San Clemente City Council
July 18, 2023

September 30, 2010
the Department submits the following concerns and recommendations regarding the project.

General Comments
The Department wants to stress the importance that the project be designed carefully in order to primarily avoid adverse biological impacts to sensitive marine species to the maximum extent possible. Our concerns relate to potential impacts to rocky reefs, surfgrass, marine algae, and the fish and invertebrate communities that utilize these for critical habitat. Many marine species, such as rockfish, Sebastes spp, and other fish species managed under the Department’s Nearshore Fishery Management Plan (NFMP), use these important habitats for breeding, shelter, spawning, foraging and resting. The NFMP species are found primarily in rocky reef or kelp habitat in nearshore waters. A list and description of NFMP fish species can be found on the Department’s website at www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/nfmp/pdfs/section1_chap2.pdf. Additionally, the federally endangered black abalone, Haliotis cracherodii, and several other abalone species could occur in the project area inhabiting kelp and rocky reef habitats.

The California spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus, a recreationally and commercially important species, also inhabits the project area. Lobsters rely upon the reefs and surfgrass in the area for spawning, foraging and shelter.

Specific Comments
Project Alternatives
In order to reduce risk and protect important offshore sensitive species and habitats, the Department recommends that the alternatives analysis be modified to include analysis of a more conservative alternative, such as a reduced quantity of sand for the project or a different deposition location on the beach. Kelp and rocky reefs in the project area are critical habitat for the black abalone, and surfgrass habitat is essential for spawning and as a nursery for juvenile fish, lobsters and other invertebrates. Additionally, surfgrass and kelp provide root system structure that helps to stabilize sand.

Mitigation Plan
The DEIS/DEIR proposes a surfgrass compensatory mitigation plan for an experimental surfgrass transplantation contingent upon unexpected adverse impacts, such as a significant loss of surfgrass area or reduction in density of surfgrass mats. There is no indication in the DEIS/DEIR of a secondary plan if the experimental surfgrass transplant is not successful. The Department suggests that a back up mitigation plan should be available in the event that the experimental surfgrass transplant does not succeed. Additionally, habitat compensation and the criteria for triggering compensatory mitigation should be further discussed and agreed upon with the Department and other resource 889
Thomas Keeney

September 30, 2010
agencies. The Department will continue to work with the Corps to develop adequate mitigation and monitoring plans that will sufficiently avoid and minimize the risk of burial and other adverse impacts to sensitive species and habitats.

Monitoring Plans
There are two mitigation and monitoring plans presented in the DEIS/DEIR for surfgrass habitat; one for the offshore reefs, referred to as MM-BR-50-2.2, and one for the habitats along the mooring and slurry pipeline route on the sea floor, referred to as MM-BR-50-2.1. The Department concurs that these two areas will need baseline surveys conducted prior to the project and post construction surveys that monitor for significant damages or degradation of surfgrass, kelp and reef habitat. The Department always advises that avoidance measures be used first and to the maximum extent practicable. The DEIS/DEIR minimization plan for surfgrass and kelp suggests that the Corps has already determined that avoidance measures are not feasible. However, the Department believes that the mooring and sea floor pipeline plan could be revised so that the routes avoid impacts completely. The Department is willing to work with the Corps to discuss and develop an alternative pipeline route. The MM-BR-50-2.2 surfgrass and reef habitat mitigation and monitoring plan of the DEIS/DEIR is limited to pre- and post- construction, with no monitoring during construction. The Department believes that it is appropriate to monitor surfgrass and reefs during the construction activities because of the uncertainty of adverse impacts predicted in the DEIS/DEIR.

The Department’s recommendation for additional monitoring to avoid potential impacts is based mainly on the fact that there has not been consistent success from surfgrass transplantation projects in the past. Additionally, the best available transplantation techniques for surfgrass are still considered experimental at this time. The Department also recommends that if monitoring during the sand deposition indicates signs of adverse effects (i.e. significant burial) to surfgrass and/or reef habitat, then construction activity should be stopped and re-evaluated before permanent damages are done. The project could continue with possible modifications, such as re-locating the deposition area on the beach, to avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Monitoring should continue to evaluate the effectiveness of any modifications to project activities. A revised monitoring plan should incorporate these recommendations.

Reporting
Reporting procedures are lacking from all plans. The Department expects to receive all survey and monitoring reports, within three to five days for preliminary results and 30 days for final reports, in order to have time to review and respond to potential impacts to marine habitats.
890
Thomas Keeney

September 30, 2010
As always, Department personnel are available to discuss our concerns, comments, and recommendations in greater detail. To arrange a discussion, please contact Ms. Loni Adams, Environmental Scientist, Marine Region, located at 4949 Viewridge Ave, San Diego, CA 92123 or by telephone at (858) 627-3985 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Marija Vojkovich
Regional Manager
Marine Region
cc: Mr. Bryant Chesney
National Marine Fisheries Service
501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213
Ms. Jennifer Wise
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Mr. James Munson
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Ms. Vicki Frey
Department of Fish and Game
619 2nd Street
Eureka, CA 95501
Ms. Loni Adams
Department of Fish and Game
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
891
-----Original Message-----
From: Bonigut, Tom [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 8:05 AM
To: Schlosser, Heather R SPL
Cc: Johnson, Joseph A SPL
Subject: San Clemente study questions
Heather and Joe:

Just passing along several following questions that City staff have raised about the study and proposed project. Maybe some of this is addressed in the reports, but I wanted to share with you to make sure one way or the other we do address these issues:

1. Sand compatibility and acceptability. Is there a QA/QC process to ensure that the borrow site sand will be suitable for placement on San Clemente beaches, and if for some reason it is not, what is the backup plan for borrow sites? This is a really important one, as we are receiving feedback that the Oceanside borrow site does not provide quality beach sand, and that a borrow site further site (name escapes me) is actually better.

2. Beach monitoring. Is there any discussion about what we think would happen to beaches south of the project area? I.e. since there is a net southward sand movement, what might happen to those beaches and surf breaks?
Would or should the monitoring plan address some of those areas too? We certainly need to ensure, to the extent possible, that we don’t impact surf breaks south of the project area.

3. Can the discussion about the reference line for the project be improved? It’s unclear to some what the starting point is for determining where the 15-meter beach width starts? Is it fixed throughout the project area (e.g. some offset from the rail line), or does it vary according to some other criterion? Also, is it fixed in time according to current conditions? I.e. what if our beach erodes significantly between now and the time an actual project is constructed? Will the beach berm width reference line be shifted also, or would the project be as described currently? Is it possible to define a seaward project limit instead of using a reference line that could change over time? No rush, but please call whenever convenient and I can further elaborate on this questions. Thanks.

Tom Bonigut, P.E.

Assistant City Engineer
City of San Clemente - Public Works Dept.
910 Calle Negocio, Suite 100
San Clemente, CA 92673
(949) 361-6187
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
892
NATIONAL OFFICE P O BOX 6010 SAN CLEMENTE CA 92674 6010 
)-
&
+
B@4
B@A@

+6
!(&,

'
2

+(#

-

(%( ",-4
%''"'
"/","('

66
+&2
(+),
(
' "'

+,
7



--'5
!(&,
6

'
2

66
(1
ECBGAA

(,
'
%
,4

HB@EC7BCBE

"

&"%5
!(&,66

'
2?.,

6+&26&"%

+6

'
27

!'$
2(.
(+
-!

())(+-.'"-2
-(

(&&
'-
('
+-

("'-
'/"+('&
'-%

&)
-

--
&
'-<'/"+('&
'-%

&)
-

)(+-
=+-

<
>
(+
-!

'
%
&
'-


!(+
%"'


,""%"-2
-.
2
"'
-!

"-2
(
'
%
&
'-
4
%"(+'"6

!

.++"

+

(.'
-"('
",

'('7)+("-

'/"+('&
'-%
(+ '"3-"('

"
-

-(
-!

)+(-

-"('

'


'#(2&
'-
(
-!

0(+%
9,
(

',4
0/
,
'



!
,6

"-!
(.+
%(%

"'
'

%
&
'-

'



"
-

%(
%
&
&
+,!")
(
-!(.,'
,4
0

+

)+-"
.%+%2

,
',"-"/

-(
-!

&'
&
'-
(
'
%
&
'-
9,
,!(+
%"'
6

,
,.
!4
0

!/



'

' 

"'
-!

/
%()&
'-
(
-!",
)+(#

-
(+
'
+%2




6






%"
/

-!-
-!


(&)%
-"('
(
-!",

<

",
,"&)%2
-!

,-+-"'
)("'-
(+


",
.,,"('
-!-
'

,
-(


!
%

0"-!"'
(.+

"-2
('
-!


,-
02
-(


+
,,
%(' 7
-
+&
,!(+
%"'


!'
6


!()

-!-
-!


"-2
0"%%

/
%()

&(+

+(.,-

(,-%

&'
&
'-
)%'
-!-


+
,,
,
-!

+((-

.,
,
(
,!(+
%"'


+(,"('
'

--
&)-,

-(
&'

(.+

(,-
"'


(,-7

-"/

'


'/"+('&
'-%%2
,
',"-"/

&''
+
-!-

+
%

-,
-!

,
',""%"-"
,
(
(.+

(&&.'"-26

!


(&&"-&
'-
-(

E@72
+
)+(#

-

0"-!
-!

66
+&2
(+),
(
' "'

+,
",

,
+"(.,
.'

+-$"'
0"-!
,
+"(.,
",
%4

'/"+('&
'-%
'

,(
"%
"&)%"
-"(',6

!-
",
-!

/","('
0

!/

(+
(.+

(,-8


!-

(
0

0'-
"-
-(
%(($
%"$

'

!(0
!
%-!2

(
0

0'-
(.+


!
,
'

%.,

-(


0!
'
(.+

!"%
+
'9,

!"%
+
'
+

,)%,!"'
"'
-!

0/
,8



'(+-.'-
%2
0

!/

2
-
-(
,

(.+

"-2
!/

-!-

",
.,,"('
'

0

!()

-!-
-!


)(-
'-"%
)+(#

-
0

+


(&&
'-"'
('

.++
'-%2
0"%%
!
%)
-(
"',-" -

"-6







*%+




 

# 






















"

893
r,a
Sur.ftider
Foundation®
!


(
.&
'-
,--
,5
: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.” It is unclear what “private property” is under threat by shoreline changes, and what protection it would be afforded by the proposed project. It is our understanding that all structures constructed west of the railroad within the project area are public facilities. It is important to describe the structures accurately as their storm-damage protection provides the economic benefits of such a project.
!",
%
$
(
)+"/-

)+()
+-2
,!(.%

%,(


+
%

-

"'


-"(',
B6A5
.+)(,

'




'

B6B5
+(#

-
#

-"/
6


+%*%+$















7






































#





"
,
'(-

4
-!

+"%+(


(++"
(+
!,
/+2"'
%
/
%,
(
!+

)+(-

-"('
%('
-!


)+(#

-
,-+
-
!6



-
-!

+"%+(

!,
,.

,,.%%2
&'

+(,"('
'

0/

--
$

",,.
,
(+
+
%-"/
%2
%(0

(,-6

!


(
.&
'-

(
,
'(-

1)%"
"-%2

,
+"

0!"
!

,

-"(',
+

&(+

-
+",$4
'(+
0!2
-!

)+
,.&)-"('
",
&

-!-

('-"'.

+(
$

)%

&
'-
0"%%
'(-


%%(0

"'
-!

.-.+
4
'

,,"--"'
-!

'

(+

!" !%2

' "'

+

'


(,-%2
,
0%%
,

,
+"

"'
(,-%
' "'

+"'
))
'
"14



-"('
D6D6

"/
'
-!-
-!

.%$
(
-!

('(&"

#.,-""
-"('
(+
-!",
)+(#

-
+
%"
,

('
-!",
)+-"
.%+
)+

"
-"('
(
.-.+


('
"-"(',4
"-
+
*."+
,

&(+

+(.,-

1)%'-"('6



-"('
D6D
,--
,5

“It will become mandatory for the SCRRA to construct seawalls in the future.

Project formulation indicates that due to evolving law and coastal structure construction regulations, the ability for the SCRRA to use revetment methods will expire.”

-4
-!

)+
/"(.,
%' .

0"-!"'
-!

,

-"('

(
,
'(-
,.))(+-
-!",
,--
&
'-6

'


"-"('4
-!",
)+(#

-

(
,
'(-

/
'

'
(&),,
-!

&(,-
-!+
-
'

)(+-"('
(

-!

+"%+(
4
,
+
,
-(
-!

'(+-!
=+")(,>
'

-(
-!

,(.-!
=%">
+

-
&.
!

!" !
+
+",$
(
0/

"&)
-

&
,4
2
-

!,
'(-
--
&)-

-(
"'
)
+&"-,
(+


)
+&'
'-
/
+-"
%
,
0%%
-
-!
,

,

-"(',6


+%*%,$
 

#



#

#


































$






%





"

!


(
.&
'-

%"&,
-!-

+(,"('
-!+
-
',
).%"

+
,-+((&,4
0!"
!

(.%

+
*."+


+
%(
-"('
"

+(,"('
-+
'
,

('-"'.
6


-
(
,
('
-(
,--

-!-
,.
!

+
%(
-"('

0(.%


.,


).%"

,
-2
",,.


.

-(
-!

+
,.%-'-
"'
+
,

"'
)

,-+"'
+"%+(


894

+(,,"' ,6

!",
)+
&",

",
"'
(++

-6

!

).%"

+
,-+((&,
0!"
!
+

%(
-

0
,-

(
-!

+"%+(
,
0"-!"'
-!

)+(#

-
+

(

.+
-
7-+

-
'

-!

"
+6

7-+

-

%+

2
!,

+"%+(

(/
+),,
)+
/
'-"'
'2

"+

-
)

,-+"'

+(,,"' ,6

!


"
+
%+

2
!,

+"%+(

.'

+),,
%%(0"'
,

),,


%(0
-!

+"%+(
6

'

4
'(
"'
+
,

"'
)

,-+"'

+(,,"' ,
'

(

.+
"
+
,-+((&

"%"-"
,
+


+
%(
-

,-
(
-!

+"%+(
6

-%,%-%,$


















-Documented processes do not support the need for the project !








,

-"('
,!(0,
-!-
-!

%(' 7-
+&
,

"&
'-
.

-
(+
-!",

,

-"('
",

,,
'-"%%2
"'

*."%"+".&4
0"-!
'
-

+(,"('

*.%"'
'
-


+
-"('6


!







,

-"('
%,(
"'
,
/+"%

'
-
)(,"-"/

'

'
-
'
-"/

!'
,
(-!
%('
,!(+

'

-!+(. !
-"&
6

!",
0(.%

"'
"
-

-!-
"'
-!

%('

-
+&
'
%
&
'-
9,
,!(+
%"'

",
'
+%2
.'
!'

4
'

-!-
,

"&
'-
%"$
%2
&(/
,

%(' ,!(+

"'
).%,
,
0"-!
)(+-"(',
(
-!


"-29,


!
,
+(0"'
0!"%

(-!
+,
+


,!+"'$"' 6

+-"
.%+%2
,-+"$"'
",
-!

*.(-
5
: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).” This is the period that experienced the strong 1983 El Nino winter storms, but which apparently survived with little net erosion.

The Recent Shoreline Change Rate attempts to show moderate shoreline width reductions, but is not consistent throughout the study area, with beach widening shown at Shorecliffs. There are also an extremely low number of data points (at least 12 years missing in the recent past) to be able to conclusively define the nature or extent of observed shoreline change. Because of this it is unclear if the single data point at the end of the time series represents a long term negative trend, or simply a perturbation in a highly active shoreline as seen in the first ten years of the time series. In other words, does the beach come and go with the weather and storm conditions, and we’re only observing a single point in time?




&.)&,$




"
!






'.)




!(





7




































"
!
+

",
)(-
'-"%
(+

/
+,

"&)
-,
('
,.+"'
,

,
+"

"'
-!",
,

-"('
,
0
%%

,
"'
-!

' "'

+"'
))
'
"1
=F6C6D>4
2
-
'(
&"-" -"('
&
,.+
,
+

)+(/"

6



!

AAE
-
%-
+'-"/

)+

"
-,

"'"-"/
%2

/
+,

"&)
-,
-(
0/


!+
-
+",-"
,

'


(
,
,.
,-
&('"-(+"'
(
,.+

('
"-"(',
(%%(0

2

#.,-&
'-
(

,.,
*.
'-
+
'(.+",!&
'-,
"
,.+"'
",

+

'


(
,
'(-
+

(/
+6

,

('

-!

,
+")-"('
(
)(-
'-"%
"&)
-,
0"-!"'
-!

' "'

+"'
))
'
"14
"'
)+-"
.%+4

-!
+

",

)(,,""%"-2
(
,
/
+

+
-"('
(
,.+"'
*.%"-26

,
,.
!4
0

+
*.
,-

-!-
&('"-(+"'
(
,.+"'
*.%"-2

(+

'

-
+

(',-+.
-"('


)+(/"

,

&"-" -"('
(
'2

!(,
'
)+(#

-4
"'
%.
"'
-!

E@
-
%-
+'-"/
6

(-
'-"%
"&)
-,

,

,
+"

(.%

)(,


," '""
'-

+
-"('
(
0/

*.%"-25
:!

,.+"'

1)
+"
'

&" !-

(',",-
(

'(+&%
:-$
7(4;
.-
-!
'
:
%(,
7(.-;
,
-!

0/

'
(.'-
+,
-!

,-+" !-
'

-!2&
-+"


('-(.+,
"',!(+
;
'

0(.%

#.,-"2
-!


895
'

(+
&('"-(+"'
'

&"-" -"('
"
-!
,

"&)
-,
+


1)
+"
'

6

'


"-"('4
&

-"'
'(-
,
"'
-!

))
'
"

,
,)

""
%%2
,--

-!-
&('"-(+"'
(

,.+"'
*.%"-2
",
-(


.'

+-$
'6

!",
'

,
-(


+
%

-

0"-!"'
-!

(
2
(
-!


"&)
-,
'%2,",6

!",
&('"-(+"'
'

&"-" -"('
,!(.%

+
%

-
-!


",
.,,"('
(

"&)
-,
+(&
-!

AAE
-
%-
+'-"/


%(06

- 























!























"

Within section Impact WR-50-3 and WR-115-3, there is no mention of surfing anywhere aside from T-Street. While T-Street is a consistently high-quality surfing area, surfing is often restricted there under “black ball” conditions when the lifeguards ban hard-board surfing for the bulk of the day during the summer. At these times surfing within the project stretch is restricted to the area directly north of the pier, causing the pier zone to become incrementally more valuable for use.



&
&**.&,%*$





"
!







'**.




!(

















"

'

+
-!

AAE
-
%-
+'-"/
4
"-
",

,-"&-

-!-
,.+"'
0/
,

(.%



," '""
'-%2

+

(+

)
+"(

(
A@
2
+,6

!",
",

2('

-!


,-"&-

)
+"(

(
+
-.+'
(+

.-.+

'(.+",!&
'-,6


'
%%(0'

(
A@
2
+,

+
-"('
'

&('"-(+"'

(+


.-.+

)%',
+


#.,-

",
.'

)-%
6

"&"%+
-(
,.+ +,,4

"+

-
&"-" -"('
(+

+

(',-+.
-"('
(
-!

+
,(.+

",
'(-

.++
'-%2
)(,,"%
4
'

'(
-"&

%%(-&
'-
",

)+(/"

(+
-!

,.++,,
&"-" -"('
=77AAE7B6A>


'


"-"('4
+-""
"%
,.+"'

+

,
+

'(-
/"%

,
&"-" -"('
(+
%(,-
,.+"'
+
,(.+

,4
'


+
-
+

&)!,",

('

/
+,

"&)
-
)+
/
'-"('
,!(.%



&

6

 "'4
-!'$
2(.
(+
-!

())(+-.'"-2
-(

(&&
'-6



%(($
(+0+

-(
.+-!
+

",
.,,"'
-!",
)+(#

-
-
-!


"-2
%
/
%6

"'

+
%24


+$
.,
!
+



!
&)" ',
'
+

896
From: Keeney, Thomas W SPL
To: Schlosser, Heather R SPL; West, Nathaniel ; Lisa Louie [email protected] Cc: Johnson, Joseph A SPL
Subject: FW: san clemente beach replenishment please confirm email Date: Friday, September 17, 2010 3:11:40 PM
Comment
thomas
P Please consider the environment before printing this message -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 10:10 AM
To: Keeney, Thomas W SPL
Subject: san clemente beach replenishmint please comfirm email 1 it seams ludicrous to replenish the beach sands with out promoting erosion and passive replenishment 2 if sands will migrates south may we please replenish north beach first thus supplying the pier area 2nd
3 if the near costal quarry's where relocated away would this not help with passive and aggressive replenishment of san clement ,capo beach, beaches & soils 4 are their plans to use the spoils from any excavation or tunneling up in the ortages ,For costal replenishment or building material .Thus using the spoils to replace native soils and or releasing and allowing to pass thru the quarry native soils to the shore 5 it seam important to keep up the allusion of success that a supply of sand can bring. with constant permits equipment and plans in place ,available and maintained for train transportation of sand and soils for the grooming and maintance of the costal resources. possibly hedging are bet and augmenting strategic and civil and possible emergency capabilities (the volley ball court is like playing on dull broken glass)train car loads are fairly efficient and affordable compared to truck loads. Possible improving the quality of soils from distant and local sources
6 lastly it seams to be a shame the energy used to harvest the soils do not seam to be of any beofitt in the first place
as in deepening a harbor or entrance improving wet lands or impoundments or importing away proofed soils from a site like Santa Ana river basin and flood control projects lastly thank you for your time and please comments on these questions and statements [email protected]
george gregory
139 avenida florencia-A
san clemente CA 92672
897
____________________________________________________________ My Credit Scores- Free
Click Here to See Your 3 FREE Credit Scores from All 3 Credit Bureaus! <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4c93a157e962ebd0c2fst04duc> freescore.com <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4c93a157e962ebd0c2fst04duc> 898
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:06 AM
To: Keeney, Thomas W SPL
Subject: San Clemente Beach Study Comments
Dear Representative:

I attended the August Beach Study meeting, here are some comments. 1) The train track running on top of San Clemente beaches is at the root of the problem.
2) It’s hard to believe an alternate rail route cannot be found – especially with the desire of Amtrak to increase rail traffic.
3) Experience has shown that sea walls accelerate beach erosion. The sea walls already built by Amtrak, to protect rail lines, are accelerating beach sand erosion. Why isn’t Amtrak being held responsible for its part in adding to the problem and mandated to help with sand replenishment costs? 4) We were told by the geologists that most all sand migrates southward; so why not add sand at North Beach? North Beach has been severely impacted and is in need of sand replenishment. Plus the sand eroded from North Beach would help to replenish sand on all San Clemente beaches as it migrates south. At the very least, sand could be deposited at North Beach and not in the T-street area – as sand will naturally move into that area from sand replenishment on beaches north of T-street.

