial is expected to steadily decrease during this time at about a 13 ft (4.0 m) loss per year erosion rate.

Similar impacts would be expected to occur during each nourishment event. The impacts to wave characteristics, although potentially adverse, would be relatively short-term and less than significant for each nourishment cycle.

The impacts to surfing from this sand movement are not rigorously quantifiable. Because the equilibrium footprint would not extend into the offshore portions of the reef, it would not be likely to modify significantly the refractive abilities of the most seaward extent to the reef.

However, the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative may have impacts to the surf zone region between the shoreline and the “take-off” zone, or the area where surfers start their ride as the surfboard is propelled by the wave. The surfing experience might consist of a normal “take-off,” but then “close-out” as the wave encounters the straightened bathymetric contours inshore (Appendix D); a “close-out” condition is when a wave breaks along its entire length at once. Although impacts due to the wider beach may occur, historic aerial photographs of San Clemente Beach at the Pier (Figure 5-6) indicate that the beach width in 1990 was approximately 55 ft (17 m) wide and no records have been found that indicate surfing ceased within the Project area during that time. 179
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-29
Figure 5-4 Plan View of T-Street Surf Break Bathymetry
180
~ I
,C-oham'ber5 Gro 'P Int:

O 300 600 1,200
--=::::::J-•c:::=-----Feet
F'igure 5.3-1
Plan View of T-Street
Sun Break 13athymet1ry
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5-30
Figure 5-5 Cross Section of T-Street Surf Break Bathymetry (Distances in Feet) 181
au
40 30
... 20
10 ..r
I 111n, e o
i
~--
~l \
1::1
j -10
!-20
-30
-40 I
-au
-60
-'10
0 Apr 1986
,:-- --~ ·--- -
I
~ 1) "- .r,. ~ - \ "' ... &
~·,; :. .. "q. !·-·;, ., .
-400 eoo 1200
I I
"II ..
-~ -~---
~ --
lBOO 2000
Transect SC-1660
T-Street
I
·-
.., .... ,"=--~--- - ~-:,-, ~ .,,.
..;;.~ --
2400 2800 8200 8800
CrcJ1111-Shore Diatance {l'eet Seaward ol Tr!IDNct OrigiD) May 2002 May 2003 118.y 2004 Oct 2004 May 2001;:i
r •
~-!"~~- ·~-~
-• . r&,~!,.~r • - .- ---
~ - -~ -~ -- I -
>;,!f,1~!="~ ~ .~ f',.'-;--
.. .;..: ..... -
-
4000 ~o 4800 6200
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-31
Figure 5-6 Historic Aerial Photograph of San Clemente Pier Shoreline 182
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-32
Mitigation Measures: None.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact WR-50-4: Nearshore sediment transport is substantially and adversely altered.

The proposed borrow/dredge site offshore of Oceanside Harbor is at a water depth beyond the depth of closure for sediment transport off Oceanside (SANDAG 2000). Therefore, deepening the area to obtain sand will not interrupt the littoral transport of sand.

It is possible that by widening the beach at San Clemente Pier, a sand groin could be created and sand moving downcoast by littoral transport could be blocked resulting in erosion of downcoast beaches (USACE 2005b). However, any sand blocked on the upcoast beach would be compensated on the downcoast beach by the erosion and downcoast transport of the beach fill.

Conclusions drawn from the SANDAG monitoring data of the Oceanside Beach fill suggests the proposed Project beach fill will erode primarily in the south longshore direction (Appendix D).

The SANDAG long-term monitoring data indicates that beaches in the south Oceanside and north Carlsbad regions gained significantly since project construction. The data further suggests that the Oceanside fill has merged with the adjacent Carlsbad fill. Considering that Carlsbad Beach is south of Oceanside Beach and that the longshore drift is primarily in the southern direction, the beach width increase can be directly attributed to south directed longshore sediment transport of the fill material. Therefore, even if the widened beach at San Clemente intercepted the downcoast transport of sand, no adverse effects would occur because erosion of the San Clemente Beach fill would nourish downcoast beaches.

Mitigation Measure: None.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact WR-50-5: Shoreline erosion is substantially increased As discussed above under Impact WR 5.3.2-4, the sand source site will not rob the littoral cell of sediment because it is located beyond the depth of closure, and the widening of the beach in San Clemente is expected to nourish downcoast beaches, not cause erosion. The beach nourishment is designed to offset problems caused by beach erosion in San Clemente. The proposed beach fill would protect structures and the railroad and would be a benefit.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None

5.3.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative Impact WR-115-1: The water quality objectives in the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2005) are violated.
183
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-33
The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would not be expected to result in an elevation of contaminants in the Project area. The sediment at the Oceanside borrow site has very low levels of contaminants. Adherence to a SWPPP and OSPRP would prevent the introduction of fuels or other hazardous materials to the ocean during Project construction.

The primary potential for degradation of water quality from the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would be through the generation of turbidity during dredging and sediment discharge to the beach. Impacts of turbidity for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would be similar to those described above for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative. The only difference between the two beach width alternatives with respect to turbidity is that the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would take 108 days to construct compared to 46 days for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative.

Therefore, potential turbidity impacts would occur over a greater period of time for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative. Turbidity during dredging would be expected to be minor at the Oceanside dredge site, and would be confined to the naturally turbid surf zone at the beach site.

However, should a worst-case scenario of more extensive turbidity plumes be created during beach construction, impacts would be significant.

Mitigation Measures: Implement MM-WR-50-1.1 and MM-WR-50-1.2.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact WR-115-2: Project operations or discharges that change background levels of chemical and physical constituents or elevate turbidity would produce long-term changes in the receiving environment of the site, area, or region that would impair the beneficial uses of the receiving water.

The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would not be expected to cause long-term changes in water column characteristics that would impair the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative may elevate turbidity during the approximately four months of beach construction.

Mitigation Measure: Implement MM-WR-50-1.1.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact WR-115-3: Nearshore wave characteristics are substantially and adversely altered Dredging for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative at the Oceanside borrow site would not be expected to alter wave characteristics. The dredge pit will function as a nearly imperceptible variation to approaching waves.