Thank you,
Keith Aiken
899
900
..

September 14, 2010
Mr. Thomas Keeney
Planning Division
US Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 532711
Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325
Ref. San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study Comments
Dr. Mr. Keeney:

Please consider the below comments from a former City of San Clemente Lifeguard from 197 4 to 2001 .

would reduce the income to local visitor/tourist serving businesses, and loss of taxes and other revenues to the city, including bedroom taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes; and beach parking and beach concession revenues.

It does not include the added cost to provide lifeguard and other protective services to safely keep the public away from hazardous conditions and to protect, relocate or replace pubic improvements. Additionally, it does not speak to the potential liability or defense costs from lawsuits due to the injury or death to beach goers as the result of exposed natural and man-made dangers.

substrate and man-made. Page 10, Problem Statement, mentions reduces recreational space on an already space-limited beach. I would suggest that more emphasis be placed in both areas regarding the fact that the erosion not only causes a reduction of recreational space, but can present public dangers from exposed man-made and natural hard structures. This condition can make shoreline and offshore ocean areas unsafe, hence unusable by the public.

San Clemente City Lifeguards have had to post and, at times, restrict the use of some near shore and off shore ocean areas due to these dangers. This is no easy task, since these hazardous conditions can become exposed overnight and are difficult to detect during changing tidal and surf conditions. This task is further complicated by strong wave and currents. A swimmer can enter the water in a location that is relatively safe and be swept down the beach hundreds of feet in a matter of a few minutes where there might be exposed dangers that are under water and, therefore, undetectable. 901
Some problems are hard to prevent like when people walk along the beach and try to pass around an obstruction, like the railroad riprap, and are hit by an unpredictable set of waves, resulting in them being washed into the rocks. These situations can often occur at night when visibility is limited and lifeguard personnel are not normally there to warn of such hazards.

These conditions have prompted lifeguard to have electric lights installed at such areas and/or post hazard warning signs. Ideas such as installing motion detectors to trigger a recorded warning alert have also been considered to manage this type of hazard.

Lifeguards tend to err on the side of safety by restricting the access/use of potentially dangerous water areas, including making sure people do not enter dangerous areas or be swept into dangerous areas. Continued erosion will only increase this danger and the resultant dangers and ocean restrictions. It is not unrealistic that large areas of the City's water area may have to be limited from the public's use during these exposed times. Although the city usually gains beach sand in the spring and summer, when we most need it, the large seasonal deposits of fresh sand have become less and less.

ES-1, under Overview, the same point regarding the dangers of exposed hard structures and its economic impacts should be made here as well. Also, it should be further emphasized, possibly under the Executive Summary, Project Background, page 1-4, that the LOSSAN railroad Riprap is not engineered and therefore subject to continual undermining and failure during periods of erosion. It is possible that the tracks could be undermined to the extent that the railroad tracks could not safely carry the load of railway cars brought in to drop addition rock.

These comments are made after only making a partial review of the draft study, since my new computer kept locking up upon opening many of the study's documents.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance inan~
nn Hughes
2675 Queda Way
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 497-3947

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
902
A-1
APPENDIX G – DRAFT COORDINATION ACT REPORT
903
C A M B E R s G R 0 u p

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
904
905
us.

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FIBll&WILDLIFE SERVICE
In Reply Refer To:

FWS-OR-07B0008-11CPA0003
Colonel R. Mark Toy
District Engineer, Los Angeles
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 532711
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101
Carlsbad, California 92011
JUL 2 6. 20ft
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Attention: Mr. Thomas Keeney, Ecologist/Biological Sciences Manager Subject: Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project, Orange County, California
Dear Colonel Toy:

Enclosed is our Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (Report) for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project in Orange County, California. This Report is provided in fulfillment of Scope of Work Agreement Number W81EYN72403881 between our agencies, requesting us to provide Draft and Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act reports for the project.

This Report is prepared in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ( 48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and constitutes the final report of the Secretary oflnterior as required by section 2(b) of the Act.

If you have any questions regarding the Final Report, please contact Division Chief David Zoutendyk at (760) 431-9440, extension 222.

Sincerely,
~~-~J1R
Karen A. Goebel
Assistant Field Supervisor
TAKE PRIDE®lf:::t ~
INAMERICA·~
906
Colonel R. Mark Toy (FWS-OR-07B0008-11CPA0003)
Enclosure (1)
cc:

Lori Adams, California Department of Fish and Game
Bryant Chesney, National Oceanic Atmospheric and Administration James Munson, Environmental Protection Agency
2 FINAL FISH AND WILDLIFE

COORDINATION ACT REPORT
for the
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project
Orange County, California
Prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
Carlsbad, California
July 2011
907
I.LS.

Jl"l&H a WILDLIFE

SERVICE
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Study/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) to analyze potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and alternatives for providing protection to the shoreline of the City of San Clemente (City) from coastal storms. The draft EIR/EIS identifies the preferred alternative as the 15 meter (m) [50 feet (ft)] beach fill alternative, which includes dredging material offshore of the City of Oceanside and hauling and placing it at San Clemente Beach. Beach fill will be 1,040 m (3,412 ft) long with a +5.2 m (+17 ft) crest elevation. The dredge volume is estimated to be about 192,000 cubic meters (m3
) [251,130 cubic yards (y3)]. Re-nourishment will occur about every 6 years and require about 192,000 m3 (251,000 y3) of material for an estimated eight re-nourishment cycles over the 50-year project life.

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 15 m (50 ft), a reduction of more than 50 percent compared to beach measurements from 1958 and 1981.

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.

Implementation of the proposed initial and subsequent beach replenishment efforts are expected to result in direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to biological resources during dredging, staging of equipment offshore of the beach replenishment sites, and placement of sand on the replenishment sites. These effects are expected to include direct mortality to biological resources, especially benthic invertebrates. Indirect effects could also occur from increased turbidity, night lighting, and migration of sand from the replenishment sites onto reef and surfgrass areas. Cumulative effects could be experienced over the course of the proposed project through the repetitive replenishment of the beach areas. 908
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project ii

PREFACE
This document constitutes the Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (Final FWCA Report) in fulfillment of Scope of Work Agreement Number W81EYN72403881 between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and addresses the potential effects of the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project on fish and wildlife resources. We have prepared this Final FWCA Report pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190). This Final FWCA Report supersedes all of our previous planning input regarding this project.

Coordination between the Service and Corps regarding biological impacts and mitigation has been on-going. The Service met with the Corps, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) on October 16, 2007; May 15 and December 16, 2008; July 16, 2009; September 15, 2009, and April 30, 2010, and with NOAA, CDFG, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September 3, 2010, to discuss the proposed project and alternatives. The main topics of discussions included the current status of the proposed project, project alternatives, and potential environmental issues. The Service received the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIR/EIS) for the project on August 3, 2010. The NOAA, CDFG, and EPA provided comments on the Draft EIR/EIS, and the Service submitted a Draft FWCA Report to the Corps on January 14, 2011.

The Service met with the Corps, NOAA, CDFG and EPA on January 31, 2011, to address comments on the Draft EIR/EIS and recommendations in the Draft FWCA. Several issues were discussed at the meeting including: 1) the adequacy of baseline transect surveys and assumption of a worse case impact of up to only 0.81 hectares (ha) [2 acres (ac)] of surfgrass/reef impacts based on these surveys, even though the entire 2 ha (5-ac) T-Street Reef is expected to be in the equilibrium footprint and subject to sand movement and burial; 2) the use of only a 1 to 1 mitigation ratio in light of temporal loss of at least 2-5 years from the time of impact to completion of mitigation, especially for surfgrass impacts given the uncertainty of surfgrass restoration; 3) the potential to modify the project to a 10-meter (m) [33-foot (ft)] beach width to help minimize potential impacts to surfgrass and reef and mitigation risks/costs due to the uncertainty regarding surfgrass restoration; 4) resource agency approval role in determining appropriate mitigation, criteria for triggering mitigation, success criteria, and monitoring and reporting requirements; 5) the adequacy of the proposed $3 million mitigation fund when mitigation costs are estimated to be up to $3.5 million; 6) potential cumulative impacts from the City’s opportunistic beach replenishment program; 7) potential impacts to the intertidal reef at Mariposa Point and use of Mariposa Point as a control in light of these potential impacts and from the City’s opportunistic beach replenishment program; 8) the use of only one verses multiple control site(s); and 9) allowing subsequent beach replenishment before any previous impacts are successfully mitigated.
909
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project iii
The Corps provided comments on the Draft FWCA Report and an updated Monitoring, Mitigation, and Reporting Plan (MMRP) via electronic mail (email) transmissions dated June 9 and July 20, 2011, respectively. We forwarded the Corps’ comments and updated MMRP to NOAA, CDFG, and EPA; the NOAA and CDFG responded that the Corps did not fully address many of their original concerns. The NOAA and CDFG also provided additional comments on the revised MMRP including: 1) the provision for only 2 years of monitoring for any necessary rocky reef mitigation, instead of 5 years as for kelp mitigation; 2) the provision for impacts to shallow reef to be mitigated with deep water reef; and 3) the provision for out-of-kind kelp mitigation for surfgrass impacts that could lead to continual loss of surfgrass from beach replenishment. We have incorporated NOAA and CDFG comments and recommendations relative to the proposed project’s potential impacts on fish and wildlife resources and habitats into the recommendations of this Final FWCA Report.

910
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 Description of the Project Area ........................................................................................1 Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................3 Alternatives .........................................................................................................................3 Preferred Alternative.........................................................................................................5 Construction Methods .......................................................................................................7 DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................10 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...............20 Impacts to Birds and Benthic Invertebrates .................................................................21 Impacts to Sensitive Habitats ..........................................................................................22 Re-nourishment ................................................................................................................23 Biological Resources Monitoring Plan ...........................................................................23 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................33 LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................................................................36

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Plan View of 15 meter (50 feet) Beach Width Alternative .............................................6 Figure 3. Offshore Borrow Areas ...................................................................................................8 Figure 4. Beach Access and Staging Areas ....................................................................................9 Figure 5 Historic Kelp Canopy and Reef Map ............................................................................12 Figure 6. Surfgrass Survey ............................................................................................................16 911
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 1

INTRODUCTION
Description of Project Area
The City of San Clemente (City) is located along the coast of southern California about 100 kilometers (km) [60 miles (mi)] 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 and extends about 1,040 meters (m) [3,412 feet (ft)] from Linda Lane to T-Street (Figure 1). A portion of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail line runs between the beach and the coastal bluffs through San Clemente. The project area includes the San Clemente Municipal Pier (Pier), beachfront structures, and the Marine Safety Headquarters on the beach. The borrow site for beach replenishment materials is located offshore of the City of Oceanside Purpose and Need
The purpose of this 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 LOSSAN rail line that runs along the beach through the City. In addition, the continued 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. 912
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project
Figure 1
2 – Project Vicinity Map (Corps 2010)
913
no
nClemen
'%'>a. C mp P d ton ari e Corps Bas
~ ~tr,,
1 :200,000
0 1 2 4
Miles
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Alternatives
Non-Structural Measures
Managed Retreat
Managed retreat restricts or opposes efforts to control long-term retreat of the shoreline. This can include policies ranging from complete removal of all shore protection structures to simply not allowing new structures to be built. For this project, managed retreat of coastal development would include relocation of the railroad and beach facilities due to the continued erosion of the recreation beach 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.

Structural Measures
Beach Fill
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. 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 Corps have identified potential sources of sand suitable for an offshore borrow site. The potential offshore borrow sites in the study area were investigated by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG 2000) and the Corps (1993) for beach compatible sand, and appropriate sites were located by these previous investigations offshore of the City Oceanside.

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 pump-out or large cutter suction dredges. For the hopper dredge with pump-out, temporary near-shore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 9 m (30 ft) depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines.

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. 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. Sheet-pile walls are steel or precast concrete panels vertically placed in the ground to form continuous seawalls for 914
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 4
protecting back-beach improvements. Revetments are generally effective if maintained, but they encroach significantly onto the beach. The seawall structural measure typically requires less spatial area and maintenance.

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 they may be simplified into "soft" and "hard" designs. In the soft designs, near-shore 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 re-nourishment 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 they do not generally have the adverse effects on recreational surfing conditions that surface visible structures do and may enhance surfing conditions if designed for dual purpose.

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. Groins are cross-shore retention structures that act as a barrier to alongshore sediment transport. Offshore breakwaters are effective at retaining sand, but they are expensive and require a healthy source of littoral sand to perform their sand trapping function.

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

The amount of sand trapped by the structure depends on the permeability, height, and length of the structure and the amount of sand in the littoral system. As material accumulates on the updrift side of the structure, supply to the down-drift side is reduced. This results in local beach accretion on the up-drift side of the structure and erosion for some distance down-shore. After the beach near the structure adjusts to an “equilibrium” stage in accordance with the wave conditions, all littoral drift will pass the structure directly over it or be diverted around the seaward end of the structure.
915
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 5
No Action
The no action alternative assumes that no project would be implemented and that the Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s (SCRRA) existing maintenance plan would 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 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.

Preferred Alternative
According to the draft EIR/EIS, managed retreat and structural measures do not meet the project’s evaluation criteria, which include the technical and economic feasibilities, environmental impacts, and public acceptability. Managed retreat and the no action alternative would not meet the project’s purpose and goals. Revetments and seawalls often provide the most reliable form of shoreline protection, but they do not increase beach width and can impede public access to the beach. Offshore structures, including groins, visible offshore breakwaters, and submerged reef are not considered feasible due to cost, public acceptance, and potential environmental impacts.

The draft EIR/EIS determined that beach fill is the only measure that met all of the Corps’ environmental evaluation criteria.

Beach Fill
The beach fill alternative consists of dredging material offshore of the City of Oceanside, then hauling and placing it at San Clemente Beach. Beach fill will be 1,040 m (3,412 ft) long with a +5.2 m (+17 ft) crest elevation. The beach fill design parameters were determined by the Corps by considering various combinations of beach-fill widths and different replenishment cycles.

These combinations [e.g., 15 m (50 ft) and 35 m (115 ft) beach width] are variations of the same alternative (i.e., beach fill). Although it is recognized that these two widths are variations of the same alternative, they are addressed by the Corps as two separate alternatives.

The 15 m (50 ft) beach width alternative would require about 192,000 m3 (251,000 y3) of beach compatible sand. At the time of construction, the actual immediate post-construction width would be about 23 m (76 ft) (Figure 2). It is expected that up to 8 m (26 ft) of dry beach width would be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete. 916
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 6
Figure 2 – Plan View of 15 m (50 ft) Beach Width Alternative (Corps 2010) 917
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 7
The 35 m (115 ft) beach width alternative would require about 448,000 m3 (586,000 y3) of beach compatible sand. At the time of construction, the actual immediate post-construction width would be about 52 m (171 ft). It is expected that up to 17 m (56 ft) 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.

Based on the Corps’ evaluation of management measures and the comparison of the alternatives formulated for this study, the Corps’ recommended plan is the 15 m (50 ft) beach width alternative.

Construction Method
The project would be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. A medium-sized hopper dredge would be used, with effective capacity estimated at 1,300 m3
(1,700 y3) and 3.2 loads per day. The hopper dredge
would pump out the dredge material via a 6-centimeter (cm) [24-inch (in)] pipe line at 1,376 m3
/hr (1,800 y3/hr). The hopper dredge would be filled at the designated borrow site (i.e., Borrow Area 2 and 2a), which has beach compatible sand with approximately 10 percent fines and is about 1.6 km (1 mile) offshore of the City of Oceanside (Figure 3). The hopper dredge would then haul the dredged material about 35 km (21 mi) north to San Clemente. At the receiver beach, the dredge would be attached to a moored floating section of pipeline extending 457 m (1,500 ft) 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 it 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 7.6 m (25 ft) of water, between 762 to 1,524 m (2,500 and 5,000 ft) 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 about 610 m (2,000 ft) alongshore in either direction. Dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week.

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 about 15 m (50 ft) long. The long side would be shore parallel at the seaward edge and would be about 61 m (200 ft) long. The 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.
918
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 8
Figure 3 - Offshore Borrow Areas (Corps 2010)

919

OCEANSIDE HARBOR RESTRICTED &

OFFSHORE BORROW AREAS
ResmetedArea.334,900 (U.St Coast Ptlat 7'f
Reslrict«c1Ar:e!fai~S1S {U.:Sl Collst.Pldt 7'/
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 9
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 would allow sand to settle in designated areas. Once a 61 m (200 ft) section of berm is filled in with sand, another 61 m (200 ft) of berm would be created, the pipeline would 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 would eventually settle down to a natural grade for the beach.

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 (Figure 4) (Corps 2010). 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. The contractors’ dredge and vessels would require offsite mooring and berthing space. The nearest suitable mooring area is Dana Point Harbor, a small craft harbor about 8 km (5 mi) north.

Figure 4 Beach Access and Staging Areas (Corps 2010)
920
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 10
Future Project Beach Profile Monitoring
Long-term shoreline erosion 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 –0.21 m/yr (–0.7 ft/yr); the maximum erosion rate is -0.46 m/yr (-1.5 ft/yr); and the maximum accretion rate is +0.38 m/yr (+1.24 ft/yr).

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

Estimates based on the SANDAG monitoring data suggest the San Clemente fill would erode on average at a rate of 3.9 m/yr (12.8 ft/yr). Beach fill erodes at substantially higher rates than the native beach. Due to the varying nature of the wave climate, sediment supply to the beach, and other factors driving long-shore sediment transport, it is expected that the beach would erode at a greater rate in some years, at a slower rate in some years, and possibly accrete in other years.

Based on a 15-m (50-ft) wide beach and the 3.9 m/yr (12.8 ft/yr) erosion rate, it is anticipated that a fill would last about 6 years on average.

Maintenance nourishment efforts would occur when the shoreline reaches the 0 m/ft base beach width (i.e., about 11 m [35 ft]). Maintenance nourishment efforts would return the beach to the design beach width 15 m (50 ft) and would involve up to 192,000 m3 (251,000 y3) of material.

Maintenance nourishment efforts also would be dependent upon available funding at the time of request.

DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Vegetation
The terrestrial land along the San Clemente shoreline and adjacent upland areas include residential and commercial development, a train railway, and some vegetation, which is composed primarily of ornamentals and a few patches of native vegetation. The sandy beach back bluffs are outside of the project area. The project study boundary does not include any of the terrestrial vegetation types east of the railroad tracks.

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 zone are present at 921
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 11
Mariposa Point, which is north of the 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 near-shore zone at low tide, while two prominent offshore pinnacles break the surface offshore of Mariposa Point and south of the 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 Pier (Figure 5) (Corps 2010).

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, which is 975 m (3,200 ft) north of the Pier and about 488 m (1,600 ft) 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 [Coastal Resources Management (CRM) 2000]. Boulders in the high intertidal area 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 and P. Scouleri) is present in the low intertidal beginning about 91 m (300 ft) 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 at a minimum of

0.9 m (3 ft) above the sand line with no more than 2.54 cm (1 in) of sand covering the surface of the rocks. Surfgrass blades in this area are 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2 ft) 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.

922
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 12
Figure 5 – Historic Kelp Canopy and Reef Map (Corps 2010)

923
N
A
0 126 29J G[IJ 7ffi 1 ,0 M M M2t~rs
Primary Reef A reas
c:J Lea Area
Kelp canopy 1967 to 2 ooo
Ytare or Kt IP f'rte ~n<: e
1 -2 -:3 - Pora;letent Ki lP > 3 yoar~
ljli:1111' ];fll"ii:'11 cy SCE, W - r Hattll Rm [),r., it ~ Plill 11:trru.ry L l .,g./'8
:\.~\ ... I . ! ,-/
t "
rt.~~•,1911
-
'
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 13
Up to ten species of fish use the low-to-minus tidal zones of rocky intertidal habitats in the Southern California Bight (SCB) (MEC 2002). The 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) may also be present (Cross and Allen 1993).

Sandy Intertidal
The shoreline at Mariposa Point consists of a riprap backshore environment that protects the railroad tracks. The rocky intertidal habitat lies seaward of this stretch of sandy beach. 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.

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 californiana), kelp flies (Coleopa vanduzeei), isopods (Alloniscus perconvexus and Tylos punctata), and various species of beetles.

The sandy intertidal is also used by a near-shore fish, the California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis), which lays its eggs in the high intertidal zone between March and August. Grunions are known to spawn on the beach in the vicinity of the Pier (Corps 2010).

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 menziesii) and palm kelp (Eisenia arborea), have been prevalent along this section of coastline. 924
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 14
The kelp canopy within the project area has fluctuated considerably over the last decade. During surveys in June 2000, CRM found low to moderate density kelp beds with little or no surface canopy 610 m (2,000 ft) off of Mariposa Point at depths between –7.0 and –8.5 m (-23 and -28 ft) MLLW. Another bed was observed 198 m (650 ft) off the Pier (T-Street) at a depth of 4.9 m (16 ft) 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 the Pier. The kelp bed in 2009 corresponds generally with the historical kelp mapped previously (Figure 5).

The most extensive reef formations in the vicinity of the Pier are located off Mariposa Point, north of the project area. The shallow subtidal reefs off Mariposa Point have well-developed macrophyte growth, including dense stands of understory species of kelp and surfgrass (CRM 2000). These inshore reefs are about 90 to 210 m (300 to 700 ft) from the shoreline, and some of the rocks have several feet of vertical relief. Most, however, are sand inundated boulders less than 0.6 to 1 m (2 to 3 ft) in height. Surfgrass on these shallow, subtidal reefs grows a minimum of 0.3 m (1 ft) above the sand line and have blades up to 0.6 m (2 ft) long. The nearest high relief reef is located 610 m (2,000 ft) offshore of Mariposa Point (Washrock Reef) at depths between - 7 and -8.4 m (-23 and -28 ft) MLLW. A 120 m by 60 m (400 ft by 200 ft) patch of giant kelp was observed inshore of the Washrock Reef just north of the Pier at a depth of 8 m (26 ft) 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 near-shore reef habitats with developed stands of perennial vegetation above 1 m (3 ft) in height also would be expected to occur within the project area, which 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 2.7 m (9 ft) MLLW (CRM 2000). Boulders appear to be frequently scoured and are characterized by growth of red turf algae and crustose corallines. CRM observed surfgrass at this depth off the northern portion of the Linda Lane area, about 90 m (300 925
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 15
ft) from the shoreline. The surfgrass occurred on the upper surfaces of 0.3 m (1 ft) high boulders. Blades were approximately 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3 ft) long.

Chambers Group surveyed for surfgrass in the project area in March of 2008 and July 2009 (Figure 6). Only scattered patches of surfgrass were observed offshore of the northern portion of the proposed sand placement area between the Pier and Linda Lane. South of the Pier, cobble and reef habitat occur offshore beginning at a depth of -1.2 to -1.5 m (-4 to -5 ft) MLLW and extending to at least -3.3 m (-11 ft) MLLW (CRM 2000). Surfgrass meadows are located approximately 90 m (300 ft) from the shoreline on T-Street Reef starting at a water depth of between -1.2 and -1.8 m (-4 and -6 ft) MLLW and extending offshore to a water depth of between -3.3 and -3.9 m (-11 and -13 ft) MLLW. The surfgrass grows on 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2 ft) high boulders and has blades that are 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3 ft) long. Farther offshore surfgrass cover declines. Surfgrass at the deeper depths (-3.3 m [-11 ft] MLLW) grows on 0.3 m (1 ft) high boulders inundated with sand. In some cases, two-thirds of the length of the surfgrass blades were covered with sand and only 0.3 m (1 ft) of the blades remained above the sand line.

The subtidal reef habitat south of the Pier is extensive and angles around the tip of San Clemente Pier. 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 197 m (650 ft) south of the Pier at a depth of 5 m (16 ft) in October 1999, but it was not observed in June 2000. Kelp canopy was observed on the entire reef in July 2009.

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).

Fish commonly found over shallow, sandy subtidal habitat [less than 9 m (30 ft)] 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 surfzone (MEC 2002, SANDAG 2000).

926
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 16
Figure 6 – Surfgrass/Reef Survey and Sand Placement and Equilibrium Footprints (Corps 2010)

927
L9Qmd
2,()J9 Su Ne'f
ReEl'IPlliSUoo
- OOi'e lir.l001!C,J;
[ l:e'pBe<I
;moo sun.~·
SU1''3ra66 l'.reili
- ln".crtl 3.Jrvff
- ~s 'i'
---- Sroll:El .suvey
15 1 Al emative
ct/ie-ill
35 n Al emative
- - ~ed Foolfml:
. ct/ie-ill
D 20 4l!lD 8D!Jll
F1ee1
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 17
Borrow Site
The proposed borrow site offshore of the City of Oceanside (SO-9) was described by SANDAG (2000). The proposed borrow site consists of sand bottom habitat at between 14 and 18 m (45 and 60 ft) 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).

Wildlife
Wildlife detected within the majority of the project area includes species typically associated with sandy beach habitat that is highly disturbed due to heavy use as recreational beach.

Shorebirds and seabirds are described below. 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 in search of prey.

Birds
A variety of resident and migratory seabirds and shorebirds are commonly observed along southern California beaches and offshore waters. Seabirds, such as pelicans, terns, and cormorants, forage for fish in the nearshore ocean. Gulls and shorebirds use 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 and 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), double-crested (Phalacrocorax auritus), and pelagic (P. pelagicus) cormorants (Chambers Group 2002, MEC 2002).
928
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 18
A variety of shorebirds would be expected to use the beach in the vicinity of the 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).

Marine Mammals
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). 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; however, only the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi), Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), and Common dolphin (Delphinus spp.) are expected to occur in the nearshore waters of the San Clemente study area on a regular basis.

Essential Fish Habitat
In accordance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), an assessment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) will be conducted for the proposed project. 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). About 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).

Special Status Listed Species
Sensitive terrestrial plants and animals are not expected to occur in the project area because of a lack of natural terrestrial habitat within the project footprint. Sensitive species with the potential 929
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 19
to occur on the beach in the project area or offshore in the vicinity of the borrow sites and/or the beach fill site are described below.

California Brown Pelican
The brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), including the California brown pelican subspecies (P. o. californicus), was delisted by the Service from the Federal endangered species list on November 17, 2009 (74 FR 59443). The California brown pelican was delisted from the State endangered species list on June 3, 2009 [California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 2011a], but it is still designated as a Fully Protected Species under the Fish and Game Code (CDFG 2011a).

California Least Tern
The California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni, “least tern”) was listed as endangered on October 13, 1970 (35 FR 16047), and State-listed as endangered on June 27, 1971 (CDFG 2011b). A recovery plan for the species was published in 1980 (Service 1980) and was revised in 1985 (Service 1985). Critical habitat was never designated. The breeding range of the least tern population includes specific localized breeding colonies occupied from about April to September each year. Colonies are usually in proximity to 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 3.2 to 4.8 km (2 to 3 mi) from the beach in the near shore.

Large numbers of least terns breed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP), 19 to 22 km (12 to 14 mi) south of the project area. In 2006, there were 1,423 nesting pairs of least terns at MCBCP (Marschalek 2007), with most (1,265) of these pairs documented at the mouth of the Santa Margarita River. The nearest colonies to the project area were at White Beach, about 22 km (14 mi) south of the proposed beach fill site where 137 pairs bred in 2006 and at Red Beach, about 19 km (12 mi) 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 Pier sandy beach habitat for nesting or for night roosts.

Western Snowy Plover
The coastal population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus, “snowy plover”) was listed as threatened on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864). A recovery plan for this species was finalized in 2007 (Service 2007). Designation of critical habitat was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1999 (64 FR 68507), and was last revised in 2005 (Service 2005). 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 extends along the Pacific coast of North America from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico. The winter range is 930
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 20
somewhat broader and may extend to Central America (Page et al. 1995); however, most snowy 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 (Corps 2010).

Although it is possible that snowy plovers intermittently use the beaches within the project area during the winter months and during migration, the project area has not been documented as an important wintering area nor have snowy plovers been documented to nest within the project area, which consists of beaches subjected to a high degree of human use. San Onofre Beach, about 8 km (5 mi) south of the proposed project area, in northern San Diego County, has been designated as critical habitat for the snowy plover (Service 2005). Snowy plovers have nested along less than 15 km (9.3 mi) of coastline on MCBCP, including the southernmost portions of Gold Beach, near the marsh area of Red Beach, around protected least tern sites at the mouth of Aliso Creek at White Beach, along most of Section F or Cockleburr Beach, and in the Santa Margarita River Estuary at Blue Beach and generally along open beach areas in between (Forster 2010).

Marine Mammals
Two species of federally threatened pinnipeds, Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) and the Stellar sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), and six species of federally endangered whales, blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), sei whale (B. borealis), fin whale (B. physalus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), northern right whale (Blaena glacialis), and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), potentially occur in the nearshore waters off San Clemente and Oceanside. These species potentially could occur in project area waters; however, their presence is considered highly unlikely and is not expected.

IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Implementation of the proposed initial and subsequent beach replenishment efforts are expected to result in direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to biological resources during dredging, staging of equipment offshore of the beach replenishment sites, and placement of sand on the replenishment sites. These effects are expected to include direct mortality to biological resources, especially benthic invertebrates. Indirect effects could also occur from increased turbidity, night lighting, and migration of sand from the replenishment sites onto reef and surfgrass areas. Cumulative effects could be experienced over the course of the proposed project through the repetitive replenishment of the beach areas.

Bottlenose dolphins are the marine mammal most likely to occur within the project area.

However, it is assumed that these and other marine mammals will avoid the project area since they have a much wider foraging area than will be impacted by the project. 931
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 21
Impacts to Birds and Benthic Invertebrates [15 m (50 ft) Beach Width] Dredging operations will impact approximately 37 ha (91 ac) at Borrow Area 2 [including 3.7 ha (9.1 ac) at Borrow Area 2A) over the 50-year life of the project (Figure 3). Dredging operations at the borrow site will result in the mortality of any benthic invertebrates present. This will cause a temporary reduction in the localized prey base for fishes that feed on benthic invertebrates within the immediate borrow site. It is assumed that the benthic community will be able to recover within between 6 months and 2 years [California State Lands Commission (CSLC) 2001].

Beach fill operations will also impact the invertebrates present in the sandy intertidal areas. This loss of prey base could affect shorebirds that forage in the intertidal area. It is anticipated that shorebirds will avoid the project area. Additionally, the loss of prey base is considered to be temporary since the sandy intertidal invertebrate community has been observed to recover from sand burial within a few months (Burlas et al. 2001, Parr and Lacy 1978).

Dredging and beach fill operations generate turbidity plumes, which could impact invertebrates and fish and could hinder sight-feeding birds, such as the brown pelican, from capturing their fish prey. Turbidity may also affect the light regime, which may impact the surfgrass and kelp habitat. The size and extent of the turbidity plumes that could be created is unknown. Therefore, the level of impact from the turbidity plumes on in-water flora and fauna and to sight-feeding birds is unknown. The high sand content of the dredged material is expected to limit the extent of turbidity plumes from both the dredging and beach fill operations. For the dredging operations, the use of a hopper dredge and site depth is also expected to limit the amount of turbidity underwater and at the water surface. For the beach fill operations, placement of sediments behind a berm is expected to confine turbidity plumes to primarily the naturally turbid surf zone and associated rip currents. In addition, it is anticipated that shorebirds will avoid the immediate areas where people and equipment are constructing the beach.

The greater amount of sand on San Clemente beach following beach nourishment may have a beneficial effect on marine birds by increasing resting habitat. A beach nourishment project in Encinitas performed by the SANDAG appeared to have a positive effect on bird use of the receiver beaches (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.

The project is not anticipated to impact the least tern or the snowy plover. The project is scheduled to occur completely outside of the least tern breeding season (April 1 – September 15), and snowy plovers have not been documented (either none were detected or surveys were not conducted) to nest or winter within the project area (Service 2011a, b), which consists of beaches subjected to a high degree of human use.
932
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 22
Impacts to Sensitive Habitats [15 m (50 ft) Beach Width] Sensitive habitats, including kelp beds, surfgrass, and rocky intertidal areas may be impacted by sand placement, anchors for the mono buoy (where the hopper dredge will moor while it discharges sand to the beach), and the placement of the sinker pipeline that will pump sediment to shore from the hopper dredge. Impacts from these activities could include crushing organisms, burial of organisms, and scraping surfgrass, algae, or attached invertebrates.

Surfgrass and giant kelp are considered to be particularly valuable marine habitats because they provide shelter for fishes and invertebrates and 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.

The sand placement footprint does not include any kelp beds, surfgrass, or rocky intertidal areas (Figure 6). Pre-construction surveys will be conducted to identify anchor and pipeline locations to avoid sensitive resources. Most of the surfgrass grows on T-Street Reef, so it is possible to avoid this reef when laying the pipeline. To avoid impacts to reefs that support kelp and other sensitive species, such as gorgonians and surfgrass, the hopper dredge will moor inshore of these reefs, which are located about 300 to 400 m (1,000 to 1,300 ft) from the beach. In addition, the sand placement footprint does not include any sensitive habitats. Therefore, it is anticipated that direct impacts to sensitive habitats will be avoided.

After initial placement, the sand may move upcoast, downcoast, or offshore, depending on the magnitude, direction, and period of waves, and eventually establish an equilibrium footprint in which cross shore sand movement is expected to occur (Figure 6). Monitoring of the SANDAG beach fill project at Oceanside showed a net sand movement to the south, although some northerly movement occurred during summer months (due to south swells). The beach in San Clemente is more south facing than Oceanside and therefore could be subject to more northerly movement during summer months. The sand is expected to move out of the equilibrium footprint within 6 years.

The nearest significant rocky intertidal area to project area is at Mariposa Point, about 485 m (1,600 ft) north of the northern end of the beach fill site at Linda Lane. According to the predicted equilibrium footprint, sand is not expected to extend as far north as Mariposa Point.

The predicted equilibrium footprint suggests that most of the sediment accumulation will occur in the inshore area to about 259 m (850 ft) from the shoreline (Figure 6). Surfgrass in this area grows on 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2 ft) boulders and has average blade lengths of 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3 ft). Burial of surfgrass and reef on the outer portions of T-Street reef is expected to be minimal.

Therefore, the equilibrium footprint is expected to result in a range of impacts between no burial of surfgrass on the larger rocks and partial burial on the smaller boulders.

The roots and rhizomes of surfgrass are normally exposed (Craig et al. 2008), and the degree of sand burial surfgrass can withstand is not well documented (SANDAG 2000). Studies have 933
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 23
demonstrated that short-term burial of surfgrass results in shoot mortality, decreased shoot counts, and reduced growth (Craig et al. 2008). CRM (2000) observed surfgrass in the deepest portion of T-Street Reef with two-thirds of its blades covered with sand, which suggests surfgrass can withstand temporary burial of up to two-thirds of its blade length. However, surfgrasses have late successional traits, and experiments have demonstrated that the recovery of surfgrass after disturbance was slow and variable (Craig et al. 2008, Turner 1985).

Surfgrass appears to be an important habitat for near-shore fishes, and studies demonstrate that surfgrass loss from disturbance has negative effects on recruitment (Galst and Anderson 2008).

Galst and Anderson (2008) experimentally disturbed reefs by removing surfgrass, which resulted in significant decreases in the density of fish recruitment. This loss of fish density may reduce the available prey base for shorebirds.

Re-nourishment [15 m (50 ft) Beach Width]
Impacts to marine organisms from re-nourishment, about every 6 years, will be expected to be similar to those of initial beach construction. Each re-nourishment event will involve about 192,000 m3 for an estimated eight re-nourishment cycles over the project life.

Rocky Reef/Surfgrass Monitoring, Mitigation, and Reporting Plan (as proposed by the Corps)
Rocky Reef/Surfgrass Habitat
This appendix outlines 1) a pre- and post-construction monitoring program for rocky reef/surfgrass habitat in the San Clemente Pier area (Reach 6) to determine if project mitigation would be necessary; 2) a preliminary mitigation implementation plan, if mitigation is determined to be necessary; and 3) a preliminary mitigation monitoring plan, if mitigation is determined to be necessary. The final monitoring plan will be prepared during the pre-construction engineering design (PED) phase of the project. The details of these plans will be finalized in conference with knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified marine ecologists. The monitoring shall be performed by knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified marine biologists. These knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified marine ecologists may come from a variety of various agencies, organizations, institutions, or community centers of practice and expertise, such as academia - University of California, Corps Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), NOAA National Marine Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Sciences Center, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Western Ecological Research Center, other federal and state agencies, as well as consulting marine ecologists. CDFG, FWS, and NMFS regulatory resources agency staff will also be involved with the review process.

Pre- and Post-Construction Monitoring Plan
The Proposed Project has been designed to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources to the maximum extent practicable. Currently, potential project impacts have been identified using a conservative coastal engineering model. The nature of the coastal engineering 934
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 24
model has uncertainties due to multiple variables within the natural environment. Impacts to rocky reef and surfgrass reef are expected to be none to very minor, but currently are unknown.

A post-construction monitoring strategy has been developed to determine if the project results in permanent loss of either rocky reef and/or surf grass. Based on the model, it is estimated that in a worst case scenario about 20 percent of the reef or 0.4 ha (1 ac) may be impacted by the beach fill. For the purpose of costing, it is assumed that 0.4 ha (1 ac) of surfgrass and an additional 0.4 ha (1 ac) of reef without surfgrass could be impacted and require compensatory mitigation.

Mitigation would be triggered only if certain conditions occur during, and persist through, the two year post-construction monitoring period, as there may be transitory effects and subsequent recovery that would not be apparent in a shorter period of time. Persist means that observed sand burial of reef and/or loss of surfgrass continues to be significantly different on T-street reef compared to controls in all monitoring periods after the initial observed effect. During the two year post-construction monitoring, the reference site will be monitored to assess the natural variation, if possible, in rocky reef and surfgrass reef. Other published and unpublished literature will also be used in this analysis.

The following criterion is suggested as a potential trigger for implementing the potential mitigation.
• A persistent decrease in surfgrass cover or surfgrass density and an increase in sand cover and/or depth that is statistically significantly different than the controls and the baseline at the 0.05 confidence level (i.e., p-value = 0.05).

Actual triggers would be determined in coordination with knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified marine biologists and specific resource agencies prior to initiation of post-construction monitoring activities. These knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified marine ecologists may come from a variety of various agencies, organizations, institutions, or community centers of practice and expertise, such as academia - University of California, Corps Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), NOAA National Marine Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Sciences Center, USGS Western Ecological Research Center, other federal and state agencies, as well as consulting marine ecologists. CDFG, FWS, and NMFS regulatory resources agency staff will also be involved with the review process.

Proposed Pre- and Post-Construction Monitoring Activities Prior to the implementation of the monitoring program, the extent of reef habitat throughout the entire predicted equilibrium footprint for the project will be mapped using side scan sonar or another appropriate method. This information will be used in the Monitoring Plan to establish transect lines.

Transects shall be established in the rocky reef area containing the surfgrass bed on T-Street reef (Project area) and in a control area of similar depth upcoast of the beach fill near Mariposa Point.

Mariposa Point is considered an appropriate control because 1) it is close to the Project area and thus subjected to a similar wave climate, 2) supports surfgrass at a range of depths similar to TStreet reef, and 3) is upcoast of the beach fill out of the path of littoral drift, which is strongly 935
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 25
downcoast in the San Clemente area. The transects shall be permanent transects with repeated use during all monitoring stages. Transects should cover, at a minimum, the inshore portion, middle, and offshore portion of the reef. The same number of transects should be established in the control area as in the T-Street reef area, and the transects should be at similar depths. On each transect, the following parameters should be monitored at a minimum: 1) surfgrass density (i.e., number of shoots per square meter), 2) percent cover of surfgrass, sand, and rock, and 3) sand depth. The line intercept method is recommended for measuring percent cover and sand depth.

Transects should be monitored at the following intervals:

Pre-project monitoring (two years previous to beach nourishment):
- Twice within winter/spring
- Twice within summer/fall
Pre-project baseline monitoring (one year previous to beach nourishment):
- within one month prior to start
- 3 months prior to start
- 6 months prior to start
- 1 year prior to start
Post-construction:

Year One
- within one month after completion
- 3 months after completion
- 6 months after completion
- 1 year after completion
Year Two
- Twice within winter/spring
- Twice within summer/fall
Biological resources within the project area identified as potentially being impacted include surfgrass patches and rocky reef habitat at T-Street. Because a survey was not conducted to delineate the T-street reef, the general area of the T-street reef was based on the outer extent of mapped surfgrass locations [approximately 2 ha (5 ac)]. Actual delineation of the T-street reef will need to be identified prior to the pre-construction survey. This survey would use side scan sonar or another appropriate methodology to delineate T-street reef and other reef habitat within the potential equilibrium footprint of the sand placement. Potential project impacts to these resources were based on modeling that indicates sand movement may extend to the offshore/outer edge of the reef; however, sand at the offshore/outer edge of the reef would be thin and not significant. Potential burial of the inshore edge of T-Street reef is uncertain; however, in a reasonable worst case scenario, approximately 20 percent of the inshore edge of the T-Street reef area [about 0.4 ha (1 ac)] may be buried. These knowledgeable, experienced, 936
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 26
and qualified marine ecologists may come from a variety of various agencies, organizations, institutions, or community centers of practice and expertise, such as academia - University of California, Corps Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), NOAA National Marine Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Sciences Center, USGS Western Ecological Research Center, other federal and state agencies, as well as consulting marine ecologists. CDFG, FWS, and NMFS regulatory resources agency staff will also be involved with the review process. If significant impacts to these biological resources are observed, renourishment events would be modified to avoid or minimize impacts to the extent practicable and project mitigation would be implemented.

Pre- and Post-Construction Monitoring Costs
Pre-construction Monitoring
This cost assumes that permanent transects will be established. One day is allotted to install the markers and up to four days to conduct the survey at both the reference site and T-street reef, taking into consideration the wave environment in the project area and assuming three transects.

This survey is assumed to occur within one year prior to construction activities. a. Side-scan sonar survey $200,000
b. Pre-construction Monitoring:
(two years prior to beach nourishment):
o Twice within winter/spring; Twice within summer/fall: $131,000 c. Pre-construction Baseline Monitoring:
(one year prior to beach nourishment):
o 4 events (one month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year) $120,000 d. Pre-construction Report (2 years prior and 1 year prior) $ 10,000 Subtotal $461,000
Post-Construction Monitoring
This cost assumes that permanent transects will be established. One day is allotted to find or reinstall the markers and up to four days to conduct the survey at both the reference site and Tstreet reef, assuming three transects. a. Year One
o 4 events (one month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year): $120,000 b. Year Two
o Twice within winter/spring; Twice within summer/fall: $ 131,000 c. Post-construction Report (Years One and Two) $ 10,000 Subtotal $261,000
Renourishment Pre- and Post-Construction Surveys
A standardized and consistent survey protocol will be developed during the PED phase for future beach renourishment cycles. The information collected from monitoring during the initial 937
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 27
nourishment event will provide baseline information to compare future beach conditions.

Because baseline information will be readily available for the Project site, the survey protocol for renourishment activities will focus on a single pre- and post-construction survey rather than the monitoring period proposed for initial nourishment activities.

Project Mitigation
If mitigation were required based on results of the post-construction monitoring, rocky reef and surfgrass mitigation shall each be conducted at an equivalent functional value to the impacted area. Because it will take at least two years to identify impacts, some temporal loss of surfgrass, if impacts were to occur, is unavoidable. Recovery of impacted resources will also occur as sand is redistributed within the littoral cell. Additionally, if impacts were to occur, future beach fills would be modified to avoid future impacts; any observed burial of reef or surfgrass would be temporary because sand would be expected to move out of the project area.