However, the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative could have significant effects on the wave breaking characteristics at the T-Street reef. Figure 5-3 shows the expected equilibrium profile of the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative at T-Street reef. Natural seasonal cross-shore transport mechanisms potentially could change the seabed up to 6 ft (2 m). A sand layer of 6 ft thickness 184
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-34
on T-Street reef could have unquantifiable, but significant effects to the wave breaking characteristics (Appendix D). As the reef fills in from the sand, the characteristic reef shape could be modified and/or lost as it becomes covered by a sand bar. The refractive abilities of the reef may be modified or lost, lessening the focusing effect of the reef and changing the point break characteristics of T-Street. As the reef continues to fill in, the overall bathymetry of the area may begin to become straight and parallel and the wave will lose its ability to “feel” the reef. The wave may begin to exhibit more spilling characteristics normally associated with beach breaks. The consolidated “take-off” zone may be replaced by a more disorganized situation containing many “take-off” zones with shorter, more varied break directions. The straightening contours may cause the wave to tend to break all at once, creating a “close out” condition. Flattening of the slope in the reef area due to sedimentation ultimately has the potential to change the characteristic plunging point break to a quasi-spilling beach break. The sediment from the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would erode from the reef over time, but would take up to 10 years to disappear from the equilibrium footprint. Substantial alteration of the wave characteristics at T-Street reef for up to 10 years would be a significant adverse impact.

Mitigation Measure:

MM-WR-115-3.1: Wave characteristics at T-Street should be monitored before and after beach construction. If surfing is degraded and does not recover within 10 years, future nourishment events should not occur. If surf characteristics still do not recover after 10 years, a mitigation surfing reef shall be constructed.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would result in substantial burial of T-Street reef and adverse modification of the wave characteristics there.

The sediment from the beach fill would gradually erode from the reef throughout a ten year period. It is unknown precisely when during this period the surf would regain its pre-project characteristics. Monitoring and documentation of impacts and the avoidance of future beach fills, would allow the wave characteristics to recover. Creation of a mitigation surfing reef similar in size to the T-Street reef would replicate some of the surfing values, but a mitigation surfing reef may not generate wave profiles equivalent to those at T-Street reef.

Impact WR-115-4: Nearshore sediment transport is substantially and adversely altered.

The proposed borrow/dredge site offshore of Oceanside Harbor is at a water depth beyond the depth of closure for sediment transport off Oceanside. Therefore, deepening the area to obtain sand will not interrupt the littoral transport of sand.

As described for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, widening of the beach near San Clemente Pier would not result in the erosion of downcoast beaches. Even if the widened beach at San Clemente intercepted the downcoast transport of sand, no adverse effects would occur because erosion of the San Clemente Beach fill would nourish downcoast beaches.

Mitigation Measure: None.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
185
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-35
Impact WR-115-5: Shoreline erosion is substantially increased As discussed above, the sand source site will not rob the littoral cell of sediment because it is located beyond the depth of closure, and the widening of the beach in San Clemente is expected to nourish downcoast beaches, not cause erosion. The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative is designed to offset problems caused by beach erosion in San Clemente. The proposed beach fill would protect structures and the railroad.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None

5.3.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional turbidity in the Project area caused by dredging off Oceanside and discharging the sediments to San Clemente Beach. Under the No Action Alternative, the Project area would still experience elevated turbidity at times from storm runoff from rivers and flood control channels and resuspension of sediments by wave action.

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no alteration of bathymetry by dredging sand from offshore Oceanside or discharging sand at San Clemente and, therefore, no potential to alter wave characteristics. The sediment at the Oceanside borrow site may be dredged for other projects.

Under the No Action alternative, the beach at San Clemente would continue to erode resulting in a further loss of sand depth and width. The denuded beach would provide little protection for the railroad and to public and private structures. Damage to structures may occur under high wave conditions.

Under the No Action alternative, emergency seawalls may be constructed to prevent surf damage to structures. These sea walls may have minor effects on nearshore sediment transport, but these effects would not be substantial. The impacts of sea walls on sediment transport would not be significant.

5.4 Biological Resources

5.4.1 Significance Criteria
An impact to biological resources will be considered significant if a project alternative results in:
• A direct adverse effect on the population of a threatened or endangered species or the loss or disturbance of important habitat for a listed species; 186
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-36
• A long-term net loss in the habitat value of a sensitive biological habitat. For the purposes of this analysis, kelp beds, and well developed rocky intertidal and surfgrass beds are considered sensitive biological habitats;
• Substantial impedence to the breeding, movement or migration of fish or wildlife; • Substantial loss to the population of any native fish, wildlife or vegetation. For the purpose of this analysis, substantial is defined as a change in a population that is detectable over natural variability for a period of five years or more; and/or • Substantial adverse impact on Essential Fish Habitat.

5.4.2 Impacts Related to the 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative Impact BR-50-1: A direct adverse effect on the population of a special status listed species or the loss or disturbance of important habitat for a listed species.

As discussed in Section 4.4, the listed species are unlikely to occur in the Project area, including white abalone, southern steelhead, western snowy plover, and eight species of marine mammals.

For these species, the Project area specifically does not include appropriate primary constituent habitat elements. These taxa would not be impacted by the project implementation.

Least terns breed at Camp Pendleton between mid-April and early August. The proposed Project is scheduled to occur between late August/early September through March. The closest breeding colony to the San Clemente Beach receiver site is at Red Beach, approximately 12 mi (19 km) south of the receiver site. The large least tern nesting colony at the Santa Margarita River is within about 1.5 mi (2.4 km) from the Oceanside borrow site. Turbidity generated during sand placement on San Clemente Beach would have little effect on the foraging activity of least terns, but turbidity generated during excavation of sediment at the Oceanside borrow site would be within the foraging range of nesting least terns. However, because the proposed Project is scheduled to occur outside of the California least tern breeding season, there would be no impact on breeding least terns.

Federal threatened western snowy plovers do not breed in the vicinity of San Clemente Beach and have rarely, if ever, been noted foraging in the Project area during the winter. This is based upon several wintering plover surveys, most recently in 2006, in which no snowy plovers were observed. The USACE LAD has conducted several beach and surf zone disposal operations within snowy plover habitat during both nesting and wintering seasons without any observed negative impact (USACE 2001). Because San Clemente Beach is not an important habitat for snowy plovers, temporary disturbance is not considered a significant impact.

Sea and Sage Audubon performed a 2010 winter survey; San Clemente Beaches were not included because beach habitat within the project placement footprint, as well as in Oceanside, are narrow and heavily used by people. Philip Unitt, San Diego Natural History Museum, Birds of San Diego County, Memoir 13, 1984, does not show snowy plovers in north portion of the county. California State Parks has tracked snowy plovers during winter window surveys and has driven San Clemente State Beach many times with zero plovers observed over the years (David Pryor, personal communication, February 2011).
187
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-37
Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact BR-50-2: A long-term net loss in the habitat value of a sensitive biological habitat. For the purposes of this analysis, kelp beds, surfgrass beds, and well developed rocky intertidal are considered sensitive biological habitats.

Figure 4-10 shows the construction and equilibrium footprints for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative in relationship to surfgrass and kelp in the Project area. The sand placement footprint does not include any kelp beds, surfgrass, or rocky intertidal areas. Therefore, no direct impacts to sensitive habitats would occur from the placement of sand on the beach. In addition, the proposed Project would not place anchors for the mono buoy, where the hopper dredge will moor while it discharges sand to the beach, or place the sinker pipeline that will pump the sediment to shore from the hopper dredge on any sensitive habitat. The construction contractor shall avoid placement of anchors or the submerged pipeline onto reef habitat, which could crush attached organisms. The construction contractor shall also avoid side to side movement of the anchors or pipeline as they are placed, which could abrade surfgrass, algae, or attached invertebrates. If a substantial amount of surfgrass or kelp were affected by placement and removal of anchors and pipelines, the impact would be considered significant. These impacts would be avoided and minimized by performing a pre-construction survey to identify anchor and pipeline locations that would avoid sensitive resources. Because most of the surfgrass in the Project area grows on T-Street reef, it is possible to avoid surfgrass by avoiding the reef when laying the pipeline. In addition, to avoid impacts to reefs that support kelp and other sensitive species such as gorgonians and surfgrass, the hopper dredge should moor inshore of these reefs, which are located approximately 1,000 to 1,300 ft (300 to 400 m) from the beach.

Following initial placement, a portion of the sand may move upcoast, downcoast, and offshore depending on the magnitude, direction, and period of waves. Most of the sand movement is expected to be downcoast and offshore. The nearest significant rocky intertidal area to the proposed beach fill location is at Mariposa Point, approximately 1,600 ft (485 m) north of the northern end of the beach fill site at Linda Lane. The net movement of beach sands in the Project area is expected to be southerly, but some northerly movement may occasionally occur.

Based on monitoring of the SANDAG beach fill project at Oceanside, most sand movement is expected to be toward the south (Appendix D). Therefore, it is unlikely that significant quantities of sand will be transported to the north to the rocky intertidal habitat at Mariposa Point. The equilibrium footprint for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative indicates that sand will not extend as far upcoast as Mariposa Point (Figure 3-2). Therefore, the proposed action would not be expected to result in the net loss of habitat value of sensitive rocky intertidal habitat, and impacts to rocky intertidal habitat would not be significant.

The available evidence also suggests that the proposed action will not result in a long-term net loss in habitat value of surfgrass beds. Figure 5-2 shows the predicted equilibrium cross-section footprint of the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative at T-street reef. This profile suggests that most of the sediment accumulation will occur in the inshore area. Surfgrass in this area grows on 1 to 2 188
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-38
ft (0.3 to 0.6 m) boulders and has average blade lengths of 2 to 3 ft (0.6 to 0.9 m). Therefore, the equilibrium footprint of the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative likely would result in a range of impacts between no burial of surfgrass on the larger rocks and partial burial on the smaller boulders. Burial of surfgrass on the outer portions of T-street reef would be minimal. Surfgrass is adapted to partial sand burial, routinely survives seasonal sand burial of part of its blades, and can recover quickly via regrowth if the root system is intact; however, the degree of sand burial surfgrass can withstand is not well documented (SANDAG 2000). CRM (2000) observed surfgrass in the deepest portion of T-Street reef with 2/3 of its blades covered with sand, which suggested surfgrass could withstand temporary burial of up to 2/3 of its blade length.

To predict the potential burial of surfgrass at San Clemente, CRM and Moffatt and Nichol analyzed impacts to surfgrass from a similar proposed beach fill project at Linda Lane and TStreet (CRM 2000). Their analysis predicted that placement of 175,000 cy (133,000 m3 ) of sand
at Linda Lane and T-Street would result in a maximum 1 ft (0.3 m) burial of surfgrass for less than six months. Approximately 1 ft (0.3 m) of burial would bury less than 50 percent of the surfgrass blade length at these sites. Based on observation of burial of existing offshore surfgrass in the area, CRM (2000) proposed a criterion of sand burial of no more than 2/3 of the blade length for six months or less as a level that surfgrass can withstand, and concluded that burial of less than half the blade lengths for less than six months would not be expected to result in long-term damage (CRM 2000).

A recent laboratory study of Phyllospadix scouoleri suggested that short term sand burial may result in shoot mortality, decreased shoot counts, and reduced growth of surfgrass (Craig et al. 2008). The study found that shoot density decreased compared to controls for a burial depth of

0.8 feet (25 cm), but not shallower burial depths. Mean shoot growth rate decreased in all burial treatments. Therefore, the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative may result in some degradation of the shallower portion of the surfgrass habitat, but would not result in a significant loss of surfgrass.

For the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, the sand from the beach fill is predicted to move out of the equilibrium footprint within 6 years.

Considerable reef habitat that supports giant kelp, feather boa kelp, gorgonians, palm kelp, and sparse surfgrass is located approximately 1,000 to 1,300 ft (300 to 400 m) from shore. Little or none of the fill from the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative is expected to reach this area. The CRM and Moffatt & Nichol analysis predicted that less than 0.2 ft (0.06 m) of sand from the San Clemente beach fill would accrete in the kelp beds (CRM 2000). Similarly, beach profile monitoring of a somewhat larger volume of sand placed on the beach at Oceanside detected very little movement of the sand at 1,000 ft (300 m) or more from shore (Appendix D). Based on this information, it is unlikely that the proposed action would result in the transport of enough sand into kelp bed areas to result in a long-term net loss of the habitat.