Reef habitat mitigation shall be constructed at an equivalent functional value of shallow and deep water reef proportional to the area of surfgrass on reef impacted. The area of surfgrass loss will be mitigated with an equal area of shallow water reef; the area of reef without surfgrass will be mitigated as deep water reef. Shallow water reef would be constructed on the offshore/outer edge of the existing reef; deep water reef would be constructed at approximately 9.1-m (30-ft) water depth. Shallow water reef shall be constructed with a final top elevation of -3.1 to -4.3 m (-10 to -14 ft) Mean Lower Low Water. Construction of a reef that is shallower than the outer edge of T-Street reef is not proposed because construction methods would not be practical (e.g., a barge with the reef construction materials would not be able to operate in very shallow water).

Construction of a very shallow reef would need to be constructed by building a temporary road from shore; such a road would have significant impacts. Although the surfgrass mitigation reef would be deeper than the impact area, if surfgrass transplants are successful, the slightly deeper reef would replace the lost surfgrass resource. Deep water reef shall be constructed similar to the Southern California Edison Reefs constructed as mitigation for the impacts of the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant. For example, if the monitoring shows 0.4 ha (1 ac) of reef impact and 0.4 ha (1 ac) of surfgrass impact, 0.4 ha (1 ac) of shallow water reef would be constructed and 0.4 ha (1 ac) of deep water reef. Mitigation would be implemented in the Project area at sites to be determined in coordination with knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified marine biologists.

These knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified marine ecologists may come from a variety of various agencies, organizations, institutions, or community centers of practice and expertise, such as academia - University of California, Corps Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), NOAA National Marine Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Sciences Center, USGS Western Ecological Research Center, other federal and state agencies, as well as consulting marine ecologists. CDFG, FWS, and NMFS regulatory resources agency staff will also be involved with the review process.

Although several studies currently are being conducted to determine how to successfully transplant surfgrass and may show potential for success, success rates to date have not been consistent. Due to the absence of an established, successful method for mitigation of loss of surfgrass itself, proposed mitigation currently is focused upon restoration of the rocky reef that 938
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 28
surfgrass currently uses as habitat. However, as previously described, if it is determined that surfgrass has been affected by the Project and a change is shown not to be due to natural variation, an experimental surfgrass transplant shall be implemented in addition to the construction of a shallow rocky reef. Currently, surfgrass transplant success is much higher for subtidal than for intertidal conditions and, therefore, surfgrass mitigation efforts for this project will focus on subtidal transplants only. The methodology for the surfgrass transplant shall be the transplant of sprigs from a donor bed to the new reef using the method developed by Bull et al. (2004). The contractor may propose an alternative transplant method, if evidence can be presented that the alternative method has as great or greater chance of success as the sprig transplant method. To avoid harvesting effects to the subject surfgrass bed, donor material will be taken from a larger area of surfgrass.

A fraction of the shallow water reef shall be test planted with surfgrass. The transplant will be conducted in the late summer/early fall, the time of year when most surfgrass seeds are released and germinate in southern California.

An area equal to approximately 25 percent of the surfgrass impact area [not to exceed 0.04 ha (0.1 ac)] will be test planted. Success of the transplant shall be determined after six months based on survivorship, percentage change in the number of leaves and the amount of areal coverage. The experimental transplant will be considered successful if the sprigs survive and there is a net increase in number of leaves and aerial coverage. Experimental surfgrass transects have shown that if the transplant is not successful, the transplants die and the reef is bare. If the transplants survive, surfgrass grows. If the test transplant is successful, the remainder of the surfgrass impact area will be planted on the shallow water reef with surfgrass. If the test transplant is unsuccessful, mitigation will be conducted out of kind using kelp transplant on the deep water reef at an equivalent functional value; one acre, in the case of the costed scenario.

Project Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Similar to the Post-Construction Monitoring Plan, transects shall be established in the rocky reef area containing the surfgrass bed on the mitigation reef (if the experimental surfgrass transplant is successful) and in a reference site (control area) of similar depth upcoast near Mariposa Point.

The transects shall be permanent transects. The same number of transects should be established in the control area as in the mitigation areas and transects should be at similar depths. On each surfgrass transect, the following parameters should be monitored at a minimum: 1) surfgrass density (i.e., number of shoots per square meter), 2) percent cover of surfgrass, sand, and rock, 3) sand depth, and 4) identification and quantity of flora and fauna. The line intercept method is recommended for measuring percent cover and sand depth. 939
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 29
Transects should be monitored at the following intervals, if successful:

Post-mitigation implementation:

Year One
- within one month after completion
- 3 months after completion
- 6 months after completion
- 1 year after completion
Years Two through Five
- Once within winter/spring
- Once within summer/fall
Success Criteria
Success criteria of surfgrass would include determining if measured parameters are significantly different than the reference transects. Success criteria for the mitigation reef itself would include no complete permanent burial of the reef. Because of the predominantly sandy bottom environment in the project area, placement of the deep water rocky reef would be considered successful if a characteristic invertebrate and fish community were to become established. On each surfgrass transect, the following parameters should be monitored and evaluated at a minimum: 1) surfgrass density (i.e., number of shoots per square meter), 2) percent cover of surfgrass, sand, and rock, 3) sand depth, and 4) identification and quantity of flora and fauna.

The line intercept method is recommended for measuring percent cover and sand depth. Specific success criteria will be developed during the Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PED) phase. General success criteria will consist of the following:

1. Approximately 50% - 60% of the fish, invertebrates, and algae found at the reference site occur at the mitigation site two years post-mitigation.

2. Approximately 50% - 60% of surfgrass survival at the mitigation site two years postmitigation implementation.

Project Mitigation Monitoring Costs
Reef Construction and Transplant Costs
Costs for reef construction and transplant costs would be based on actual impacts. The estimated costs for 0.4 ha (1 ac) of shallow surfgrass reef and 0.4 ha (1 ac) of deep water reef are provided below for reference. This scenario assumes successful test transplant operations. If test transplant operations are not successful, then compensatory mitigation would be triggered.

Shallow water reef design and construction (1 acre) $2 million

Deep water reef construction (1 acre) $500,000
940
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 30
Surfgrass transplant (1 acre)
Test (0.1 acre) $25,000
Mitigation – if Test successful (0.9 acre) $225,000
Subtotal (test successful) $2,750,000

Deep water reef construction (1 acre) $500,000

Surfgrass transplant (1 acre)
Test (0.1 acre) $25,000
Subtotal (test not successful) $525,000
Project Mitigation Monitoring Activities
a. Year One $120,000
o after implementation - 4 events (one month, 3
months, 6 months, 1 year)
b. Year Two $65,500
o 2 events (once within winter/spring; once within
summer/fall)
c. Annual Report Years One and Two $5,000
Subtotal (test successful) $190,500
Compensatory Mitigation
If the surfgrass test planting is not successful, then out-of-kind and potentially off-site compensatory mitigation that has an equivalent functional value to the area of surfgrass on reef impacted is to occur via kelp planting on the deep water reef constructed during the previous project mitigation. Using the example of 0.4 ha (1 ac) of reef impacts and 0.4 ha (1 ac) of surfgrass impacts, if the surfgrass transplant is not successful, 0.4 ha (1 ac) of kelp will be planted on the 0.4 ha (1 ac) of deep water reef built during the project mitigation. All mitigation for kelp shall be monitored for 5 years.

Compensatory Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Similar to the Post-Construction Monitoring Plan, transects shall be established in the rocky reef area containing the kelp bed on the deep water mitigation reef (if the surfgrass transplant is unsuccessful) and in a reference site (control area) of similar depth upcoast near Mariposa Point.

The transects shall be permanent transects. The same number of transects should be established in the control area as in the mitigation areas and transects should be at similar depths. On each kelp transect, the following parameters should be monitored at a minimum: 1) kelp density (number of kelp plants per square meter) of each age class, 2) holdfast diameter of each adult kelp plant on the transect, 3) number of stipes of each adult kelp plant on the transect and 4) identification and quantity of associated flora and fauna. 941
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 31
Transects should be monitored at the following intervals:

Post-compensatory mitigation implementation:

Year One
- within one month after completion
- 3 months after completion
- 6 months after completion
- 1 year after completion
Years Two through Five
- Once within winter/spring
- Once within summer/fall
Success Criteria
Success criteria of kelp would include determining if the measured parameters are significantly different than the reference transects. Success criteria for the mitigation reef itself (if it is not planted with kelp) would include no complete permanent burial of the reef. Because of the predominantly sandy bottom environment in the project area, placement of the deep water rocky reef would be considered successful if a characteristic invertebrate and fish community were to become established. On each kelp transect, the following parameters should be monitored and evaluated at a minimum: 1) kelp density (number of kelp plants per square meter) of each age class, 2) holdfast diameter of each adult kelp plant on the transect, 3) number of stipes of each adult kelp plant on the transect and 4) identification and quantity of associated flora and fauna.

Specific success criteria will be developed during the Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PED) phase. General success criteria will consist of the following:

1. Approximately 50% - 60% of the fish, invertebrates, and algae found at the reference site occur at the mitigation site two years post-mitigation.

2. Approximately 50% - 60% of kelp survival at the mitigation site two years postmitigation implementation.

Compensatory Mitigation Installation/Implementation Costs Kelp Transplant Costs
Costs for transplant costs would be based on actual impacts. The costs of reef construction are included above in Project Mitigation for the surfgrass mitigation. This assumes the shallow water reef and deep water reef that were constructed during the Project Mitigation will not be removed; the costs for the compensatory mitigation would be in addition to the Project Mitigation costs above. The estimated costs for a one acre kelp transplant are provided below for reference. This scenario assumes unsuccessful test surfgrass transplant operations. 942
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 32
Kelp Transplant [0.4 ha (1 ac)] $50,000
Subtotal (test unsuccessful) $50,000
Compensatory Mitigation Monitoring Activities (Only if test transplant is unsuccessful and deep water rocky reef is constructed)
a. Year One $120,000
o after implementation - 4 events (one month, 3
months, 6 months, 1 year)
b. Year Two $65,500
o 2 events (once within winter/spring; once within
summer/fall)
c. Annual Report Years One and Two $5,000
Subtotal (test unsuccessful) $190,500
Summary of Pre and Post Construction Monitoring
Activity Cost
Pre-construction monitoring
Side-scan sonar1 [$200,000]
2 years prior to construction - 4 events $131,000
1 year prior to construction – 4 events $120,000
Pre-construction report $10,000
Subtotal $261,000
Post-construction monitoring
Year 1 – 4 events $120,000
Year 2 – 4 events $131,000
Post-construction report $10,000
Subtotal $261,000
Total Pre and Post Construction Monitoring2 $522,000
1 = Side scan sonar is already within coastal engineering monitoring and it will be completed and shared data
2 = the pre and post monitoring costs are not part of the mitigation costs; they are scheduled for implementation whether mitigation is necessary and implemented or not necessary and therefore not implemented.
943
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 33
Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring Costs
Mitigation and Monitoring - Surfgrass
1 acre shallow reef construction $2,000,000
1 acre deep reef construction $500,000
1 acre surfgrass transplant
Test (0.1 acre) $25,000
Mitigation – if test successful (0.9 acre) $225,000
Year 1 monitoring - 4 events (if test successful) $120,000 Year 2 monitoring - 2 events (if test successful) $65,500 Report (if test successful) $5,000
Subtotal $2,940,500
Mitigation and Monitoring - Kelp
1 acre shallow reef construction $2,000,000
1 acre deep reef construction $500,000
1 acre surfgrass transplant
Test (0.1 acre) $25,000
1 acre kelp transplant (if test not successful) $50,000 Year 1 monitoring - 4 events (if test not successful) $120,000 Year 2 monitoring - 2 events (if test not successful) $65,500 Report (if test not successful) $5,000
Subtotal $2,765,500
Summary Mitigation and Monitoring Cost3
Mitigation – Surfgrass successful (Transplant Surfgrass) $2,940,500 Mitigation – Surfgrass not successful (Transplant Kelp) $2,765,500 3 = The cost for the Mitigation – Surfgrass successful (Transplant Surfgrass) includes the cost of constructing both shallow and deep rocky reef as does Mitigation – Surfgrass not successful (Transplant Kelp).

In addition to the information in the MMRP, the Corps’ July 14, 2011, email confirms that, if adverse significant impacts are still observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, subsequent modified beach renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass or reef has recovered or compensatory mitigation is completed.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The FWCA states that "...wildlife conservation shall receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water-resource development projects through the effectual and harmonious planning, development, maintenance, and coordination of wildlife conservation...." (16 U.S.C. 661). The revised MMRP above does not fully address the resource agencies’ comments and concerns. Incorporation of the following recommendations would address the resource agencies’ comments and concerns to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to fish and wildlife resources associated with the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project:
1) There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the ability to mitigate impacts to surfgrass inkind. In addition, the Corps has indicated that a 10-m (33-ft) beach width would achieve the project purpose of storm damage protection and yield an acceptable benefit-cost ratio 944
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 34
for the project. Therefore, the Corps should limit the project to a 10-m (33-ft) beach width to help ensure that significant long-term impacts to surfgrass do not occur and to minimize potential mitigation risks/costs.
2) Only baseline surveys with transects approximately 70 m (230 ft) apart have been completed, which likely did not capture all of the surfgrass/reef resources in the projected equilibrium footprint in which sand movement and burial is expected to occur. In addition, the entire 2-ha (5-ac) T-Street Reef is projected to be in the equilibrium footprint.

Therefore, the MMRP assumption of up to only 0.81 ha (2 ac) of surfgrass/reef impacts may significantly underestimate project impacts, and the MMRP should be revised to assume at least 2 ha (5 ac) of surfgrass/reef impacts to help ensure that adequate funds are budgeted for potential mitigation costs.
3) The MMRP proposes to monitor surfgrass/reef mitigation for only 2 years, while it proposes 5 years of monitoring for kelp mitigation. There is no justification for this discrepancy, especially given the uncertainties of surfgrass restoration. Therefore, the MMRP should be revised to include at least 5 years of monitoring of surfgrass/ reef mitigation.
4) The MMRP proposes to mitigate impacts to shallow reef with deep water reef, without sufficient justification as to why it is not feasible to restore shallow reef. This could lead to significant cumulative loss of shallow reef. Therefore, the MMRP should be revised to require impacts to shallow reef be mitigated in-kind, unless the resource agencies concur that this is not feasible and that potential cumulative loss of shallow reef is expected to be minimal.
5) The MMRP proposes to allow impacts to surfgrass to be mitigated with kelp restoration if initial test surfgrass restoration plots fail, which could lead to significant cumulative loss of surfgrass. Therefore, the MMRP should be revised to require impacts to surfgrass be only mitigated in-kind, unless the resource agencies concur that sufficient research and testing has shown that this is not feasible and potential cumulative loss of surfgrass is expected to be minimal.
6) The MMRP does not address potential impacts to the intertidal reef at Mariposa Point north of the beach replenishment site. Although net sand transport in the vicinity of the beach replenishment site is expected to be to the south, Mariposa Point is not far enough north of the project site to assume that no impacts will occur to the intertidal reef there. Therefore, the MMRP should be revised to include monitoring of the intertidal reef at Mariposa Point and mitigation for any significant long term impacts.
7) The MMRP proposes to use Mariposa Point as the only control site assessing impacts from Corps beach replenishment project. However, Mariposa Point could be impacted by the Corps beach replenishment project as well as by the City’s opportunistic beach replenishment program. In addition, the use of only one control may not be able to distinguish impacts from beach replenishment from natural variability. Therefore, the 945
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 35
MMRP should be revised to include multiple control sites approved by the resource agencies.
8) Mitigation measures should be planned and provided for prior to or concurrent with project impacts and supplemented as needed to offset any additional, significant long-term adverse impacts documented by the monitoring program. This is especially important for surfgrass because of the uncertainties of surfgrass restoration and at least a 2- to 5-year temporal loss of functions between time of impact and restoration success. If mitigation is not provided in advance of project impacts, the MMRP should be revised to include adequate compensation to address temporal losses as agreed to by the resource agencies. 9) The Corps should monitor the extent of turbidity plumes at the dredge and beach replenishment site throughout the duration of dredging and sand placement activities, or until such point that the resource agencies concur that monitoring is no longer necessary.

The MMRP should be revised to include a plan to monitor and report the extent of turbidity plumes and establish acceptable levels and thresholds, which could potentially trigger additional measures. Weekly reports should be submitted to the resource agencies. 10) The MMRP should be revised to include the provision that if significant impacts to surfgrass/reef resources are documented, subsequent modified beach re-nourishment will not occur until the resource agencies concur that mitigation for those impacts is successfully completed, or impacted surfgrass or reef has recovered. 11) After the comprehensive PED phase biological surveys, the Corps should revise the MMRP and receive written concurrence from the resource agencies that it fully addresses mitigation of impacts, criteria for triggering mitigation, success criteria, and monitoring and reporting requirements.
12) The Corps should include the costs of mitigation recommended by the resource agencies in any project budget submitted to Congress for approval. Prior to project implementation, the Corps and City should identify a funding mechanism to guarantee that future funding will be available to implement the mitigation program in the event that mitigation costs exceed the funds appropriated by Congress. For example, funds could be secured by the City through a letter of credit, endowment account, or other legal mechanism approved by the resource agencies sufficient to guarantee mitigation will be implemented to offset adverse impacts of the project.
946
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 36

LITERATURE CITED
ADL. 1984. Point Arguello Field and Gaviota Processing Facility Area Study and Chevron/ Texaco Development Plans EIR/EIS. Prepared for the County of Santa Barbara, Minerals Management Service, California State Lands Commission, California Coastal Commission, and California Secretary of Environmental Affairs. Prepared by Arthur D.

Little, Santa Barbara California.

Barlow, J. and T. Gerrodette. 1996. Abundance of cetaceans in California waters based on 1991 and 1993 ship surveys. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC233. 15 pp.

Barlow, J., R. L. Brownell, Jr., D. P. DeMaster, K. A. Forney, M. S. Lowry, S. Osmek, T. J. Ragen, R. R. Reeves, and R. J. Small. 1995. South Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-219. 162 pp.

Barlow, J., K. A. Forney, P. S. Hill, R. L. Brownell, Jr., J. V. Carretta, D. P. DeMaster, F. Julian, M. S. Lowry, T. Ragen, and R. R. Reeves. 1997. South Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 1996. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-248. 223 pp.

Bonnell, M. L., B. J. Le Boeuf, M. O. Pierson, D. H. Dettman, G. D. Farrens, and C. B. Heath. 1981. Pinnipeds of the Southern California Bight. Summary Report, 1975-1978, Part I.

In: Vol. III, Principal Investigator's reports, marine mammal and seabird survey of the Southern California Bight area. NTIS No. PB 81-248-71. 535 pp.

Bonnell, M. L., M. O. Pierson, and G. D. Farrens. 1983. Pinnipeds and sea otters of central and northern California, 1980-1983: status, abundance, and distribution. Final Report to U.S.

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region under Contract 14-12-0001-29090. OCS Study MMS 84-0044. 220 pp.

Bonnell, M. L. and M. D. Dailey. 1993. Marine mammals. In: M. D. Dailey, D. J. Reish, and J. W. Anderson (eds.), Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. pp. 604-681.

Burlas, M., Ray, G. and D. Clarke. 2001. The New York District's Biological Monitoring Program for the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan Section Beach Erosion Control Project. Final Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 103 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2011a. Fully Protected Animals. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/fully_pro.html#Birds). (Accessed January 12, 2011).
947
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 37
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2011b. State & Federally Listed Endangered and & Threatened Animals of California January 2011.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf. (Accessed January 12, 2011.

California State Lands Commission, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and United States Army Corps of Engineers (CSLC, Service and Corps). 2001. Final EIR/EIS for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project.

Chambers Group, Inc. 2002. Draft Environmental Baseline Report for the Huntington Beach Bluff Top Park Storm Feasibility Study. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Los Angeles District, October 2002.

Coastal Resources Management (CRM). 2000. Marine Biological Impact Assessment, City of San Clemente Beach Replenishment Program. Prepared for Moffatt & Nichol Engineers.

Craig, C., S. Wylie-Echeverria, E. Carrington, and D. Shafer. 2008. Short-term sediment burial effects on the seagrass Phyllospadix scouleri. ERDC TN-EMRRP-EI-03. 10 pp.

Cross, J. N. and L. G. Allen. 1993 Fishes in M. D. Dailey, D. J. Reish, and J. W. Anderson (eds.), Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation: 459- 540.

DeLong, R. L. and S. R. Melin. 2000. Thirty Years of Pinniped Research at San Miguel Island.

Pp. 401-406 in D. R. Browne, K. L. Mitchell, and H. W. Chaney (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, 29 March to 1 April 1999, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Sponsored by the U.S. Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, 770 Paseo Camarillo, Camarillo, California 93010. OCS Study No. 99-0038. Pp. 401-406.

Dohl, T. P., R. C. Guess, M. L. Duman, and R. C. Helm. 1983. Cetaceans of central and northern California, 1980-1983: Status, abundance, and distribution. Prepared for U.S.

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 84-0045. 284 pp.

Dohl, T. P., K. S. Norris, R. C. Guess, J. D. Bryant, and M. W. Honig. 1981. Cetacea of the Southern California Bight. Part II of Investigators' reports: Summary of marine mammal and seabird surveys of the Southern California Bight Area, 1975-1978. Prepared for U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pacific OCS Region. NTIS #PB 81-248-189. 414 pp.

Dugan, J. E. and D. M. Hubbard. 2006. Ecological Responses to Coastal Armoring on Exposed Sandy Beaches. Shore & Beach 74(1):10-16.
948
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 38
Dugan, J. E., D. M. Hubbard, J. M. Engle, D. L. Martin, D. M. Richards, G. E. Davis, K. D.

Lafferty, and R. F. Ambrose. 2000. Macrofauna communities of exposed sandy beaches on the Southern California mainland and Channel Islands. Fifth California Islands Symposium, MMS 99-038:339-346.

Foster, B. D. 2010. Breeding status of the western snowy plover at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California, 2007. Unpublished report prepared for the Environmental Core, Natural and Cultural Resources Team, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, California. 145 pp.

Galst, C. J. and T. W. Anderson. 2008. Fish-habitat associations and the role of disturbance in surfgrass beds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 365:177-186.