Biological monitoring of sensitive habitats, including rocky intertidal, shallow subtidal reefs, and kelp forests, was conducted following implementation of the SANDAG Regional Beach Sand project, which placed sand on several beaches in San Diego County (AMEC 2005). Beach profile and biological monitoring data indicated a great deal of spatial and temporal variability in sediment transport. High sand levels were observed in the intertidal 15 months after the placement of 101,000 cy (76,760 m3
) of sand on Cardiff State Beach, but the sand deposition 189
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-39
was apparently unrelated to the beach nourishment event because similarly high sand levels were documented at the control site. There was no evidence of sand burial or scour effects at either the site near the beach fill or the control site except for a few buried mussels at the offshore reef at the Cardiff site.

Of 18 shallow subtidal reef locations monitored to assess potential impacts of the SANDAG project, only three showed an increase in sediment cover that may have been a result of the project (AMEC 2005). A monitoring site near Batiquitos Lagoon showed increased sedimentation two years following the SANDAG beach fill, suggesting a cause and effect relationship, but the increased sand levels were within variation observed during monitoring of the site before the beach fill. The increase in sediment cover at this site did not appear to have any biological effects because the cover and abundance of indicator species did not change. A monitoring site in North Carlsbad showed an increase in cover following the SANDAG beach fill and an associated decrease in surfgrass cover. However, there were multiple sources of sediment near this site and it is unclear to what extent the observed effects were related to the SANDAG project. The third site that showed a significant increase in sedimentation following the SANDAG beach fill was at Solana Beach. The SANDAG project was the only apparent source of sediment at this site. The increased sedimentation did not appear to affect surfgrass cover, but shoot density declined, possibly in response to the increased sedimentation.

Of the kelp bed sites monitored as part of the SANDAG program, some showed relatively constant sand cover, and some showed an increase in sediment cover following the SANDAG beach fill (AMEC 2005). The sand cover observed at the sites with increased sedimentation was within levels observed during pre-project monitoring, suggesting natural variation. The increases in sand cover did not appear to affect the distribution and abundance pattern of kelp bed indicator species. Giant kelp recruitment and persistence either increased or remained stable during the period following the SANDAG Regional Beach Sand project.

Monitoring of shallow subtidal kelp beds and lower intertidal surfgrass in Santa Barbara County indicated similar effects to those observed after the SANDAG project following a beach fill project at Goleta Beach (Chambers Group 2007). Approximately 77,526 cy (58,920 m3 ) of sand
was placed on Goleta Beach in 2003. The rocky intertidal areas downcoast from Goleta Beach increased in sand cover and depth and decreased in surfgrass cover in the winter following the beach nourishment project. These changes may have been related to sand from beach nourishment. However, surfgrass and sand cover following the beach nourishment event were within the variability shown at the site prior to beach nourishment. Surfgrass cover recovered rapidly later in 2004 as sand moved out of the area, indicating that the sand deposition was a brief occurrence.

No effects of the Santa Barbara beach nourishment project were observed on the Goleta Bay kelp beds until April 2005, 2-1/2 years following the beach fill (Chambers Group 2007). In April, 2005, following a wet winter storm season, sand increased on all Goleta Bay transects, and kelp declined. Although some of the sediment observed in the Goleta kelp beds probably came from the beach nourishment project, the sediment from the beach fill project was dwarfed by other inputs, including discharge of material dredged from sloughs by the Flood Control District into the surf zone and sediment input from Goleta Slough during and following the storms. By 190
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-40
September 2006, sand decreased on two of the shallow subtidal transects, and kelp was at preproject densities. The most downcoast transect continued to be buried by sand. By August 2007, sediment decreased on the most downcoast transect, although sediment was still above pre-beach fill levels; and kelp density, although increasing, was still low. The kelp monitoring indicated that sedimentation (from beach fill in conjunction with other sources) may affect shallow kelp beds but that recovery occurs within about two to three years.

All of the available evidence indicates that the proposed action will have minor transitory effects, if any, on sensitive habitats in the vicinity of San Clemente Beach. The proposed beach fill is unlikely to result in a long-term net loss of a sensitive biological habitat. However, in a worstcase scenario, it is possible that the sand might not behave as predicted and that a large volume of sand could move into a sensitive biological habitat for a period that was long enough to result in permanent surfgrass loss or long-term cover of reefs. Therefore, shallow subtidal surfgrass beds off San Clemente Beach shall be monitored to document whether any long-term degradation that can be attributed to the proposed action occurs.

In addition to partial burial of surfgrass, offshore movement of sediment may result in filling in some holes and crevices in the shallow subtidal that are used by lobsters. These shallow subtidal reef areas are periodically covered and uncovered by sand naturally (i.e., in the absence of a beach nourishment project). The beach fill from this alternative would have only minimal effects on the considerable reef area near the end of San Clemente Pier and would not degrade that habitat for lobsters. Temporary degradation of a limited amount of inshore lobster habitat would not be significant.

Because the movement of sediment in the Oceanside littoral cell is primarily downcoast, burial of rocky intertidal habitat at Mariposa Point is highly unlikely. Similarly, the kelp bed areas are far enough offshore that little sediment from the proposed beach fill would be likely to reach them. Impacts to rocky intertidal habitat or kelp beds is expected to be less than significant.

Periodic renourishment at San Clemente would occur approximately every 6 years. The impacts of renourishment to sensitive habitats would be similar to those of initial placement. Effects, if any, are expected to be transitory and within natural variation. Because observations of other beach fill projects have documented that observed effects on sensitive habitats last between six months and two years, maintenance renourishment at a frequency of every 6 years would not be expected to result in permanent degradation of sensitive habitats. Sensitive habitats should be monitored to document any effects that may occur from beach renourishment. If impacts to surfgrass are observed, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified. If long-term impacts still are observed after modifying renourishment, then renourishment would not occur again until impacted surfgrass has recovered or mitigation is implemented.

Mitigation Measures:

MM-BR-50-2.1: An underwater survey for kelp and surfgrass shall be conducted by marine biologists prior to the initiation of beach fill activities. Based on the survey, a mooring location and a pipeline route shall be selected that minimizes contact with surfgrass and kelp habitat. If kelp and surfgrass cannot be avoided completely, immediately following beach fill activities, 191
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-41
another survey of the mooring and pipeline areas shall be conducted to determine whether kelp and surfgrass were damaged. If substantial damage to surfgrass or kelp occurs, an additional survey shall be conducted six months after the beach fill to determine if kelp and surfgrass have recovered. If substantial damage to kelp and eelgrass is still observed, restoration of habitat shall be implemented in consultation with the resource agencies.

MM-BR-50-2.2: Shallow subtidal surfgrass beds in the vicinity of San Clemente Beach shall be monitored to determine whether the proposed action adversely affects shallow subtidal reefs and surfgrass. Underwater transects shall be established offshore and downcoast from the proposed receiver beach. Control transects also shall be established upcoast of the project area. The transects shall be monitored by qualified biologists before and after the proposed action to determine whether the beach fill results in a long-term loss of surfgrass and/or reef habitat. The mitigation and monitoring plan is included as Appendix B. If adverse significant impacts to surfgrass and/or reef habitat compared to controls and baseline conditions are observed from the monitoring, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse significant impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, additional renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass has recovered or compensatory mitigation is completed. Compensatory mitigation will consist of the creation of shallow rocky habitat in the Project area at a site to be determined in consultation with NOAA Fisheries and CDFG. Rocky reef habitat will be created in the Project area at a ratio of 1 acre of rocky reef habitat created for 1 acre of rocky reef habitat buried. If the monitoring determines that surfgrass has been affected by the Project, an experimental surfgrass restoration will be implemented. A successful method to transplant surfgrass has not been demonstrated, but recent studies by researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, have demonstrated some success restoring surfgrass using sprigs (Bull et al 2004).

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts:

If a substantial amount of surfgrass were lost, impacts may remain significant even with mitigation. Although the beach fill sand would be expected to move out of the equilibrium footprint within 6 years, because models are not precise, it is not clear if surfgrass would recover.

If adverse significant impacts to surfgrass are observed from the monitoring, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse significant impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, additional renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass has recovered or and compensatory mitigation is completed. A consistently successful method to transplant surfgrass has not yet been devised, although recent experiments may provide new options. Potential mitigation, if necessary, is described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Appendix B).

Impact BR-50-3: Substantial impedance to the breeding, movement or migration of fish or wildlife.

The waters offshore San Clemente Beach are used for migration by gray whales. It is expected that gray whales would avoid the immediate vicinity of the dredge area. There is evidence of 192
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-42
marine mammals avoiding dredging operations (Richardson et al. 1995). Because the noise, turbidity and disturbance of dredging would be limited the immediate area surrounding the dredging activities, the area gray whales will avoid would consist of a small portion of the gray whale migration area. Therefore, dredging would not result in a substantial impedance to the movement or migration of gray whales or other marine mammals that may be migrating through the area.

Grunion may use the beach at San Clemente for spawning. This fish lays its eggs in the high intertidal zone between March and August. The beach fill will not occur during the grunion spawning season. Therefore, beach construction would not impact grunion.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact BR-50-4: Substantial loss to the population of any native fish, wildlife or vegetation.

For the purpose of this analysis substantial is defined as a change in a population that is detectable over natural variability for a period of five years or more.

Offshore Dredging
Most of the benthic invertebrates within the area dredged from offshore Oceanside would be killed by the dredging. The borrow sites demensions are large enough in which benthics invertebrates will ingress from other near source populations. The borrow site (Borrow Area 2), located offshore Oceanside (shown in Figure 3-1) is approximately 940 acres, with a 128 acre area instead the borrow site (Borrow Area 2A) that contains the more desirable material. Some mobile organisms such as crabs may escape the dredge. Recovery of the benthic invertebrate community would be expected to begin almost immediately with settlement of larvae and immigration of mobile species from nearby unaffected areas. Recovery of the infaunal community to values comparable to pre-dredging levels may occur in as little time as six months or as long as two years, with an average of about one year (CSLC, USFWS, and USACE 2001).

In some studies, diversity and abundance of benthic invertebrates increased after dredging after a short recovery period. Periodic sampling following the 1990 dredging of the Surfside/Sunset borrow site off Orange County initially found fewer macroinvertebrates than undredged control areas, but within less than 1 year there were no differences compared to control areas (Chambers Group 1992). The Surfside/Sunset borrow site was excavated again in 1997. Biological sampling of the site in 1999 observed more macroinvertebrate species and a greater abundance of organisms at the borrow site compared to nearby control areas (D. Diener, MEC Analytical Systems, personal communication 2000). Chambers Group (1996) sampled a borrow pit within Long Beach Harbor and found that the abundance, number of taxa, and species composition within the borrow site was similar to that in shallower areas outside the pit. The impact of dredging on invertebrates is not significant because the affected area would be small and the biota would recover quickly. There would not be a discernible impact on the population of any species.
193
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-43
Fishes would be expected to avoid the dredging area during dredging operations. Fish sampling was conducted following dredging in Marina del Rey Harbor and an unusually low number of fish species was collected compared to pre-dredging surveys (Soule et al. 1993). The investigators concluded that the dredging had disturbed the fishes. Within a few months, the number of fish species collected returned to pre-dredging levels. Laboratory studies have found that all life stages of estuarine and coastal fishes can survive high levels of turbidity for 24 hours or more (La Salle et al. 1991, Clarke and Wilber 2000). Fishes within the Oceanside source site would not be expected to be exposed to high enough sediment concentrations for long enough duration to suffer lethal or sublethal effects. Avoidance of the immediate dredging area and the turbidity plume generated during dredging would not be a significant impact on fishes. There would be no discernible impact on the population of any fish species.

Dredging at the Oceanside borrow site will temporarily reduce the invertebrate prey base for fishes such as turbots and white croakers that feed on benthic invertebrates. Recovery of the benthic invertebrate community is expected to take less than a year. Temporary degradation of a relatively small amount of foraging habitat is not expected to have a significant impact on fishes.

Surveys of the Surfside/Sunset borrow site off Orange County found fewer fish immediately following a 1990 dredging episode, but within less than a year there were no differences compared to control areas (Chambers Group 1992). Sampling of the Surfside/Sunset borrow area in 1999 following a 1997 dredging episode detected a greater number of fish species, but lower total fish abundance at the borrow site compared to control areas (D. Diener, MEC Analytical Systems, personal communication 2000). Temporary reduction of the prey base within a small portion of the foraging habitat for bottom-feeding fishes would not be a significant impact. There would be no discernible impact on the population of any fish species.

The Oceanside borrow site is not located near any marine mammal breeding sites or important haul out, foraging, or congregating areas. The offshore habitat in the vicinity of Oceanside experiences a high level of vessel activity and considerable natural turbidity. Temporary disturbance to a small portion of the habitat of marine mammals would not have a significant impact. There would be no discernible impact on the population of any marine mammal species.