Koski, W. R., J. W. Lawson, D. H. Thomson, and W. J. Richardson. 1998. Point Mugu Sea Range marine mammal technical report. LGL Limited, environmental research associates, King City, Ontario, Canada, in association with Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Santa Barbara, California, for Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, Point Mugu, California, and Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 281 pp. + App.

Marschalek, D. A. 2007. California Least Tern Breeding Survey 2006 Season. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Unit Report, 2007-

01. Sacramento, California. 22 pp. + app.

McConnaughey, B. H. and E. McConnaughey. 1988. Pacific Coast. 4th 11 edition. Alfred A.

Knopf, Inc., New York, New York.

MEC Analytical Systems Inc. (MEC). 2002. Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report for the Encinitas and Solana Beach Shoreline Protection and San Elijo Lagoon Restoration Project. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Los Angeles District, December 2002.

Page, G. W., J. S. Warriner, J. C. Warriner, and P. W. C. Paton. 1995. Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 154. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Parr, T., D. Diener, and S. Lacy. 1978. Effects of Beach Replenishment on the Nearshore Sand Fauna of Imperial Beach, California. Miscellaneous Report No. 78-4, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 125 pp.

SAIC. 2005. Coastal Habitat Study, 2003-2004: Influence of Beach Nourishment on Biological Resources at Beaches in the City of Encinitas, California. Prepared for City of Encinitas. 56 pp.
949
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 39
San Diego Association of Governments and U.S. Department of the Navy (SANDAG). 2000.

San Diego Regional Beach Sand Project EIR/EA. Prepared for SANDAG and U.S.

Department of the Navy, June 2000. Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment by KEA Environmental, MEC Analytical Systems, Moffatt and Nichol Engineers, and GeoArch Marine Archaeology Consultants.

Stewart, B. S. and P. K. Yochem. 2000. Community Ecology of California Channel Islands pinnipeds. Pp. 413-420 in D. R. Browne, K. L. Mitchell, and H. W. Chaney (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, 29 March to 1 April 1999, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Sponsored by the U.S.

Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, 770 Paseo Camarillo, Camarillo, California 93010. OCS Study No. 99-0038.

Thompson, B., J .Dixon, S. Schroeter and D. J. Reish. 1993. Benthic Invertebrates in M. D.

Dailey, D. J. Reish, and J. W. Anderson (eds.), Ecology of the Southern California Bight:

A Synthesis and Interpretation: 369-458.

Turner, T. 1985. Stability of rocky intertidal surfgrass beds: Persistence, preemption and recovery. Ecology, 66(1):83-92.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1993. Final Report, Beach Nourishment Sources Along the Carlsbad/Oceanside Coast in San Diego County, California. Report prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, November, 1993.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project, San Clemente, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.

Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc in association with Noble Consultants, Inc. July 2010. 261 pp. + app.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1980. California Least Tern Recovery Plan. 58 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1985. Recovery Plan for the California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 112 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover. Final Rule. Federal Register 70:56969-57119.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2007. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). In 2 volumes. Sacramento, California. xiv +751 pages.
950
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 40
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2011a. 2006 and 2007 Winter Snowy Plover Survey. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/WSP/documents/2006- 07%20Winter%20Window%20Survey%20final%20range-wide.pdf. (Accessed January 12, 2011.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2011b. 2010 Summer Window Survey for Snowy Plovers on U.S. Pacific Coast with 2005-2009 Results for Comparison. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/WSP/documents/Pacific%20Coast%20SNPL%20201 0%20breeding%20survey.pdf. (Accessed January 12, 2011). 951
ATTACHMENT 4
952

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
Orange County, California
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (USA CE) has conducted an environmental analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) dated April 2023, for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project evaluates minor modifications and environmental compliance updates for the proposed project that had previously been addressed in the June 2011 Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS).

The 2011 EIR/EIS and Feasibility Study, incorporated herein by reference, evaluated various alternatives that would stabilize and nourish locally starved beaches in San Clemente to remediate beach erosion damage to and protect existing structures including the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Rail Line. The recommended plan identified in that document, which has since been authorized by Congress consists of recurring placement of sand onto San Clemente Beach, centered about the San Clemente municipal pier, to protect the railroad and beach structures from damage by ocean waves. The railroad on either side of the fill area is protected by a riprap revetment constructed and maintained by the Southern California Railroad Association (SCRRA). The design beach fill consists of a 50 foot wide beach, approximately 3,600 feet long and a design foreshore slope of 8H: l V. The material to construct the beach will be dredged from a borrow site located 18 miles to the south offshore of Oceanside Harbor.

Approximately 250,000 cubic yards of material will be placed during each episode. An estimated nine dredging and beach fill episodes are planned to occur over a SO-year period, beginning in 2023.

The 2023 SEA provides an updated environmental analysis including additional environmental commitments and documents updated compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. It also includes minor modifications to the project description. The No Action Alternative described in the 2023 SEA, for comparison purposes, would be to implement the authorized project as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS, without the proposed modifications, updated environmental commitments or updated compliance. The Proposed Action Alternative is to implement minor modifications to the authorized plan, including additional environmental commitments to implement conservation measures and pennit requirements that were included in updated compliance documentation including a 2023 biological opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

For both alternatives, the potential effects were evaluated, as appropriate. A summary assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Action are listed in Table 1:
953
. T a e bl 1 S : ummary o o en 1a ec so e f P t f I Effi t f th P ropose dA C f IOU Insignificant Insignificant Resource
effects effects as a unaffected
result of by action
mitigation
Aesthetics □ □ l2SI
Air quality l2SI □ □
Aquatic resources/wetlands
Invasive
l2SI □ □
species
Fish
l2SI □ □
and wi ldlife habitat
Threatened/Endangered
l2SI □ □
species/critical habitat
Transpo1iation
□ l2SI □
Cultural
l2SI □ □
resources □ □ l2SI
Floodplains □ □ l2SI
Hazardous, toxic & radioactive waste □ □ l2SI
Hydrology l2SI □ □
Land use
Navigation
l2SI □ □
l2SI □ □
Noise levels
Public
l2SI □ □ infrastructure l2SI □ □
Socioeconomics
Environmental
l2SI □ □
justice
Soils
l2SI □ □
□ □ l2SI
Tribal trust resources □ □ l2SI
Water quality
Climate
l2SI □ □ change
Recreation
l2SI □ □ Uses l2SI □ □
All practicable and appropriate means to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects were analyzed and incorporated into the Proposed Action. Environmental commitments as detailed in the Final SEA will be implemented, ~s appropriate, to minimize impacts. The contractor shall implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan at the dredge and beach placement sites. Beach placement will be limited to a diked, single-point placement site or similar methodology to minimize nearshore turbidity. Construction activity on the beach shall be conducted 12 hours per day, 7 days a week. This restriction does not apply to dredging activities or pumping of sand onto the beach.

A public notice of this Supplemental EA was published in September 2022.

Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the USACE determined that the Proposed Action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the following federally listed species: Green sea turtle. The USACE initiated formal consultation with NMFS 954
on December 9, 2022. NMFS issued a Biological Opinion with conservation measures, terms and conditions, and recommendations to avoid, minimize or offset potential impacts to green sea turtles (GST) on May 8, 2023, and the USACE has incorporated those measures and recommendations into the Environmental Commitments outlined in Section 5.0 of this SEA.

Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the USACE determined that the recommended plan has no adverse effect on historic properties.

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with the recommended plan has been found to be compliant with the section 404(6)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230). The Clean Water Act Section 404(6)(1) Guidelines evaluation is found in the 2011 EIR/EIS attached as Appendix B. The proposed modifications do not result in new or different effects to Waters of the United States so an updated 404(6 )(1) evaluation is not required.

A water quality certification pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act was obtained from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 3, 2022. All conditions of the water quality certification will be implemented to minimize adverse impacts to water quality. The 401 water quality permit is attached as Appendix C.

A consistency determination (CD) with the California Coastal Zone Management program pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was obtained from the California Coastal Commission for the original proposed action on November 2, 2011. All conditions of the negative determination shall be implemented in order to minimize adverse impacts to the coastal zone. The CD is attached as Appendix D.

All applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, and local government plans were considered in evaluation of alternatives and coordination with appropriate agencies and officials has been completed. Based on this Final SEA, the reviews by other Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, input of the public, and the review by my staff, it is my determination that the recommended plan would not cause significant adverse effects on the quality of the human environment; therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed modifications (Proposed Action).
9 May 2023
Date Julie A. Batten
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Commanding
Ill

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
Orange County, California
Department of the Army
Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers
May 2023
ATTACHMENT 5
955
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Project Location, Description and Proposed Modifications ........................... 1

1.2 Supplemental Environmental Assessment Process ......................................... 4

1.3 Relationship to Environmental Protection Statutes, Plans, and Other Requirements................................................................................................. 4

3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 6

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY AND CONSEQUENCES ................... 6

4.1 Oceanography and Water Quality ................................................................... 6

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND COMMITMENTS ........... 18

6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................................................... 34

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 35

LIST OF FIGURES
1 San Clemente Beach Staging Area ..........................................................................3 2 Offshore Oceanside Borrow Site .............................................................................9 3 Project Location Map .............................................................................................39 4 Project Beach Nourishment Area ...........................................................................40

LIST OF TABLES

1. Study Area Demographics………………………………………………………20

APPENDICES
A. Mailing List
B. Section 401 Water Quality Certification
C. California Coastal Commission Consistency Determination D. Biological Opinion
E. Section 106 SHPO Consultation
F. EPA Environmental Justice Screen Report
956
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document supplements the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (2011 EIS/EIR) for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project.

This project is a coastal storm risk management project designed to protect existing structures and the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Rail Line. The authorized project as described in the 2011 EIS/EIR consists of recurring placement of sand onto San Clemente Beach, centered about the San Clemente municipal pier, to protect the railroad and beach structures from damage by ocean waves. The railroad on either side of the fill area is protected by a riprap revetment constructed and maintained by the Southern California Railroad Association (SCRRA). The designed beach fill consists of a 50 foot wide beach, approximately 3,600 feet long and a design foreshore slope of 8H:1V. The material to construct the beach during each even will be dredged from a borrow site located 18 miles to the south offshore of Oceanside Harbor.

The 2011 EIS/EIR analyzed multiple alternatives including revetments, groins and offshore breakwaters before concluding beach nourishment was the alternative to carry forward. In addition to the no action alternative, two beach width alternatives: 50 ft (15 m) and 115 ft (35 m).

Evaluations of the 50ft and 115 ft beach widths impacts were analyzed in the 2011 EIR/EIS. The 50ft beach width was selected as the final plan.

The locations of the borrow site and beach fill remain the same. The total dredge volume and beach fill quantity remain the same. All other Proposed Action elements remain the same and are not addressed in this Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA).

The purpose of this SEA is to update the impact analysis to address minor changes to the project description as well as changed environmental conditions such as potential presence of GST, a Federally listed endangered species; identify additional environmental commitments to avoid, minimize or offset potential environmental impacts; and to provide an update of environmental compliance actions that have occurred subsequent to completion of the 2011 EIS/EIR. As such, the scope of this SEA is limited to resources that may be impacted or benefitted as a result of those changes. Resources addressed include Oceanography and Water Quality, Marine Resources (including Biological Resources), Geology and Topography, Cultural Resources and Noise. Other resources such as Ground and Vessel Transportation, Recreation, Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Public Health and Safety that were addressed in the 2011 Final EIS/EIR would not be affected differently from the proposed changes or changed conditions, and therefore are not discussed further in this document.

1.1 Project Location, Description and Proposed Modifications

1.1.1 Location. 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 957
2 the San Clemente 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle in Section 4 of Township 9 South and Range 7 West.

1.1.2 Description of Authorized Project and Proposed Modifications

The Authorized 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 would likely be used. The hopper dredge effective capacity is estimated at 3,500 cy. 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 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. The resultant beach is 50 feet (15 m). 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
), with 8 subsequent nourishment events projected every 5-6 years.

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 958
3 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.

Environmental commitments that were recommended at the time the 2011 EIS/EIR were completed. The status of environmental compliance, were included in Section 7.0 of that document.

Proposed Modifications:

Updated Schedule. Construction of the San Clemente Shoreline Protection project is expected to start in fall/winter 2023. The offshore equipment typically operates on a 24-hour basis; heavy equipment such as bulldozers working on the beach are restricted to 12 hours per day, 7 days a week. The 7 days per week work schedule is an update from the 2011 EIS/EIR, and is consistent with other compliance documents. Dredging is expected to take approximately 46 working days.

Dredging and beach placement activities would take place concurrently.

Staging Area. Staging areas have slightly expanded from the 2011 EIR/EIS. The updated staging area is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 1. Updated construction staging area on San Clemente Beach. 959
~
t '•,~.,~
l~---
e ~HACCE.SSANDSrA.G ti.O ARE.A
GE~ERAI... SHEET NOTES
.. __ -==~:.....Po_ . .._,_ .... .._._ .. :::=111~-,---.... - C8102-000
WCH-SCS- -·
4 Modified or Additional Environmental Commitments, including Permit Conditions. See Section 5.2.

1.2 Supplemental Environmental Assessment Process
This document has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.§4321-4347); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R. Parts1500-1508); and the USACE’s NEPA Regulations (33 C.F.R. Part 230). A Public Notice was issued in September 2022 on the Corps’ Los Angeles District website announcing the preparation of the Supplemental EA and soliciting public comments through October 15, 2022. No comments were received.

1.3 Relationship to Environmental Protection Statutes, Plans, and Other Requirements The USACE is required to comply with all pertinent federal laws and regulations; compliance is summarized in Section 5.1.
2 PROJECT AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND NEED

2.1 Project Authority
The Project Authority remains the same as that described in the 2011 EIR/EIS. 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 (P.L.)106-60, September 29, 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, P.L. 89-298, October 27, 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.”

2.2 Project Purpose and Need
960
5 The Project Purpose and Need remains the same as that described in the 2011 EIR/EIS.

The purpose of this Project is to provide shore protection through nourishment of the beach at and around 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
961
6 3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

3.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be to implement the authorized project as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS, without the proposed modifications, updated environmental commitments or updated compliance.

3.2 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action Alternative is to implement the authorized project with minor modifications as described in Section 1.1.2, including additional environmental commitments listed in Section 5.2. Additionally implementing conservation measures and permit requirements that were included in updated compliance documentation including a 2023 biological opinion from the NMFS (Appendix D) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) (Appendix B).

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY AND CONSEQUENCES
The Affected Environment at the project site is generally as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS (USACE, 2011) and summarized below. Significance criteria specified in the 2011 EIR/EIS (USACE, 2011) remain the same.

4.1 Oceanography and Water Quality

4.1.1 Affected Environment
Water and sediment quality in the dredge and placement areas are as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS and 2012 Feasibility Report.

Water temperatures, salinity, dissolved oxygen concentrations and light transmittance are largely typical for Southern California nearshore waters. As summarized in the 2012 Feasibility Report, water temperatures range from approximately 14°C (winter minimum) to 22°C (summer maximum). During the summer, surface water temperatures are up to 10°C warmer than those in deeper waters. Near shore salinity is generally uniform, from approximately 33 to 34 ppt. Seasonally, the near-surface salinity can decrease near the Prima Deshecha & Segunda Deshecha Watershed following storm-related discharges of freshwater and/ or (historically) intermittent discharges of sewage into the river. Dissolved oxygen concentrations typically lie between approximately 6.5 and 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L), but may drop below approximately 5 mg/L at depths of 60 meters. Light transmittance (indicating water clarity) has been measured at approximately 4 to 4.5 meters (13 to 15 feet). Some reduction was associated with storm activity, particularly in shallower, near shore waters. Both light and nutrients are needed to support photosynthesis by attached and planktonic plants. 962
7 Nutrient concentrations are also expected to be similar to that elsewhere in the Southern California Bight: 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.

Sediment Quality. A Sampling and Analysis Program was conducted in 2003, the material in the borrow area has been determined to be clean, beach-compatible sand. This determination was presented to the Southern California Dredged Material Management Team (SC-DMMT) on December 9, 2020 which concurred with the suitability determination.

4.1.2 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.

The following mitigation measures have been formulated to ameliorate any potential water quality impacts:

MM-WR-50-1.1: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an California Department of Fish and Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response Permit (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 963
8 shall be modified (e.g., by slowing the rate of fill) until the turbidity plume disperses.

4.1.3 Environmental Consequences

4.1.3.1 Proposed Action
Impacts to oceanography and water quality are as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS . The primary potential for degradation of water quality from the proposed action is through the generation of turbidity during the dredging and sediment discharge to the beach. Dredging activities at the borrow site will result in a localized surface plume, which the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) estimated to extend under worst-case conditions to 1,000 feet based on overall mean grain size diameter and average current speed (SANDAG 2000). The estimated average down current distance of the turbidity plume was estimated to be 272 to 329 feet.

Turbidity plumes generated during discharge to receiver sites would be expected to be confined primarily to the naturally turbid surf zone and associated rip currents. The turbidity plumes remained in the surf zone unless rip currents carried them offshore (SANDAG 2000). 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.

The proposed modifications to the authorized project, including changes to schedule, staging areas and updated environmental commitments, would have no additional effect to any listed significance criteria. The proposed changes would not violate water quality objectives, or change background levels of chemical and physical constituents or elevate turbidity to an extent that it 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.

4.1.3.2 No Action Alternative
Impacts are the same as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS for the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative would not violate water quality objectives, or change background levels of chemical and physical constituents or elevate turbidity to an extent that it 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.

4.2 Marine Resources

4.2.1 Affected Environment
Marine resources in the dredge and placement areas are essentially as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS (USACE, 2011). The Project area includes multiple habitat types including terrestrial shoreline, sandy shoreline, sandy intertidal, rocky intertidal, and softbottom and hardbottom subtidal. The biological constituents are typical of these Southern California habitat types, and discussed in depth in the 2011 EIR/EIS.
964
9 Additionally, the offshore borrow site contains sand bottom along with experimental artificial reef structures constructed by CDFW in 1987 (Bedford, 1993). Several of the Oceanside Reef 2 structures lie within the Project’s borrow site at about the 40-42’ depth. The structures are single mound rock quarry piles rising approximately 5 to 9 feet above the bottom, with circumferences approximately 50 feet. The presence of the artificial reef was unknown and not discussed in the 2011 EIS/EIR (USACE, 2011). During multi-beam survey efforts by the USACE, the artificial reef was discovered and investigated. Additional CDFW documents detailing their exact location, construction method, position relative to other CDFW artificial reefs and experimental objectives were found (CDFW Oceanside Artificial Reef 2 report, date unknown). Upon discovery of this information, the USACE notified NMFS of this update to the borrow site information under the auspices of ongoing consultation (Appendix D) The USACE has amended the borrow site to exclude the artificial reef structures along with a 300 foot buffer zone surrounding them. Given that the individual reef mounds are located in a linear fashion along the 40-42 foot bathymetric contour, the individual structures were linked in a contiguous manner to create a cohered buffer zone. The updated borrow site figure (Figure 5) with 300 foot dredging offset was forwarded to the NMFS for inclusion to the consultation.

Figure 2. Updated Borrow Site schematic with 300 foot dredging offset depicted for CDFW Artificial Reef 2 avoidance.
965
OC:tANSIOt: BORA OW AAEA. AAn l-lCIAL.. AEl:J- ORl:.DGINO Of-'. SET 10 4.2.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
The threatened and endangered species that may occur in the vicinity of the project area and as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS include White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni), Southern steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus) and California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni). Consultation with the NMFS and USFWS was not undertaken as these species were considered unlikely to occur directly within the Project area and would not be directly or indirectly affected by the project. However, this SEA addresses the potential presence of green sea turtles that are now known to transit through the general vicinity and may occur at times in the reef habitat that is located immediately offshore adjacent to the placement site and, or within the borrow site.

Green sea turtle
The project area contains significant forage resources for GST (GST) forage species including surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi and P. Scouleri), red algaes, invertebrates, etc. Although GST presence data is minimal, stranding data (NMFS, 2020) indicates that GST are present and likely utilize offshore resources in transiting between Anaheim Bay estuarine complex/Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge to the north and to San Diego Bay in the south.

The offshore borrow site overlaps with several individual artificial mounded reef structures built by the California Department of Fish and Game (now CDFW) in the 1987. These artificial reefs may offer forage and/or resting opportunities for GST.

4.2.2. 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; • 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 impedance 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.

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, 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 966
11 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 CDFW. 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).

4.2.3 Environmental Consequences

4.2.3.1 Proposed Action
In addition to the impacts to marine resources described in the 2011 EIR/EIS, potential impacts to GST may occur in the form of direct contact with the hopper dredge and support vessels.

Impacts to surfgrass in the sediment discharge site may also occur, which could indirectly affect GST by disrupting potential foraging habitat. This is addressed more fully below.

Essential Fish Habitat
The USACE has determined that the proposed modifications to the authorized project will not result in any new substantial, adverse impacts to any species managed under the Coastal Pelagic Species Management Plan, Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, or their habitat.

Impacts, such as turbidity associated with dredging and placement of dredged materials would be temporary and insignificant.

With or without the proposed modifications, some cross shore movement of sand due to wave action is expected to occur, which may have impacts to surfgrass and, or unvegetated reef that occur offshore of the placement area. While the Coastal Engineering modeling that was conducted cannot predict where or for how long the material will settle, the depth of deposition is not expected to be substantial or persistent in most areas as it would continue to be subject to currents, wave action and other coastal processes. However, post-construction monitoring will 967
12 occur as outlined in the 2011 EIS/EIR to ensure that this presumption is correct and to determine if adaptive management or offsets for loss of surfgrass are required.

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 impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, compensatory mitigation would be completed. Potential mitigation, if necessary is described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. (2011

EIS/EIR)
Threatened and Endangered Species
Impacts to threatened and endangered species, other than GST, are as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS . As with the authorized project, the proposed modifications (Proposed Action) would not affect White abalone, Southern steelhead, Western snowy plover, or California least tern, as these species are still considered absent from the project area.