Sand Placement
Discharge of offshore sand onto receiver beaches would bury intertidal invertebrates living in the sand of receiver beaches. Most studies have found that the diversity, biomass, and abundance of sandy intertidal invertebrates declines following beach nourishment but that the community recovers within a few months (Ray and Clarke 2001, Parr et al 1978). Therefore, the effects of beach nourishment on sandy intertidal invertebrates would not be expected to be significant.

The proposed placement of sediments behind a dike would reduce the suspended sediment concentrations in the discharge. Nearshore fishes are highly unlikely to be exposed to suspended sediment concentrations that would have lethal or sublethal effects. Because the turbidity would be limited in extent and would be confined to the naturally turbid surf zone and rip current areas, significant impacts of turbidity to nearshore fishes are unlikely. Some fishes may avoid the turbid areas. Temporary turbidity within a limited area in the vicinity of the surf zone would not 194
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-44
have a discernible impact on the population of any fish species, and impacts would not be significant.

It is expected that shorebirds will avoid the immediate areas where people and equipment are constructing the beach. Chambers Group (2005) monitored dredging of a sand bar in the Talbert Channel in Huntington Beach and placement of the dredged sand in the upper intertidal of the adjacent beach. Shorebirds avoided the immediate areas where the dredging and disposal activities were occurring but foraged undisturbed in the mid- to lower intertidal on the adjacent beaches. However, AMEC (2002) noted that during the SANDAG project some shorebirds (e.g., sandpipers, godwits, curlews) were present on the receiver sites during beach discharge of sediments. Gulls were attracted to the discharge and fed on invertebrates and fishes that were in the dredged material as it was being pumped to the beach. Because beach nourishment activities would be confined to the immediate vicinity of construction activities within a limited beach fill area, avoidance of the beach fill area by shorebirds would not be a significant impact. There would be no discernible impact to the population of any species.

Turbidity plumes generated during beach fill operations at the receiver sites could interfere with foraging by visually-feeding birds such as gulls, terns, pelicans and cormorants. However, turbidity plumes would be expected to be confined primarily to the naturally turbid surf zone and associated rip currents. Therefore, the impacts of turbidity from the discharge of sediments to receiver beaches would not be expected to be significant.

Shorebirds that forage in the intertidal could be affected if beachfill resulted in a substantial loss of their invertebrate prey base. However, as discussed above, the sandy intertidal invertebrate community has been observed to recover from sand burial within a few months (Ray and Clarke 2001, Parr et al. 1978). Beach fill would occur only on a limited portion of the available sandy beach in the San Clemente area. Therefore, the proposed action is not expected to have a significant impact on the prey base for shorebirds. The greater amount of sand on San Clemente Beach following beach nourishment would be expected to have a beneficial effect on marine birds by increasing resting habitat. The SANDAG project appeared to have had a positive effect on bird use of receiver beaches in Encinitas (SAIC 2005). Prior to beach nourishment, few birds were observed on beaches with extensive cobble cover or shallow sand depths in the upper and middle intertidal zones. Following beach nourishment, the total number of bird species and bird abundance increased on receiver sites and was higher than on non-receiver sites. The increase in bird use at the sand placement sites following beach nourishment was thought to be a result of the greater beach widths created by the beach nourishment project. Similarly CZR Incorporated (2003) found that resting behavior of laughing gulls and royal terns increased following beach nourishment in North Carolina, although feeding behavior by gulls and terns did not change following beach nourishment. The behavioral data suggested that gulls and terns increased the percentage of their time spent resting after beach nourishment probably because of the greater available beach space. However, CZR Incorporated found little evidence that the North Carolina beach nourishment project affected shorebird abundance.

Most of the turbidity would be confined to the naturally turbid surf zone and associated rip currents. Bottlenose dolphins are the marine mammal most likely to occur within the surf zone.

Because of the limited area affected by Project-generated turbidity plumes in relationship to the 195
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-45
much wider foraging area of marine mammals, beach nourishment at the receiver sites would not have a significant impact on marine mammals.

Impacts to marine organisms from renourishment, approximately every 6 years, would be similar to those of initial beach construction. Each renourishment event would involve approximately 251,000 cy (192,000 m3
) for an estimated eight renourishment cycles over the Project life.

Because invertebrate communities in the dredge and beach placement areas would be expected to recover in between six months and two years, a substantial loss in these invertebrate populations would not be expected to occur. Other impacts of dredging and beach fill, including temporary disturbance and turbidity, are short term and would not cause substantial population losses. The impacts of renourishment on marine populations would not be significant.

Mitigation Measure: None.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact BR-50-5: Substantial adverse impact on Essential Fish Habitat As discussed in Section 4.4.2.5, the Project area includes Essential Fish Habitat that supports numerous species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act. Surfgrass and kelp forests are particularly important habitats for many fishes because these areas provide food and shelter. Potential impacts of the proposed action to these sensitive biological habitats were discussed under Impact BR-50-2. Mitigation Measure MM-BR-50-2.1 would insure that mooring of the hopper dredge and temporary placement of a pipeline to pump sand to the beach would not occur within significant kelp or surfgrass habitat.

Cross shore movement of sand from the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative would not impact kelp habitat, but may have some impacts to surfgrass. The predicted sand increase from the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative likely would be within the range tolerated by surfgrass without substantial loss. However, Mitigation Measure BR-50-2 would be implemented to monitor surfgrass and mitigate impacts if any occur.

Impact BR-50-3 discusses potential impact of beach construction to grunion spawning. The proposed beach construction would not impact grunion spawning because it would occur outside the grunion spawning season of March to August.

The impacts to fishes of dredging at the Oceanside borrow site and turbidity that may occur in nearshore waters during discharge of dredged sediments to the beach are discussed under Impact BR-50-4. Impacts to EFH of these activities would be of short duration and limited spatial extent. The benthic invertebrate community, which is the prey base for many fish species, would recover in-between renourishment events, which would occur approximately every 6 years. A substantial adverse impact on EFH would not occur and impacts would not be significant.