Since the 2011 EIR/EIS publication , additional data concerning GST has become available establishing local populations within San Diego Bay and Los Alamitos/Seal Beach NWS. Some information was obtained through the collaborative U.S. Navy and the NMFS satellite tagging efforts, and NMFS stranding data supplemented. This data, combined with the 12 year lapse between the 2011 EIR/EIS, lead the USACE to initiate informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et. seq.) Section 7 on August 16, 2022. The USACE provided additional analysis concerning surfgrass and rocky reef habitat acreages within the Project area. Through further coordination with the NMFS, due to uncertainty on the number of GST that may be present in the Project area and potential effects on GST’s significant forage resource surfgrass, NMFS requested transition to formal consultation which was initiated December 9, 2022. Consultation was completed with issuance by NMFS of a final Biological Opinion (BO) on May 8, 2023 (Appendix D).

The USACE has included the following monitoring and avoidance measures that would minimize effects to GST as a result of the proposed action:

1. During dredging, transit to and from the Oceanside Borrow Site, and placement of dredged material at the Placement Area, a qualified biologist or qualified monitor with experience monitoring GST will be onboard the hopper dredge to monitor for the presence of GST. The GST monitor will identify and communicate if there is a need to cease or alter operations to avoid impacts to GST.

2. During dredging, the biological monitor will periodically check in the hopper for the presence of GST.

3. Adequate lighting will be provided during nighttime operations (i.e., dredging, dredge material transport and placement) to allow the monitor to observe the surrounding area effectively. 968
13 4. The biologist or monitor will clear the dredging area and confirm no GSTs are present 30 minutes prior to the startup of dredging operations.

5. If a GST is observed within the vicinity of the project site during project operations, all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to avoid or minimize unintended impacts. These precautions include, but are not limited to:
• Cessation of operations within 100 feet of an observed GST; • Operations may not resume until the GST has departed the monitoring zone by its own accord or has not been observed for a 15-minute period of time; and • Maneuver the hopper dredge to avoid any free-swimming GSTs observed during transit.

6. Biological monitors will maintain a written log of all GST observations during project operations. This observation log will be provided to the USACE and NMFS as an attachment to the post-construction report for the project. Each observation log will contain the following information:
• Observer name and title;
• Type of construction activity (maintenance dredging, etc.); • Date and time animal first observed (for each observation); • Date and time observation ended (for each observation). A GST observation will terminate if (1) an animal is observed exiting the monitoring zone or (2) after a 15-minute period of no observation (assumption is that animal has exited, but was not observed to do so);
• Location of monitor (latitude/longitude), direction of GST in relation to the monitor, and estimated distance (in meters) of GST to the monitor; and • Nature and duration of equipment shutdown.

7. Any observations involving the potential “take” of GSTs will be reported to the USACE within 10 minutes of the incident and to the NMFS stranding coordinator immediately thereafter.

8. The Contractor will implement an Environmental Protection Plan that will include a GST Monitoring and Avoidance Plan and an employee training program on GST observation protocols, avoidance, and minimization measures. The program will be conducted by the Biological Monitor and a record kept of dates of training, names and positions of attending employees, and an outline of the training presentation.

The Proposed Action would not have a significant adverse impact on biological resources as it would not result in any of the following:
• 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; • A long-term net loss in the habitat value of a sensitive biological habitat; • Substantial impedance to the breeding, movement or migration of fish or wildlife; • Substantial loss to the population of any native fish, wildlife or vegetation; or • Substantial adverse impact on Essential Fish Habitat.

4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative
969
14 With the exception of minor changes in staging areas, schedules and environmental commitments, the No Action alternative is physically similar to the Proposed Action. As with the Proposed Action, construction of the Authorized Project as defined in the 2011 EIS/EIR would result in recurring dredging and discharge of sediment at San Clemente. Therefore, effects of the No Action alternative on biological resources would be similar to those described above.

Without implementation of the minimization and avoidance measures for GST, however, effects to that species may be more substantial. As no resident population of GST occurs within the action area and it is unknown how many if any GST would be present in the area of potential effects during dredging and disposal activities. Effects may not be considered significant under NEPA, but the No Action alternative would not be in compliance with the Endangered Species Act as it lacks avoidance and mitigation measures.

4.4 Noise

4.4.1 Affected Environment
Noise in the dredge and placement areas are as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS .The Project beach site is currently beach property, adjacent to residential and commercial property as well as LOSSAN rail tracks. 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.

4.4.2 Environmental Consequences

4.4.2.1 Significance Criteria
Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative results in:
• Permanently elevated noise levels within the project area.

4.4.2.2 Proposed Action
Impacts to noise are as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS (USACE, 2011) with the exception that impacts for beach operations would extend to 12 hours per day, 7 days a week. The primary noise generators are the hopper dredge and beachside heavy equipment. While this work schedule is a change from the 10-11 hour workday described in the 2011 EIS/EIR, the effect would only occur while construction equipment is operating and would cease after and inbetween nourishment episodes. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in permanently elevated noise levels within the project area and significant noise impacts would not occur.

4.4.2.3 No Action Alternative
As with the Proposed Action, construction would cause short-term but less than significant adverse noise impacts during dredging and placement activities. 970
15 4.5 Cultural Resources

4.5.1 Affected Environment
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA USACE initiated consultation with California Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) and Native American Tribes on November 22, 2022.

USACE was provided a list of contacts for Native American Tribes affiliated with the San Clemente area by the California Native American Heritage Commission; these included:
• Juaneno Band of Mission Indians
• Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A • La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, Pala Band of Mission Indians • Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
In the consultation letters to SHPO and the above Tribes, USACE defined the APEs (onshore and offshore), presented the results of identification and evaluation efforts set forth in the 2011 EIR/EIS and the results of 2020 remote sensing survey, and made a determination of no historic properties affected. No responses were received from Tribes. All consultation correspondence is attached as Appendix E.

One locally significant historic resource is located within the onshore part of the APE: the San Clemente Municipal Pier. The City’s original pier was designed by engineer William Ayer and constructed by the City of San Clemente in 1928. After this pier was demolished by storms in 1939, Ayer designed a new pier that was built in 1940. The pier was severely damaged by storms again in 1983 and was substantially reconstructed. Therefore, the extant pier structure does not retain integrity of design, materials, and workmanship of either the original 1928 pier or the 1939 reconstructed pier. In 2006, the City of San Clemente commissioned a historic resources survey update in order to update its Historic Structures list. This survey formally recorded and evaluated the San Clemente Municipal Pier and assigned it a California Historic Register Status Code designation of 5B as being a locally significant property that is not eligible for listing on either the California Register or National Register. The pier is listed on the City’s Historic Structures List. USACE concurs with this assessment that while the Pier may be locally significant it is not National Register eligible. However, for the purposes of this undertaking, USACE is proposing to assume the San Clemente Municipal Pier is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under criteria A and C. Based on the nature of the undertaking, the Proposed Action will not cause harm to the structure and will have no adverse effect on the pier’s historical integrity.

The 2020 remote sensing survey identified the artificial reef structures described in Section 4.2.1, but no other anomalies that could be shipwrecks or other submerged historic resources on the seafloor.
971
16 In accordance with 36 C.F.R. Part 800.4(b)(1), USACE has determined that the 2011 EIR/EIS and the 2020 remote sensing survey constitutes a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties and that none were identified. USACE has determined that no historic properties will be affected by the Proposed Action.

Concurrence on USACE’s determination of no adverse effect on historic properties was received from SHPO on May, 4 2023. No responses were received from any of the Tribal entities contacted.

4.5.2 Environmental Consequences

4.5.2.1 Significance Criteria
Adverse effects to sites and properties listed on, or eligible for, the NRHP are evaluated based on the Criteria of Adverse Effect as outlined in 36 C.F.R. Part 800.5 of the regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA. The criteria for adverse effect includes:
• An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, the characteristics of an historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of an historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property's eligibility for the National Register.
• Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.

Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: (i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; (ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 C.F.R. part 68) and applicable guidelines; (iii) Removal of the property from its historic location; (iv) Change of the character of the property's use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance; (v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features; (vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and, (vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance.4.5.2.2 Proposed Action
Impacts to cultural resources are as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS.

Significant adverse impacts to cultural resources are not expected. 972
17 4.5.2.3 No Action alternative.

Impacts are the same as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS for the Proposed Action.

Significant adverse impacts to cultural resources are not expected.

973
18 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND COMMITMENTS

5.1 Compliance

5.1.1 National Environmental Compliance Act of 1969 (Public Law (PL) 91-190); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 40 C.F.R.

Parts 1500 to 1508; USACE Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 33 C.F.R. Part 230.

The National Environmental Compliance Act includes the improvement and coordination of Federal plans to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment and to achieve a balance between population and resource use permitting high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.

The NEPA was established to ensure that environmental consequences of federal actions are incorporated into Agency decision-making processes. It establishes a process whereby parties most affected by impacts of a proposed action are identified and opinions solicited. The proposed action and several alternatives are evaluated in relation to their environmental impacts, and a tentative selection of the most appropriate alternative is made. If it is determined that a Federal action will have a significant impact upon the quality of the human environment, an EIS must be prepared. If no significant impact would occur, then a Finding of No Significant Impact is prepared.

This SEA has been prepared to address impacts and develop mitigation (if warranted) associated with modifications included in the Proposed Action. A public notice was published in September 2022 on the USACE website, soliciting public comments on the Proposed Action through October 15, 2022. No comments were received.

5.1.2 Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) The Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed to restore and maintain chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Specific sections of the CWA control the discharge of pollutants and wastes into aquatic and marine environments. The major sections of the CWA that apply to the proposed project is Section 401, which requires certification that the discharges comply with the State Water Quality Standards for actions within state waters, and Section 404(b)(1), which establishes guidelines for discharge of dredged or fill materials into an aquatic ecosystem. Although Sections 401 and 404(b)(1) of the CWA apply, by their own terms, only to applications for Federal permits, the USACE has, by regulation, made them applicable to their own projects. This policy is set out in USACE regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 336. Section 336.1(a) of that regulation states, "Although the USACE does not process and issue permits for its own activities, the USACE authorizes its own discharges of dredge or fill material by applying all applicable substantive legal requirements, including public notice, opportunity for public hearing, and application of the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines." 974
19 The USACE has received a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) and has prepared a Section 404(b)(1) Analysis for the proposed project, as modified. The USACE applied for a WQC) with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board (SARWWB) on September 22, 2022.

The Section 401 WQC was received from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board (SDRWQB) on November 3, 2022 (Appendix F). The WQC was issued through San Diego Regional Water Quality Review Board (SDRWQCB) because the Project borrow site lies within San Diego County waters. The USACE will comply with stated permit conditions. The 404(b)(1) Evaluation is was completed as part of the 2011 EIR/EIS (USACE, 2011) and is appended to that document. No modifications were required to the 404(b)(1) as a result of the proposed modifications. The Proposed Action is in compliance with the Clean Water Act.

5.1.3 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.) Under ESA Section 7(a)(2), each federal agency must ensure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the species’ designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)). If an agency determines that its actions “may affect” a listed species or its critical habitat, the agency must conduct informal or formal consultation, as appropriate, with either the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the NMFS, depending on the species at issue (50 C.F.R. §§402.01, 402.14(a)– (b)). If, however, the action agency independently determines that the action would have “no effect” on listed species or critical habitat, the agency has no further obligations under the ESA.

The USACE initiated informal consultation with a not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) determination for GST on August 16, 2022. Upon further coordination with the NMFS the USACE initiated formal consultation for GST on December 9, 2022. Upon issuance by NMFS of a Biological Opinion on May 8, 2023 (Appendix D), the project is in compliance with the ESA.

5.1.4 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. §1456 et seq.) Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), any federal agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone must demonstrate the activity is, and proceed in a manner, consistent with approved State’s Coastal Zone Management Program, to the maximum extent practicable.

The USACE prepared and received concurrence from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on a consistency determination (CD-029-11, June 17, 2011) for the authorized project.

Concurrence was received after completion of the 2011 Final EIS/EIR; therefore, the document is included as an appendix to this SEA (Appendix C). No changes to the original consistency determination are required as a result of the proposed modifications. Conditions associated with the Consistency Determination will be implemented as part of the Project. The Proposed Action is in compliance with this the Coastal Zone Management Act.

5.1.5 Clean Air Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. §7401 et. seq.) 975
20 Air quality regulations were first promulgated with the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA is intended to protect the Nation's air quality by regulating emissions of air pollutants. Section 118 of the CAA requires that all Federal agencies engaged in activities that may result in the discharge of air pollutants comply with state and local air pollution control requirements.

Section 176 of the CAA prohibits federal agencies from engaging in any activity that does not conform to an approved State Implementation Plan.

The CAA established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and delegated enforcement of air pollution control to the states. In California, the Air Resources Board (ARB) has been designated as the state agency responsible for regulating air pollution sources at the state level. The ARB, in turn, has delegated the responsibility of regulating stationary emission sources to local air pollution control or management districts that, for the proposed project, is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

The CAA states that all applicable federal and state ambient air quality standards must be maintained during the operation of any emission source. The CAA also delegates to each state the authority to establish their own air quality rules and regulations. State adopted rules and regulations must be at least as stringent as the mandated federal requirements. In states where the NAAQS are exceeded, the CAA requires preparation of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that identifies how the state will meet standards within timeframes mandated by the CAA.

The 1990 CAA established new nonattainment classifications, new emission control requirements, and new compliance dates for areas presently in nonattainment of the NAAQS, based on the design day value. The design day value is the fourth highest pollutant concentration recorded in a 3-year period. The requirements and compliance dates for reaching attainment are based on the nonattainment classification.

One of the requirements established by the 1990 CAA was an emission reduction amount, which is used to judge how progress toward attainment of the ozone standards is measured. The 1990 CAA requires areas in nonattainment of the NAAQS for ozone to reduce basin wide VOC emissions by 15 percent for the first 6 years and by an average 3 percent per year thereafter until attainment is reached. Control measures must be identified in the SIP, which facilitates reduction in emissions and show progress toward attainment of ozone standards.

The 1990 CAA states that a federal agency cannot support an activity in any way unless it determines the activity will conform to the most recent EPA-approved SIP. This means that Federally supported or funded activities will not: (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of any air quality standard; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard; or (3) delay the timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. In accordance with Section 176 of the 1990 CAA, the EPA promulgated the final conformity rule for general Federal actions in the November 30, 1993 and revised the regulations effective July 6, 2010.

As described in the 2011 EIS/EIR, project emissions are not expected to equal or exceed the general conformity applicability rates. The proposed modifications would not result in substantively different emissions as the Proposed Action retains the same dredge and disposal 976
21 footprints and would use the same equipment. Conformity standards also remain the same.

Therefore, the Proposed Action remains in compliance with the Clean Air Act (2011 EIR/EIS, Section 9.0).

5.1.6 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. §3000100 et seq.) The purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is to preserve and protect historic and prehistoric resources that may be damaged, destroyed, or made less available by a project.

Under this Act, federal agencies are required to identify cultural or historical resources that may be affected by a project and to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) when a federal action may affect cultural resources.

The USACE has determined that the San Clemente Shoreline Protection project would not have an adverse effect to National Register eligible or listed properties. The USACE received concurrence from the SHPO on May 4, 2023. The current project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 800.

If previously unknown cultural resources are identified during project implementation, all activity will cease until requirements of 36 C.F.R. Part 800.13, Discovery of Properties During Implementation of an Undertaking, are met.

5.1.7 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 661-666c) requires the USACE to consult with the (USFWS) whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed to be impounded, diverted, or otherwise modified. A Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (CAR) was completed July 26, 2011, and is attached to the 2011 EIR/EIS as Appendix G. The Proposed Action does not alter the project in any way that would require reconsultation under FWCA.

5.1.8 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended The 2011 EIR/EIS (USACE, 2011) contains an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)Assessment as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. While proposed Project modifications will occur within Essential Fish Habitat, the USACE has determined that the project modifications would not result in a substantial change to the impacts addressed in that document. In compliance with the coordination and supplemental consultation requirements of the MSA, the USACE continues coordination with NMFS, and has agreed to additional preproject surveys to better delineate the boundaries of reef habitat as a result of that coordination.

5.1.9 Executive Order 12898. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 (E.O.) focuses Federal attention on the environment and human health conditions of minority and low-income communities and calls on agencies to achieve environmental justice as part of its mission. The E.O. requires United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and all other Federal agencies (as well as state agencies receiving Federal funds) to develop strategies to address this issue as part of the NEPA process. The 977
22 agencies are required to identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts of their programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations. The EO makes clear that its provisions apply fully to programs involving Native Americans. The CEQ has oversight responsibility for the Federal government’s compliance with the EO and NEPA. The CEQ, in consultation with the USEPA and other agencies, has developed guidance to assist Federal agencies with their NEPA procedures so that environmental justice concerns are effectively identified and addressed.

According to the CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, agencies should consider the composition of the affected area to determine whether minority populations or low-income populations are present in the area affected by the proposed action, and if so whether there may be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts (CEQ 1997).USEPA’s EJScreen tool was used to obtain the study area demographics. Table 4 provides a summary of the study area demographics, complete EJScreen Reports can be found in Appendix F.

Table 1. Study Area Demographics
Demographic Affected Affected Area State City of San Clemente People of Color 22% 63% 27%
Low-income Population 7% 29% 14%
The affected area does not contain a high concentration of a minority or low-income population.

The percentage in the affected area for either population does not exceed 50% and is well below state of California populations and is not meaningfully greater than the community of comparison. The Proposed Action, as modified, is in compliance. There would be no impacts resulting from the Proposed Action, as modified, that would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income communities.

5.2 Environmental Commitments
Environmental commitments are as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS with the addition of the measures defined in Section 4.2.3.1 above to ensure project activities minimize affects to GST.:

1. During dredging, transit to and from the Oceanside Borrow Site, and placement of dredged material at the Placement Area, a qualified biologist or qualified monitor with experience monitoring GSTs will be onboard the hopper dredge to monitor for the presence of GSTs. The GST monitor will identify and communicate if there is a need to cease or alter operations to avoid impacts to GSTs.

2. During dredging, the biological monitor will periodically check in the hopper for the presence of GSTs.

3. Adequate lighting will be provided during nighttime operations (i.e., dredging, dredge material transport and placement) to allow the monitor to observe the surrounding area effectively.

4. The biologist or monitor will clear the dredging area and confirm no GSTs are present 30 minutes prior to the startup of dredging operations.
978
23 5. If a GST is observed within the vicinity of the project site during project operations, all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to avoid or minimize unintended impacts. These precautions include, but are not limited to:
• Cessation of operations within 100 feet of an observed GST; • Operations may not resume until the GST has departed the monitoring zone by its own accord or has not been observed for a 15-minute period of time; and • Maneuver the hopper dredge to avoid any free-swimming GSTs observed during transit.

6. Biological monitors will maintain a written log of all GST observations during project operations. This observation log will be provided to the USACE and NMFS as an attachment to the post-construction report for the project. Each observation log will contain the following information:
• Observer name and title;
• Type of construction activity (maintenance dredging, etc.); • Date and time animal first observed (for each observation); • Date and time observation ended (for each observation). A GST observation will terminate if (1) an animal is observed exiting the monitoring zone or (2) after a 15-minute period of no observation (assumption is that animal has exited, but was not observed to do so); • Location of monitor (latitude/longitude), direction of GST in relation to the monitor, and estimated distance (in meters) of GST to the monitor; and • Nature and duration of equipment shutdown.

7. Any observations involving the potential “take” of GSTs will be reported to the USACE within 10 minutes of the incident and to the NMFS stranding coordinator immediately thereafter.

8. The Contractor will implement an Environmental Protection Plan that will include a GST Monitoring and Avoidance Plan and an employee training program on GST observation protocols, avoidance, and minimization measures. The program will be conducted by the Biological Monitor and a record kept of dates of training, names and positions of attending employees, and an outline of the training presentation.

Additional conditions of the California Coastal Commission’s Consistency Determination include:

1. Unanticipated delays resulting in disposal during grunion season. If unanticipated delays result in a time extension of disposal into the grunion season (which is March through August), prior to any such disposal, the USACE will inform the CCC staff, and agree to implement and adhere to the same grunion monitoring measures, mitigation triggers, and mitigation requirements as those adopted by the Commission on June 15, 2011, in its review of the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG’s) coastal development permit 6-11-018, Condition No. 8 (Grunions). These measures are attached as Exhibit 13 in Appendix C.

2. Final Monitoring Plans. Prior to commencement of construction, the USACE will provide to the CCC Executive Director, for review and concurrence, a copy of the final Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) phase surveys and the 979
24 subsequent monitoring plans, including:
(a) the final biological (reef/surfgrass) Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMRP), including all surveys conducted in preparation of that plan; (b) the surfing monitoring plan;
(c) the turbidity monitoring plan;
(d) the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and (e) the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Plan (OSPRP).

3. MMRP Details. The final MMRP shall assure: (a) that biological monitoring of all offshore potential impact areas shall be for a minimum of 2 years pre-construction and 2 years post construction; (b) that monitoring and analytical methods are adequate to identify and accurately measure all short- and long-term impacts from the beach nourishment effort; (c) that appropriate mitigation sites are available to address potential impacts; and (d) that the success criteria and analytical methods used are adequate to demonstrate a difference between impact/mitigation site and control sites and shall include the following:
(i) clear and specific identification of the potential impact areas that will be monitored before and after the beach nourishment efforts, including the intertidal reef at Mariposa Point; and change criteria that will be used to establish thresholds of impacts for mitigation;
(ii) schedule and frequency of monitoring efforts and monitoring reports; (iii) discussion of the monitoring and analytical methods that will be used to evaluation the sites based on the change criteria for both short- and long-term impacts;
(iv) delineation and characterization of the potential mitigation sites that will be used if short- or long-term impacts are identified that meet the threshold for mitigation
(v) clear and specific criteria for identifying impacts and for evaluating the success of any necessary mitigation. If statistical tests are proposed, then the plan must specify biologically meaningful effect sizes (i.e., a difference between the control and the impact site, or between the control and the mitigation site) and specify alpha and beta, with alpha equal to beta. The field sampling plan must include sufficient replication to provide a statistical test with at least 80% statistical power (beta=0.2) to detect an effect of the stated size with alpha = 0.2.

The proposed replication must be based on preliminary sampling data and a statistical power analysis. Smaller alpha and beta may be used. (vi) Identification of the control or reference sites that will be used and the results of a preliminary field sample at both control and potential impact sites demonstrating that the control sites are appropriate.

Construction shall not commence until the USACE has received written concurrence from
the CCC Executive Director that the MMRP satisfies all these criteria.