Mitigation Measures: Implement MM-BR-50-2.1 and MM-BR-50-2.2.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts:
196
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-46
If a substantial amount of surfgrass were lost, impacts may remain significant even with mitigation. Although the beach fill sand would be expected to move out of the equilibrium footprint within 6 years, it is not clear if surfgrass would recover. If adverse significant impacts to surfgrass are observed from the monitoring, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse significant impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, additional renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass has recovered or compensatory mitigation is completed. A consistently successful method to transplant surfgrass has not yet been devised, although recent experiments may provide new options. Potential mitigation, if necessary, is described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Appendix B).

5.4.3 Impacts Related to the 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative Impact BR-115-1: A direct adverse effect on the population of a special status listed species or the loss or disturbance of important habitat for a listed species.

Impacts of the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative on special status species would be similar to those of the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative. Turbidity potentially could affect foraging by California least terns. California least terns breed on the beaches of Camp Pendleton near the Oceanside borrow area. Because the Project would occur outside of the least tern breeding season, turbidity generated during dredging would not affect them.

Western snowy plovers do not breed near San Clemente Beach and rarely forage there. Because San Clemente Beach is not important habitat for snowy plovers, if one or two individuals were temporarily disturbed by beach construction, the impact would not be significant.

Mitigation Measures: None.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact BR-115-2: A long-term net loss in the habitat value of a sensitive biological habitat.

For the purposes of this analysis, kelp beds, surfgrass beds, and well developed rocky intertidal are considered sensitive biological habitats.

Figure 4-10 shows the construction and equilibrium footprints for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative in relationship to surfgrass and kelp in the Project area. The sand placement footprint does not include any kelp beds, surfgrass, or rocky intertidal areas. Therefore, no direct impacts to sensitive habitats would occur from the placement of sand on the beach. Like the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, placement of a mono buoy and a temporary pipeline on the bottom potentially could damage sensitive biological resources like kelp and surfgrass. Impacts may be reduced to not significant by avoiding the placement of these temporary structures in sensitive habitats.
197
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-47
Following initial placement, a portion of the sand may move upcoast, downcoast, and offshore depending on the magnitude, direction, and period of waves. Figure 3-3 shows the equilibrium footprint of the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative. Beach fill from the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative is not expected to extend upcoast as far as the significant rocky intertidal habitat at Mariposa Point. Therefore, like the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would not have a significant impact to rocky intertidal habitat.

Figure 5-3 shows the cross-section of the equilibrium footprint of the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative at T-Street reef. The equilibrium profile suggests that the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative will result in burial impacts of the entire reef. The shallow portions of the reef may be buried by over a meter of sand (about 4 feet). This level of sedimentation would result in at least partial burial of all of the shallow surfgrass in the inshore portions of the reef. On the offshore portions of the reef, burial impacts would be expected to range from partial burial to complete burial. Therefore, the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative has the potential to result in substantial burial of surfgrass over the entire reef with likely significant impacts on the surfgrass habitat. The sediment from the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would move out of the area in about 10 years. It is not known to what extent surfgrass would eventually recover if renourishment did not occur.

The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative also would result in sedimentation of considerable reef habitat that supports giant kelp, feather boa kelp, gorgonians, palm kelp and sparse surfgrass.

The burial of up to a meter or more of reef habitat may include some of the smaller rocks and prevent the recruitment of kelp. The sedimentation also may kill gorgonians and fill in crevices used by lobster. The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative, thus, has the potential to result in significant degradation of high-value nearshore reef habitat. Degradation of reef habitat that supports sensitive biological resources would be a significant adverse impact.

Although biological monitoring of beach fill projects has indicated that previous beach fills have resulted in minor temporary impacts on sensitive habitat, the monitored projects involved beach fills with substantially smaller volumes of sediment than the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative that would place 586,000 cy (448,000 m3
) on San Clemente Beach. It is likely that the greater
volume of sediment would result in greater impacts and that those impacts may be more persistent. It is not known to what extent resources would recover, if at all, between maintenance events scheduled to occur every 10 years for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative.

Even if renourishment did not occur, the ability of resources to recover from the predicted burial impacts is unknown.

Mitigation Measures: Implement MM-BR-50-2.1 and MM-BR-50-2.2 Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts
If a substantial amount of surfgrass were lost or if significant burial occurred within the kelp bed near San Clemente Pier, impacts may be significant even with mitigation. Although the beach fill sand would be expected to move out of the equilibrium footprint within 10 years, because models are not precise, it is not clear if surfgrass and high value reef habitat would recover. If adverse significant impacts to surfgrass are observed from the monitoring, subsequent 198
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-48
nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse significant impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, additional renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass has recovered or compensatory mitigation is completed. A consistently successful method to transplant surfgrass has not yet been devised, although recent experiments may provide new options. Potential mitigation, if necessary, is described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Appendix B).

Impact BR-115-3: Substantial impedance to the breeding, movement or migration of fish or wildlife.

Like the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would not interfere with the migration of whales or other marine mammals. Because beach construction would not occur during the grunion spawning season of March through August, the Project would not impact grunion spawning.

Mitigation Measures: None
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact BR-115-4: Substantial loss to the population of any native fish, wildlife or vegetation.

For the purpose of this analysis substantial is defined as a change in a population that is detectable over natural variability for a period of five years or more.

With the exception of impacts to surfgrass and high value reefs discussed under Impact BR

5.4.3-2, the impacts of offshore dredging and sand placement on fish, wildlife and vegetation would be the same for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative as for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative. Dredging at the Oceanside borrow side and placement of sand on the beach at San Clemente would be a temporary disturbance that would not result in substantial loss to the population of any native fish wildlife or vegetation. The 115 ft Beach Width Alternative would require a longer construction period than the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative, but renourishment would occur less frequently (every 10 years compared to every 6 years for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative).

Mitigation Measures: None.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts: None
Impact BR-115-5: Substantial adverse impact on Essential Fish Habitat Surfgrass and kelp forests are particularly important habitats for many fishes because these areas provide food and shelter. Potential impacts of the proposed action to these sensitive biological habitats were discussed under Impact BR-50-2. Mitigation Measure MM-BR-50-2.1 would insure that mooring of the hopper dredge and temporary placement of a pipeline to pump sand to the beach would not occur within significant kelp or surfgrass habitat. 199
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-49
The offshore movement of the sand placed on the beach for the 115 ft Beach Width Alternative is likely to result in significant burial impacts to surfgrass and high value reef habitat that supports kelp beds. Mitigation Measure MM-BR-50-2.2 would provide for monitoring and mitigation to address those impacts. However, it is unknown if the affected habitats would fully recover and if the mitigation (creation of reef habitat and an experimental surfgrass transplant) would fully replace the lost habitats especially surfgrass, which is difficult to restore.