4. Surfing Monitoring Details. The USACE will revise its Surfing Monitoring Plan (Exhibit 15 in Appendix C) to include and implement the following features:
980
25 (a) adequate baseline data collection, including, if feasible, a full year of preconstruction monitoring to determine the baseline condition. If this is infeasible, then another local surf site should be monitored as a control (e.g. Lower Trestles, which is already monitored daily and shown on the website: www.surfline.com). (b) identification of locations to be monitored, the length of the pre-project monitoring, and interest groups to be involved in establishing the monitoring effort to identify surfing or surf quality changes that might be attributable to the nourishment project, including identifying criteria for a determination of what constitutes a significant alteration or impact.
(c) supplementing the “wave observation” component of the surf monitoring with observations about the surfing activities, including a usage scale of surfers in the water, both morning and mid-day, and describing the average and maximum ride lengths. (d) given that video recordings are included, if observer counts are too difficult for one observer, video may be used to augment observer counts. (e) when collecting user data, the analysis should be disaggregated into weekday and weekend data.
(f) for mid-day observations on days when surfers are kept out of the water by lifeguards, these should be recorded as restricted use days (not zero use days). (g) establishing mechanisms for informing the local community about the project, and encouraging public comments on surfing quality (or other recreational concerns), including but not limited to: (i) a web site, (ii) pre-construction notifications to the public; and (iii) signs.

Construction shall not commence until the USACE has received written concurrence from
the CCC Executive Director that the monitoring plan satisfies all of these criteria.

5. Staging Plan Details. The staging plans will assure: (a) that staging will not be permitted on public beaches, within public beach parking lots, or in any other location that would otherwise restrict public access to the beach; and (b) that the minimum number of public parking spaces (on and off-street) that are required for the staging of equipment, machinery and employee parking and that are otherwise necessary to implement the project will be used.

6. Water Quality Plan Details. The SWPPP will assure that: (a) the contractor will not store any construction materials or waste where it will be or could potentially be subject to wave erosion and dispersion; (b) no machinery will be placed, stored or otherwise located in the intertidal zone at any time, except for the minimum necessary to implement the project; I construction equipment will not be washed on the beach; (d) where practicable, the contractor will use biodegradable (e.g., vegetable oil-based) lubricants and hydraulic fluids, and/or electric or natural gas-powered equipment; aI(e) immediately upon completion of construction and/or when the staging site is no longer needed, the site shall be returned to its preconstruction state.

7. On-going Monitoring Reports. The USACE will provide to the CCC Executive Director all monitoring reports, including biological monitoring (including biological 981
26 mitigation monitoring), surfing monitoring, turbidity, and spill prevention and response monitoring, long-term shoreline monitoring, and cultural resource surveys.

8. In-Kind Mitigation. For any mitigation shown necessary by the monitoring, the USACE will not proceed to implement out-of-kind mitigations (e.g., using kelp habitat to mitigate surfgrass impacts, or providing mid-water habitat to mitigate for shallow water habitat impacts) without showing to the satisfaction of the CCC Executive Director that in-kind mitigation is infeasible. In addition, if out-of-kind mitigation is agreed to and implemented, the mitigation ratio shall be 4:1 (i.e., 4 acres of mitigation for one acre of impact), and the area measured as the impact area shall be the entire seafloor area (and not, e.g., the acreage of scattered boulders alone).

9. Renourishment. The USACE will notify the Executive Director prior to any reinitation (after the first phase) of nourishment, and the USACEshall not implement any such renourishment until the CCC Executive Director has received all of the monitoring reports required by that time, reviewed them, and agreed that the biological impacts have been mitigated and affected habitat restored to pre-project conditions.

Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit conditions are as follows:

A. Authorization of Project Impacts to Receiving Waters Impacts to Pacific Ocean shoreline must not exceed quantities shown in Table 2 of the San Diego Water Board (SDRWQCB) Order, attached as Appendix B.

B. Project Conformance with Water Quality Control Plans or Policies

1. The USACE must take all necessary measures to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters identified in Finding I.F of the Order potentially impacted by the Project in accordance with water quality standards in the Basin Plan (available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/).

2. Notwithstanding any specific conditions in the Order, the Project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the Basin Plan and any other applicable water quality control plans or policies adopted or approved pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act( California Water Code §13000 et seq.) or section 303 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1313).

3. If at any time an unauthorized discharge to waters of the State occurs or monitoring indicates that the Project is violating, or threatens to violate, water quality objectives, the associated Project activities shall cease immediately, and the SDRWQCB shall be notified in accordance with reporting requirements in Condition II.I of the Order. Associated Project activities may not resume without approval from the SDRWQCB.

C. Compensatory Mitigation
982
27 1. Compensatory Mitigation: Beach sand replenishment is considered self-mitigating and no compensatory mitigation is required for sand placement activities except as stated below for eelgrass.

Mitigation for Impacts to Eelgrass. If any impacts to eelgrass occur, as described in Condition D of the Order, compensatory mitigation that offsets losses to eelgrass must be implemented in accordance with an eelgrass mitigation plan approved by the SDRWQCB. The plan must meet the standards in the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP).

D. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

1. Stormwater Management Plan. At least 30 days prior to the start of project construction, the USACE must submit a stormwater management plan for review by the SDRQQCB The stormwater management plan must include measures for avoiding and minimizing indirect impacts to aquatic resources from Project activities.

2. 2. Monitoring for Eelgrass Beds in Project Vicinity. If applicable, a pre-construction eelgrass survey must be completed in accordance with the requirements of the CEMP no more than 90 days before the start of in-water Project activities. If, during the pre-construction survey, eelgrass is identified within 30 feet of Project activities, the USACE must implement best management practices for the protection of eelgrass beds, as described in Attachment 3 of the Order; and complete a post-construction eelgrass survey, performed by a qualified biologist, within 30 days following the completion of in-water Project activities. The post-construction survey shall be used to quantify and determine mitigation for any losses to eelgrass in conformance with the CEMP. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region. California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines, October 2014. An electronic copy can be found at the following web page: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/cemp_oct_2014_final.pdf

3. Monitoring for Caulerpa in Project Vicinity. If applicable, the USACE must conduct a surveillance-level survey for Caulerpa taxifolia and Caulerpa prolifera, in accordance with the requirements in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Caulerpa Control Protocol, not more than 90 days before the start of in-water Project activities to determine presence/absence of this species within the immediate vicinity of the project. If any Caulerpa are identified during a survey, or at any other time before, during, or within120 days following completion of authorized activities, both National Marine Fisheries Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife must be contacted within 24 hours of first noting the occurrence. If any Caulerpa are detected, all disturbing activity must cease until such time as the infestation has been isolated and treated, or the risk of spread from the disturbing activity is eliminated in accordance with the Caulerpa Control Protocol.

4. Receiving Water Visual Monitoring. The USACE must conduct visual monitoring of Project activities in the Pacific Ocean prior to, during, and after each period of project construction (e.g., pile extraction and driving) as described below. The receiving water visual monitoring documentation must be included in the Annual Progress Reports as described in Attachment 2 of the Order. The following parameters shall be visually monitored immediately outside of the construction area: floating particulates, suspended materials, surface visible 983
28 turbidity plume; and Grease, oil, sheen, odor, color, or any other significant discoloration of the water surface.
1 5. Field Documentation. All visual observations shall be recorded throughout Project construction activities. In addition to the records of monitoring listed below, field documentation of receiving waters visual monitoring shall include, at a minimum, observations of the parameters listed above, observations of sensitive biological resources, and weather conditions, such as wind speed/direction and cloud cover. If photo documentation is used in support of visual observations of water quality conditions, it should be conducted in accordance with the SDRWQCB posted guidelines.
1 6. Response Actions. If applicable, the condition of the silt curtain is observed to be damaged, has become dislocated, or has gaps where a visible turbidity plume is forming outside of the silt curtain at the Project Site, a response action shall be taken immediately to correct the situation. Response actions may include, but are not limited to, work stoppage until silt curtain repair is completed, implementation of operational modifications, work stoppage due to the presence of sensitive species until area is vacated, and/or implementation of additional BMPs (e.g., a second silt curtain). Response actions, if needed, shall be documented in the monitoring field log.

7. Annual Progress Reports. The USACE must submit Annual Progress Reports to the SDRWQCB prior to March 1 of each year following the issuance of the Order and continue to provide the reports until the SDRWQCB accepts the Project Completion Notification submitted by the USACE. Annual Progress Reports must be submitted even if Project activities are not conducted during the reporting period.

Annual reports must contain the status and anticipated schedule for both the Project and Compensatory Mitigation site(s). Additional requirements for the contents of Annual Progress Reports are detailed in Attachment 2 of the Order.

Annual Progress Reports must include, at a minimum, the following:
• The status and anticipated schedule for completion of Project construction activities, including the installation and operational status of construction best management practices for water quality protection;
• A description of any Project construction delays encountered or anticipated that may affect the schedule;
• Photo documentation of all areas of impacts before and after construction. Photo documentation must be conducted in accordance with SDRWQCB posted guidelines.

8. Geographic Information System Data. Within 30 days of the start of project construction, the USACE must submit Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefiles and metadata that show the Project site(s) and impact areas associated with the Project. As part of the final Annual Progress Report, the USACE must submit GIS shape files and metadata that show mitigation site(s), including extent and distribution of aquatic resources. 2011 EIR/EIS Environmental Commitments
984
29 Design Features Purpose Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Air quality
Use of BACTs and Contingency
Measures for construction
activities
To reduce air
emissions
During all
construction
activities
Construction
contractor
Construction equipment will be
properly maintained and tuned
To reduce air
emissions
During all
construction
activities
Construction
contractor
Maintain at least a 12 percent
saturation level of the sand
To reduce air
emissions
During beach fill
activities
Construction
contractor
Prohibit truck idling in excess of
five minutes
To reduce air
emissions
During all
construction
activities
Construction
contractor
Where feasible, use aqueous or
emulsified diesel fuel for
construction equipment.

To reduce air
emissions
During all
construction
activities
Construction
contractor
Where feasible, use diesel
oxidation catalytic converter
To reduce air
emissions
During all
construction
activities
Construction
contractor
Where feasible, require the use of
newer, lower-emitting trucks to
transport construction workers as
well as equipment and material to
and from construction sites
To reduce air
emissions
During all
construction
activities
Construction
contractor
Water Quality, Sediments, Oceanography
Construct “L”-shaped berms
Anchor sand
placement
operations and
reduce nearshore
turbidity
During beach fill Construction
contractor
Design Features Purpose Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitor turbidity To reduce impacts
related to turbidity
During dredging and
beach fill activities Construction contractor
Prepare SWPPP and
OSPRP
Ensure minimal
contamination from
fuel leaks, if any
During all construction
activities Construction contractor
Biological Resources
985
30 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,
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.

Mooring Location
and pipe placement
to ensure avoidance
and minimization to
marine resources
During dredging and
beach fill activities
USACE qualified
marine ecologist or
his/her designated
marine ecologist.

Cultural Resources
986
31 Prior to construction,
offshore borrow areas 1
and 2 will be subjected
to an underwater remote
sensing survey in order
to determine if
submerged cultural
resources are present
within these areas.

Avoid potentially
undisturbed,
submerged cultural
resources.

Prior to dredging
activities
USACE qualified
archaeologist or his/her
designated
archaeologist
Noise
On-shore construction
activities must be limited
to less than 9 hours per
day.

Minimize noise
emissions
During beach
nourishment/notch fill Construction contractor
Recreation
The contract
specifications shall
require the contractor to
fence/secure off areas of
construction from public
access, including
construction staging
areas and active
construction areas,
including the beach and
nearshore zone.

Avoid safety hazards
to recreation-goers
During beach
nourishment Construction contractor
Design Features Purpose Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Public safety
987
32 The dredge would be equipped
with markings and lightings in
accordance with the U.S. Coast
Guard regulations. The location
and schedule of the dredge would
be published in the U.S. Coast
Guard Local Notice to Mariners.

The dredge would travel at very
low speeds (approximately 1.5
knots) during dredging operations.

The travel speed during transport
would be approximately 5 knots.

During dredging and nourishment
activities, proper advanced notice
to mariners would be obtained, and
navigational traffic would not be
allowed within the offshore borrow
site area or mooring/discharge area
offshore of Oceanside.

Warn boaters/
fishermen of
dredging activities
to ensure avoidance
Before and during
dredging activities
and beach
nourishment
USACE resident
engineer
Socioeconomics
The local commercial fishermen’s
association shall be provided with
written notification of the intended
start date of on shore construction,
offshore construction, maps of
project-related vessel
transportation routes, and its
duration. Noticing shall include a
point of contact throughout the
entire construction phase to
respond to concerns regarding
interference and/or other issues
associated with local commercial
fishing operations.

Avoid gear conflicts
and provide for
compensation if loss
occurs
Thirty days prior to
the start of
construction
Coast Guard (via
construction
contractor) and
USACE
Monitoring Commitments
Monitor turbidity levels
To avoid turbidity
impacts to fish and
aquatic species
During dredging
operations and
beach fill activities
Construction
Contractor
988
33 Design Features Purpose Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Any earthmoving associated with
this Project that will involve
previously undisturbed soil will be
monitored by a qualified
archeologist who meets the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards
for an Archeologist (see 36 CFR
Part 61). If a previously
unidentified cultural resource (i.e.,
property) that may be eligible for
the NRHP is discovered, all
earthmoving activities in the
vicinity of the discovery shall be
diverted until the USACE
complies with 36 CFR §
800.13(a)(2).

Avoid any
potentially
undisturbed cultural
resources.

During beach fill
activities
USACE qualified
archaeologist or
his/her
designated
archaeologist
989
34 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
NEPA requires that cumulative impacts of the proposed action be analyzed and disclosed.

Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that would result from the incremental effect of the proposed action when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable planned and proposed actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. The geographic scope of this analysis is the proposed borrow area and the beach placement area.

Cumulative impacts remain unchanged from the 2011 EIR/EIS . The 2011 EIR/EIS discussed maintenance dredging of Dana Point Harbor, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Kelp Reef Project and Railroad Operations. The analysis of these projects’ cumulative effects concluded there it was unlikely to adversely affect Geology, Water Quality and Marine Resources in the Project’s geographic scope.
990
35 7.0 REFERENCES
Bredvik, Jessica J.; Graham, Suzanne E.; Saunders, Brendan P. 2019. Green Sea Turtle Satellite Tagging in Support of Naval Weapons Station Ammunition Pier and Turning Basin. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest. Submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service, California, September 2019.

Hanna, M.E., J. Bredvik, S.E. Graham, B. Saunders, J.A. Seminoff, T. Eguchi and C. Turner Tomaszewicz. 2020. Movements and habitat use of green sea turtles at the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, CA. Prepared for Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, California, September 2020.
991
36 8.0 ACRONYMS
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
APE Area of Potential Effects
ARB Air Resources Board
CAA Clean Air Act
CCC California Coastal Commission
CEQ Council on Environmental
CoE Chief of Engineers
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
cy cubic yard
dB decibel
dBA decibel (A weighted scale)
DO dissolved oxygen
EA Environmental Assessment
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
ESA Endangered Species Act
Final EA Final Environmental Assessment
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District MLLW mean lower low water
mcy million cubic yards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Agency
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
SBNWS Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (a.k.a. San Diego Water Board) SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SIP State Implementation Plan
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

992
37 9.0 PREPARERS/REVIEWERS

9.1 Preparers
Kym Lyons USACE, Ecologist, Ecosystems Restoration Branch Michael O’Hara USACE, Archeologist, Environmental Policy Group

9.2 Reviewers
Tiffany Bostwick USACE, Chief Environmental Resources Branch Hayley Lovan USACE, Chief, Ecosystem Planning Section

993
38 Figures
994
39 Figure 3. Project location Map illustrating sediment placement location in San Clemente and borrow site offshore of Oceanside.
995
San ente
P.ie tion
roximate .,7
1 :200,000
0 1 2 4
Miles
40 Figure 4. Project Beach Nourishment Area. Red polygon illustrates sediment placement footprint. 996
c:-
I'll
"ti
C: D
::; D D
0 D
l al D
o
'O ti
C: <I> ·o D u,
Q) ~
'-D .,
Cl
;.i D LL
Q) 0
z1~~ '-D
...J
N
s D

APPENDIX A
997
Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Division of Boating &
Waterways
ATTN: Casey Caldwell
One Capitol Mall, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95814
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
21865 Copley Dr
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
State of California Department
of Transportation, District 7
100 South Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Loni Adams
CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
Jason Freshwater
Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Region 8
3737 Main Street, Suite 500
Riverside, CA 92501-3348
David Spitz
City of Seal Beach
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
Catherine Caldwell
Policy & Program Development
Natural Resources Division
California State Parks
1416 9th St, Rm 923
Sacramento CA 95814
Dr. Reinhard Flick
Scripps Institution of
Oceanography
University of California, San
Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla CA 92093
Kevin Pearsall, Superintendent
Department of Parks and
Recreation
Orange Coast District, North
Sector
21601 Pacific Coast Highway
Huntington Beach CA 92646
Ann Mesa
OC Public Works
2301 N Glassell St
Orange CA 92865
Joan Cardellino
California State Coastal
Conservancy
1515 Clay Street, 10th Floor
Oakland CA 94612-1401
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
State Clearing House
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
Jon Avery
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, California 92008
Chris Yates
National Marine Fisheries
Service
ATTN: Bryant Chesney
501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200
Long Beach, CA 92802
Cassidy Tuefel
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street
Suite 1900-2000
San Francisco, California
94105-2219
998

APPENDIX B
999

APPENDIX C

1000

APPENDIX D
1001

APPENDIX E

1002

APPENDIX F

1003

APPENDIX G
1004
ATTACHMENT 6
1005
Water Boards
~
~ GAVIN NEWSO M
GOIJfHNOR
~ YANA GAR CIA l
~
............... ~ SECRET ARV FOR
EN\llnONMt:: NTAL flAOTtCTION
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Order No. RS-2022-0171
for
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 2003-0017-DWQ Effective Date
Project
Program
Project Type
Discharger
Regulatory Measure ID
Place ID
Party ID
Person ID
WDID
San Diego Water Board
Contact
November 3, 2022
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage
Reduction Project
401 Certification
Beach Modification
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
915 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
449414
883578
564167
631608
9000003833
Darren Bradford Environmental Scientist
(619) 521-3356
darren .bradford@waterboa rds. ca. gov

CELESTE CANTU, CHAIR I DAVID GIBSON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER
2375 North side Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108-2700 I www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego 1006
Table of Contents
I. Findings ............................................................................................................................... 2 A. Order .................. .............................................................. .. .................................... ......... . 2 B. Public Notice ......................................... ..... .......... .... ......... .. .... ................... ...................... 2 C. Project Location .. .............. .................. ................................... ...................... .................... 2 D. Project Description ....................... ..... .. ....... ............ ..................................................... .. .. . 2 E. California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ................. ............ ........... .................... 3 F. Receiving Waters Impacted by Project.. .... ................................ ...... .. ...... .. .... .. ................. 3 G. Description of Impacts to Receiving Waters of the United States and/or State ................ 4 H. Avoidance and Minimization .. ... ............................................. .. ..... .... ........... .. .. .... .... .. ....... 5 I. Compensatory Mitigation .......... .................. ............ ........... ... .. .... .. ............ .......... .. ........... . 6 J. No Net Loss of Aquatic Resources ............................ .... ................... .. ... ................... .. ..... 6 II. Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 6 A. Authorization of Project Impacts to Receiving Waters ............................... .......... ............. 6 B. Project Conformance with Water Quality Control Plans or Policies ....... .................... .. ... .. 6 C. Compensatory Mitigation ...... ................................ .... .... ...... .. ....... ... .. ...... .. ......... .. ..... ........ 7 D. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements .... ....... .................. ......................................... ... . 7 E. Project Status Notifications .. .. .. ............ .. ............ ... .................................. .............. ......... 10 F. Construction and Post-Construction Best Management Practices ................ .... ............. 11 G. Standard Provisions .... ................ ... ........ ..... ... .. .................. .... .. ............................ .. ........ 11 H. Document Submittal .... .. .. ......... .. .... ... ................... ..... .......... ........... ........ .. ... ............ .. .. .. . 12 Ill. Water Quality Certification ............................................................................................... 13 ATTACHMENT 1 - Definitions ............................................................................................... 14 ATTACHMENT 2 -Annual Progress Report Requirements ............................................... 17 ATTACHMENT 3 - Construction and Post-Construction Best Management Practices ... 19 ATTACHMENT 4 - Standard Provisions .............................................................................. 23 ATTACHMENT 5-Compliance with 40 CFR Part 121.7(d)(1) ............................................. 28 ATTACHMENT 6 - Project Maps ........................................................................................... 33 1 1007
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project I. Findings
A. Order
Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
This order for Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certification and Waste Discharge Requirements (Order) is issued at the request of United States Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, hereinafter Discharger, for the San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project (Project). The Order provides water quality certification for the Project as described in the application and supplemental material submitted by the Discharger. The application was received on September 22, 2022, and, following receipt of additional information necessary to supplement the initial application, was deemed complete on October 13, 2022.

B. Public Notice
On October 5, 2022, the San Diego Water Board provided public notice of the Project application pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 3858 by posting information describing the Project on the San Diego Water Board's web site and providing a period of twenty-one days for public review and comment. No comments were received.

C. Project Location
The Project is located within the City of San Clemente, Orange County, California. Beach quality sand sources will come from the Pacific Ocean offshore from the City of Oceanside. Beach placement site adjacent to the San Clemente Pier is located on San Clemente Beach from Linda Lane to T-Street. The Project's center readings are latitude 33.418717, longitude -117 .6206. A map showing the Project location is found in Attachment 6 of the Order.

D. Project Description
The purpose of the Project is to reduce potential storm damages along the coast of San Clemente 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, 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. 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 Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor, and

2. To restore and maintain recreation use along the Pacific Coast of the City of San Clemente. 2 1008
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
The Discharger proposes to dredge material from offshore Oceanside. The sand will be transported at sea, on a hopper dredge, down to San Clemente and pumped onto the beach. The Project will have a 50-foot resultant beach width. Beach fill will be 3,412 feet long (4 acres) with an approximate 17-foot crest elevation. The dredge volume is estimated to be approximately 251,130 cubic yards.

Project activities will not result in permanent impacts to aquatic resources under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Water Board.