Impact BR-115-3 discusses potential impact of beach construction to grunion spawning. The proposed beach construction would not impact grunion spawning because it would occur outside the grunion spawning season of March to August.

The impacts to fishes of dredging at the Oceanside borrow site and turbidity that may occur in nearshore waters during discharge of dredged sediments to the beach are discussed under Impact BR-115-4. Impacts to EFH of these activities would be of short duration and limited spatial extent. The benthic invertebrate community, which is the prey base for many fish species, would recover in-between renourishment, which would occur approximately every 10 years. A substantial adverse impact on EFH would not occur and impacts would not be significant.

Mitigation Measures: Implement MM-BR-50-2.1 and BR-50-2.2.

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts:

If a substantial amount of surfgrass were lost or if significant burial occurred within the kelp bed near San Clemente Pier, impacts may remain significant even after mitigation. Although the beach fill sand would be expected to move out of the equilibrium footprint within 10 years, it is not clear if surfgrass and high value reef habitat would recover. If adverse significant impacts to surfgrass are observed from the monitoring, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse significant impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, additional renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass has recovered or compensatory mitigation is completed. A consistently successful method to transplant surfgrass has not yet been devised, although recent experiments may provide new options. Potential mitigation, if necessary, is described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Appendix B).

5.4.4 Impacts Related to the No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, none of the impacts associated with offshore dredging and beach construction would occur. There would be no potential for turbidity plumes that may be generated during Project-related dredging off Oceanside or beach placement to temporarily impact bird foraging. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no potential for organisms at the borrow site or on the beach at San Clemente to be disturbed temporarily by beach nourishment activities.
200
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-50
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no potential for sensitive surfgrass or kelp habitat to be damaged by the placement of mooring anchors or the submerged pipeline. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no potential for sediment dredged off Oceanside and placed on the beach at San Clemente to migrate into sensitive shallow subtidal habitats and bury rocks and surfgrass. However, rocks and surfgrass in the San Clemente area still could be subjected to sand inundation from natural sediment movement and/or other projects that discharge sediment to the beach or nearshore zone.

Under the No Action Alternative, the beach area in the vicinity of San Clemente would continue to be depleted of sand. The narrow beach would reduce foraging opportunities for the western snowy plover and other shorebirds. The impacts of a reduced beach width would not be significant because snowy plovers do not breed near San Clemente, and San Clemente Beach is not an important wintering habitat for them. The reduced beach width would not have a discernible impact on the population of any shorebird species. A narrow beach at San Clemente also would reduce the amount of spawning habitat available for grunion. Although opportunities for grunion spawning are limited, it is unlikely that narrowing of the beach at San Clemente would have a discernible impact on the grunion population.

Under the No Action Alternative, it is likely that emergency seawalls would be constructed to protect structures. These emergency seawalls would result in a reduction of beach space for birds and upper beach invertebrates. This limited loss of beach space for bird foraging and roosting and invertebrates would not be a significant impact.

5.4.5 Summary of Biological Resources Effects and Issues During the DEIS/R review process, and in preparing the FWCA CAR, several issues were raised by regulatory resources agencies: FWS/Carlsbad, NMFS/Long Beach, CDFG/Region V Marine Division, and EPA. The most important of these, discussed below, are:

1. Baseline biological surveys

2. Mitigation ratios

3. Opportunistic beach nourishment

4. Upfront mitigation funds and implementation

5.4.5.1 Baseline biological surveys
The FEIS/R uses the best available scientific data for the subject analysis. As noted in the FEIS/R, 25 transects were established and monitored by recognized experts and knowledgeable marine ecologists. These field data clearly capture the extent of rocky reef, single boulders, and surfgrass. The larger rocky reef was delineated by divers floating buoys to the surface demarcating the approximate edge of the reef and a biologist in a kayak at the surface recording GPS points of the surfaced buoys. Twelve GPS points delineated this reef, known as the TStreet Rocky Reef.

No data exists that depicts or illustrates the extent of rocky reef or surfgrass for the entire locale.

On 31 January 2011, two years after regular coordination meetings commenced, NMFS 201
Section 5.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Final San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 003 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5-51
recommended use of San Diego Nearshore Program data from the UC San Diego website. The Corps compared the Nearshore Program data from the UC San Diego website http://nearshore.ucsd.edu/, and found the data justify and compliment the Corps mapped distribution of rocky reef and single boulders. Figure 4-10 and Figure 5-7 through Figure 5-9 illustrate the comparison of the US Army, Corps of Engineers San Clemente Shoreline rocky reef and surfgrass vegetation to the University of California, San Diego, Nearshore Mapping Program.

These figures show the Corps surfgrass survey results along with the outer T- Street reef in comparison to the Nearshore Program data from the UC San Diego web site. Comparison reveals that the large kelp bed mapping by the Corps (see Figure 4.4-2 in the FEIS/R) is more detailed and in the same geographic distribution alignment as the UCSD Nearshore program raster data. Furthermore, the Corps data is much more detailed in its distribution from the shoreline to a line 500 feet off-shore. The UCSD Nearshore data has little, if any, data with the same area distance.

While the Corps acknowledges that there are scattered rocks within and outside the equilibrium footprint, the total acreages of these scattered rocks is not enough to change the analysis.

Furthermore, field sampling indicates that the surfgrass in this vicinity inhabits and is growing on 1 to 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m) boulders, and has average blade lengths of 2 to 3 ft (0.6 to 0.9 m).

Nevertheless, during the PED phase, the Corps may utilize the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center’s (ERDC) Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Early Warning System (SAVEWS), discussed below, to refine this analysis.

The Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Early Warning System (SAVEWS) is a semi-automated acoustic-based measurement system that can detect and characterize submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) while operating from a small survey boat. It uses an off-the-shelf digital echo sounder, with a narrow single-beam high-frequency transducer, and global positioning system (GPS) equipment to digitally record echo intensity and position data on a laptop. Software developed at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC-EL) processes the distinct signature of SAV within the recorded signal to determine depth, plant height, and plant coverage every few meters along transect lines.