E. California Environmental Quality Act Compliance

1. A Joint Environmental Impact StatemenVEnvironmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) has been prepared for this Project. The United States Army Corps of Engineers is the Federal lead agency responsible for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 4331). The City of San Clemente is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.). EIS/EIR

2. The San Diego Water Board is a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The San Diego Water Board has considered the Lead Agency's EIS/EIR and independently finds that the Project as proposed with mitigation measures will not have a significant effect on resources within the San Diego Water Board's purview.

3. As a Responsible Agency under CEQA, the San Diego Water Board will file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15096(i).

F. Receiving Waters Impacted by Project
Receiving waters and groundwater potentially impacted by the Project are protected in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9) (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives. The San Diego Water Board adopted the Basin Plan on September 8, 1994. Subsequent revisions to the Basin Plan have also been adopted by the San Diego Water Board and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). The Basin Plan is available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water issues/programs/basin plan/.

The Order authorizes unavoidable permanent impacts to the Pacific Ocean, within the City of San Clemente. The Pacific Ocean Shoreline have the designated beneficial uses listed below in Table

1. Additionally, The Pacific Ocean at the San Clemente Beach Pier is identified as impaired, under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List, where water quality standards are not attained for pollutants listed below in Table 1.
3 1009
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
Table 1 Beneficial Uses and Impairments of Rece1vm11 Waters Receiving Waters Beneficial Uses 303(d) Impairing Pollutants Existing beneficial uses: Bacteria
Pacific Ocean
Shoreline
Industrial Service Supply (IND),
Navigation (NAV), Contact Water
Recreation (REC-1 ), Non-Contact
Water Recreation (REC-2),
Commercial and Sport Fishing
(Comm), Preservation of
Biological Habitats of Special
Significance (BIOL), Wildlife
Habitat (WILD), Rare, Threatened ,
or Endangered Species (RARE),
Marine Habitat (MAR),
Aquaculture (AQUA), Migration of
Aquatic Organism (MIGR),
Spawning, Reproduction, and/or
Early Development (SPWN), and
Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL).

G. Description of Impacts to Receiving Waters of the United States and/or State Project activities will not contribute to additional loading of pollutants identified in Table 1 above because the Project activity is sand replenishment. The expected water quality impacts are limited to localized turbidity within and outside the active surf zone. The Discharger will implement a construction work plan that includes best management practices for avoiding and minimizing impacts to water quality such as erosion control, sediment control, education on work areas, sand placement methods, and good site management "housekeeping." The Discharger will also be responsible for monitoring and removing any trash or debris found in the sand source and at the sand placement sites
4 1010
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
Total direct impacts to the Pacific Ocean attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 2 below. Maps of the impact location(s) are found in Attachment 6 of the Order.

T a bl e 2 P roJec . t FII/E I xcava f 10n Q uan ft 1ty Acres Cubic Yards Linear Feet
Temporary lmpact1 NA NA NA
Approximately
251 ,000 cy of
beach
compatible sand
Permanent lmpact2 4 for the initial fill 3,412 with proposed II renourishment
events every six
years on
averaqe.

Project activities will not result in a physical loss of area because the Project will use sand for beach sand replacement on the beach adjacent to San Clemente Beach Municipal Pier. Impacts to water quality are expected to dissipate after a full tidal cycle has moved the placed sand into the surf zone . Project activities will not create any indirect impacts to waters of the United States and/or State of California (State).

H. Avoidance and Minimization·
The Discharger has demonstrated that the Project was designed to first avoid , then minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, impacts to waters of the United States and/or State. Avoidance and minimization measures are also required by the Project Environmental Impact Report as described in Finding 1.E of the Order. The Discharger reports that the Project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in less adverse impact to aquatic resources considering all potential practicable alternatives.

The Project qualifies as a Tier 2 project under the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. The Discharger completed an Alternatives Analysis, and the Project is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
1 An impact is considered temporary if it is restored to pre-project conditions through natural ecological processes or active restoration. Temporary impacts are therefore not considered a physical loss of area or degradation of ecological condition requiring compensatory mitigation.
2 Permanent impacts permanently change an aquatic resource to a non-aquatic resource or change the bottom elevation of an aquatic resource. Permanent impacts can cause physical loss of area and/or ecological degradation. 5 1011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
Project avoidance and minimization measures implemented or planned by the Discharger include the use of L-shaped berms to reduce turbidity impacts at the receiving beach . 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 .

I. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not required for the Project because the Project will not result in adverse impacts to water quality and will instead result in a net gain in aquatic resource function by restoring the sand portion of the shoreline. The Project impacts to aquatic resources will be offset by the benefits of replenishing sand along San Clemente beaches providing shoreline protection from storm damage, sea level rise resilience, ecosystem protection , and maintain recreational uses.

J. No Net Loss of Aquatic Resources
The Discharger has demonstrated that the Project will not contribute to a net loss of the overall abundance, diversity, and condition of aquatic resources in the Pacific Ocean Shoreline. Based on these considerations, the Discharger's compliance with the terms and conditions of the Order will ensure that the Project meets applicable water quality standards for all waters of the United States and/or State in the City of San Clemente.

II. Conditions
The San Diego Water Board has independently reviewed the record of the Project to analyze the extent and nature of proposed Project impacts to the water quality and beneficial uses of waters of the United States and/or State and any required compensatory mitigation to offset impacts attributed to the Project. The Discharger is authorized to proceed with the Project in accordance with the following conditions:

A. Authorization of Project Impacts to Receiving Waters Impacts to Pacific Ocean shoreline must not exceed quantities shown in Table 2 of the Order.

B. Project Conformance with Water Quality Control Plans or Policies

1. The Discharger must take all necessary measures to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters identified in Finding I. F of the Order potentially impacted by the Project in accordance with water quality standards in the Basin Plan.

2. Notwithstanding any specific conditions in the Order, the Project shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the Basin Plan and any other applicable water quality control plans or policies adopted or approved pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (commencing with California Water Code Section 13000) or section 303 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C section 1313).
6 1012
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022

3. If at any time an unauthorized discharge to waters of the State occurs or monitoring indicates that the Project is violating , or threatens to violate, water quality objectives, the associated Project activities shall cease immediately, and the San Diego Water Board shall be notified in accordance with reporting requirements in Condition II.I of the Order.

Associated Project activities may not resume without approval from the San Diego Water Board.

C. Compensatory Mitigation

1. Compensatory Mitigation: Beach sand replenishment is considered self-mitigating and no compensatory mitigation is required for sand placement activities except as stated below for eelgrass.

2. Mitigation for Impacts to Eelgrass. If any impacts to eelgrass occur, as described below in Condition D of the Order, compensatory mitigation that offsets losses to eelgrass must be implemented in accordance with an eelgrass mitigation plan approved by the San Diego Water Board. The plan must meet the standards in the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP).3
D. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
1 . Stormwater Management Plan. At least 30 days prior to the start of project construction, the Discharger must submit a stormwater management plan for review by the San Diego Water Board. The stormwater management plan must include measures for avoiding and minimizing indirect impacts to aquatic resources from Project activities.

2. Monitoring for Eelgrass Beds in Project Vicinity . If applicable, a pre-construction eelgrass survey must be completed in accordance with the requirements of the CEMP no more than 90 days before the start of in-water Project activities. If, during the preconstruction survey, eelgrass is identified within 30 feet of Project activities, the Discharger must:
a) Implement best management practices for the protection of eelgrass beds, as described in Attachment 3 of the Order; and
b) Complete a post-construction eelgrass survey, performed by a qualified biologist, within 30 days following the completion of in-water Project activities. The postconstruction survey shall be used to quantify and determine mitigation for any losses to eelgrass in conformance with the CEMP.
3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region . California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines, October 2014. An electronic copy can be found at the following web page: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-miqration/cemp oct 2014 final.pdf 7 1013
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022

3. Monitoring for Caulerpa in Project Vicinity. If applicable, the Discharger must conduct a surveillance-level survey for Caulerpa taxifolia and Caulerpa prolifera, in accordance with the requirements in the National Marine Fisheries Service's Caulerpa Control Protocol,4 not more than 90 days before the start of in-water Project activities to determine presence/absence of this species within the immediate vicinity of the project. If any Caulerpa spp. are identified during a survey, or at any other time before, during , or within 120 days following completion of authorized activities, both National Marine Fisheries Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife must be contacted within 24 hours of first noting the occurrence. If any Caulerpa spp. are detected, all disturbing activity must cease until such time as the infestation has been isolated and treated, or the risk of spread from the disturbing activity is eliminated in accordance with the Caulerpa Control Protocol.

4. Receiving Water Visual Monitoring. The Applicant must conduct visual monitoring of Project activities in the Pacific Ocean prior to, during, and after each period of project construction (e.g ., pile extraction and driving) as described below. The receiving water visual monitoring documentation must be included in the Annual Progress Reports as described in Attachment 2 of the Order.
a) Parameters. The following parameters shall be visually monitored immediately outside of the construction area:
i. Floating particulates, suspended materials, surface visible turbidity plume; and ii. Grease, oil, sheen, odor, color, or any other significant discoloration of the water surface.
b) Field Documentation. All visual observations shall be recorded throughout Project construction activities. In addition to the records of monitoring listed below in Condition I1.D.6, field documentation of receiving waters visual monitoring shall include, at a minimum, observations of the parameters listed above, observations of sensitive biological resources, and weather conditions, such as wind speed/direction and cloud cover. If photo documentation is used in support of visual observations of water quality conditions, it should be conducted in accordance with guidelines posted at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water issues/programs/401 certification/docs/ 401 c/401 PhotoDocRB9V713.pdf. In addition, photo documentation should include Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for each of the photo points referenced; and
4 NMFS Caulerpa Control Protocol, version 4, 2008, is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/westcoast/habitatconservation/aguatic-invasive-species-west-coast-caulerpa-taxifolia 8 1014
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
c) Response Actions. If applicable, the condition of the silt curtain is observed to be damaged, has become dislocated, or has gaps where a visible turbidity plume is forming outside of the silt curtain at the Project Site, a response action shall be taken immediately to correct the situation. Response actions may include, but are not limited to , work stoppage until silt curtain repair is completed , implementation of operational modifications, work stoppage due to the presence of sensitive species until area is vacated , and/or implementation of additional BMPs (e.g. , a second silt curtain).

Response actions, if needed, shall be documented in the monitoring field log .

5. Annual Progress Reports. The Discharger must submit Annual Progress Reports to the San Diego Water Board prior to March 1 of each year following the issuance of the Order and continue to provide the reports until the San Diego Water Board accepts the Project Completion Notification submitted by the Discharger. Annual Progress Reports must be submitted even if Project activities are not conducted during the reporting period.

Annual reports must contain the status and anticipated schedule for both the Project and Compensatory Mitigation site(s). Additional requirements for the contents of Annual Progress Reports are detailed in Attachment 2 of the Order.

Annual Progress Reports must include, at a minimum, the following:
a) The status and anticipated schedule for completion of Project construction activities, including the installation and operational status of construction best management practices for water quality protection;
b) A description of any Project construction delays encountered or anticipated that may affect the schedule;
c) Photo documentation of all areas of impacts before and after construction. Photo documentation must be conducted in accordance with guidelines posted at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water issues/programs/401 certification/doc s/401 c/401 PhotoDocRB9V713.pdf. In addition, photo documentation must include GPS coordinates for each photo location.

6. Geographic Information System Data. Within 30 days of the start of project construction, the Discharger must submit Geographic Information System (GIS) shape files and metadata that show the Project site(s) and impact areas associated with the Project. As part of the final Annual Progress Report, the Discharger must submit GIS shape files and metadata that show mitigation site(s), including extent and distribution of aquatic resources . For instructions on submitting GIS files, please contact the San Diego Water Board.
9 1015
U.S. Army Corps of Eng ineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project E. Project Status Notifications
Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022

1. Discharge Commencement Notification. The Discharger must notify the San Diego Water Board in writing at least 5 days prior to the start of each Project construction .

2. Discharge Completion Notification. The Discharger must notify the San Diego Water Board in writing within 30 days of completion of each active Project construction activities, including construction of any required restoration or compensatory mitigation.

Submittal of the Notification does not obviate the Discharger's duty to comply with the requirements of the Order, pay any outstanding invoices of permit fees, or submit any outstanding required reports. The Notification shall include:
a) Dates of construction initiation and completion ;
b) Volume of material discharged onto the beach for each event; c) BMP status, including photo documentation of implemented post-construction BMPs and all areas of permanent and temporary impacts, prior to and after project construction . Photo documentation must be conducted in accordance with guidelines posted at
https://www.waterboards.ca .gov/sandiego/water issues/programs/401 certification/doc s/401 c/401 PhotoDocRB9V713.pdf. In addition, photo documentation must include Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for each of the photo locations referenced ;
d) A statement that the authorized activity and implementation of any required compensatory mitigation were conducted and completed in accordance with the Order, including any activity-specific or compensatory mitigation conditions; and e) The signature of the Discharger certifying the completion of the activity and mitigation in accordance with condition 11 .F of the Order.

3. Project Completion Notification. The Discharger shall submit a Project Completion Letter when construction activities, post-construction monitoring , and mitigation monitoring (if required) are complete5 for each event. This written notification shall be submitted to the San Diego Water Board within 30 days following completion of each Project activity. 5 Completion of post-construction and mitigation monitoring shall be contingent upon achievement of performance standards as determined by the San Diego Water Board.
10 1016
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
F. Construction and Post-Construction Best Management Practices The Discharger shall implement best management practices (BMPs), as described in this section and Attachment 3 of the Order, before and after construction to prevent discharges from the Project causing or contributing to on-site or off-site erosion or damage to properties or waters of the United States and/or State.
a) Placement of Sediment,
i. Construction Monitoring. During sand excavation activities, Project personnel must be onsite to visually inspect the material being loaded onto the hopper dredge for beach sand nourishment. If any trash and/or construction debris is observed in the excavated material, additional BMPs must be implemented to ensure no trash and/or debris is discharged onto the receiver beach and the Pacific Ocean
ii. Receiver Site Monitoring. During sand placement activities, Project personnel must always be in place on the receiving beach to ensure the material placed on the beach is free of debris and trash. If trash and/or construction debris are observed during the beach sand placement, all sand placement activities must stop and all debris removed from the beach before continuing with the Project.

Project personnel must keep a daily log during sand placement activities noting, at a minimum; the date/time of observations, number of truck loads, presence or absence of construction debris or trash , and corrective actions implemented. iii. Sand Placement Prohibition. Construction equipment (bulldozers, trucks, backhoes, etc) may not come into direct contact with the ocean. Equipment may be driven onto the wetted portion of the beach, however, the equipment may not come into contact with the surf zone wash.
1v. Post Construction Monitoring. Immediately following the completion of the beach sand placement activities, the receiving beach shoreline must be monitored for trash and debris by onsite personnel for a minimum of two days to ensure no trash or debris are left from the sand placement activities. Any trash or debris found within the sand placement boundaries will be immediately picked up and disposed following local, state and federal regulations. A minimum of two monitoring events per day must take place with one event occurring during a high tide and one during low tide.
v. Construction and Post-Construction Monitoring. The Discharger must have a qualified biologist monitoring the construction site and active receiving beach at all times during beach sand placement activities.

G. Standard Provisions
The Discharger shall implement standard provisions described in Attachment 4. 11 1017
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project H. Document Submittal
Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022

1. Document Certification Requirements. All applications, reports, or information submitted to the San Diego Water Board must be certified as follows:
"/ certify under penalty of Jaw that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment."

2. Document Signatory Requirements. All applications, reports, or information submitted to the San Diego Water Board must be signed by the Discharger (or duly authorized representative, as described below) as follows:
a) For a corporation, by a responsible corporate officer of at least the level of vice president.
b) For a partnership or sole proprietorship, by a general partner or proprietor, respectively. c) For a municipality, or a state, federal, or other public agency, by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
d) A duly authorized representative may sign applications, reports, or information if:
i. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above. ii. The authorization specifies either an individual or position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated activity.
iii. The written authorization is submitted to the San Diego Water Board Executive Officer.

If such authorization is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the Project, a new authorization satisfying the above requirements must be submitted to the San Diego Water Board prior to or together with any reports, information , or applications, to be signed by an authorized representative. 12 1018
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022

3. Electronic Document Submittal. The Discharger must submit all reports and information required under the Order via e-mail to [email protected] with the following information in the subject line: "401 Certification No. RS-2022-01 71 PIN 883578:dbradford." Electronic documents must be submitted as text searchable PDF files.

Documents over 50 megabytes will not be accepted via e-mail and must be placed on a flash drive and delivered to:

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Attn : 401 Certification No. R9-2022-0171 , PIN 883578:dbradford 2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, California 92108
Ill. Water Quality Certification
I hereby certify that the proposed discharge from the San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project (Order No. R9-2022-0171) will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301 ("Effluent Limitations"), 302 ("Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations"), 303 ("Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans"), 306 ("National Standards of Performance"), and 307 ("Toxic and Pretreatment Effluent Standards") of the Clean Water Act.

This discharge is also regulated under State Water Board Order No. 2003-0017-DWQ, "Statewide General
Wa
Waste Discharge Requirements for Dredged or Fill Discharges that have Received State ter Quality Certification (General WDRs)," which requires compliance with all conditions of the Order. Please note that enrollment under Order No. 2003-0017-DWQ is conditional and, should new information come to our attention th at indicates a water quality problem, the San Diego Water Board may issue individual waste discharge requirements at that time.

Except insofar as may be modified by any preceding conditions, all Order actions are contingent on (a) the discharge being limited to, and all proposed mitigation being completed in strict compliance with , the Discharger's Project description and/or the description in the Order, and (b) compliance with all applicable requirements of the Basin Plan.

I, David W. Gibson, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the forgoing is a full, true, and correct copy of Order No. R9-2022-0171 issued on November 3, 2022.

Digitally.,signed by
DlN!~ ,J Gi bson
G "b a e· 022.11.03
1 s o,Q. , 1,, 1 .. ,3-40 -oToo· \ '~llt: 1 j \ ~tr\.1-.:-.

DAVID W. GIBSON
Executive Officer
San Diego Water Board
13 1019
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project ATTACHMENT 1 - Definitions
Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
Activity - when used in reference to a permit means any action, undertaking, or project including, but not limited to, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, modification, and restoration which may result in any discharge to waters of the State.

Application - means a written request, including a report of waste discharge or request for water material
quality certification , for authorization of any activity that may result in the discharge of dredged or fill and is subject to the Order.

Buffer - means an upland, wetland, and/or riparian area that protects and/or enhances aquatic resource functions associated with wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, marine, and estuarine systems from disturbances associated with adjacent land uses.

California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) - is a wetland assessment method intended to provide a rapid, scientifically-defensible and repeatable assessment methodology to monitor status and trends in the conditions of wetlands for applications throughout the state. It can also be used to assess the performance of compensatory mitigation projects and restoration projects. CRAM provides an assessment of overall ecological condition in terms of four attributes: landscape context and buffer, hydrology, physical structure and biotic structure. CRAM also includes an assessment of key stressors that may be affecting wetland condition and a "field to PC" data management tool (eCRAM) to ensure consistency and quality of data produced with the method.

Compensatory mitigation - means the restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation), establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation of aquatic resources for the purposes of offsetting unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved.

Compensatory mitigation project - means compensatory mitigation implemented by the Discharger as a requirement of the Order (i.e., permittee-responsible mitigation), or by a mitigation bank or an inlieu fee program.

Condition - means the relative ability of an aquatic resource to support and maintain a community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to reference aquatic resources in the region.

Discharge of dredged or fill material - has the same meanings as they are used in the federal Clean Water Act and 40 CFR section 232.2, but (1) shall include discharges to waters of the State that are not waters of the U.S. and (2) any demonstrations described in 40 CFR section 232.2(3)(i) shall be made to the permitting authority instead of the Corps or U.S. EPA. Placement of dredged or fill material in a manner that could not affect the quality of waters of the State is not considered a discharge of dredged or fill material.

Dredged material - means material that is excavated or dredged from waters of the United States and/or State.
14 1020
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
Ecological success performance standards - means observable or measurable physical (including hydrological), chemical, and/or biological attributes that are used to determine if a compensatory mitigation project meets its objectives.

Enhancement - means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of an aquatic resource to improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement results in the gain of selected aquatic resource function(s) but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.

Establishment- means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop an aquatic resource that did not previously exist. Creation results in a gain in aquatic resource area.

Fill material - means any material used for the primary purpose of replacing an aquatic area with dry land or of changing the bottom elevation of a water body.

Functions - means the physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur in ecosystems.

Isolated wetland - means a wetland with no surface water connection to other aquatic resources.

LEDPA - means the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The determination of practicable alternatives shall be consistent with the State Supplemental Dredge or Fill Guidelines, section 230.1 0(a).

Mitigation bank - means a site, or suite of sites, where resources (e.g., wetlands, streams, riparian areas) are restored , established, enhanced, and/or preserved for the purpose of providing mitigation for impacts authorized by the Order.

Order - means water quality certification , waste discharge requirements, or waivers of waste discharge requirements.

Project - means the whole of an action that includes a discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the U.S. and/or State.

Preservation - means the removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, aquatic resources by an action in or near those aquatic resources . This term includes activities commonly associated with the protection and maintenance of aquatic resources through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms. Preservation does not result in a gain of aquatic resource area or functions.

Re-establishment - means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/ historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Reestablishment results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and functions.
15 1021
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
Rehabilitation - means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural/ historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation results in a gain in aquatic resource function but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.

Restoration - means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource. For the purpose of tracking net gains in aquatic resource area, restoration is divided into two categories: reestablishment and rehabilitation.

Start of project construction - For the purpose of the Order, "start of Project construction" means to engage in a program of on-site construction , including site clearing, grading, dredging, landfilling, changing equipment, substituting equipment, or even moving the location of equipment specifically designed for a stationary source in preparation for the fabrication, erection or installation of the building components of the stationary source within waters of the United States and/or State.

Temporal loss - means the time lag between the loss of aquatic resource functions caused by the permitted impacts and the replacement of aquatic resource functions at the compensatory mitigation site. Higher compensation ratios may be required to compensate for temporal loss. Uplands - means non-wetland areas that lack any field-based indicators of wetlands or other aquatic conditions.

Uplands are generally well-drained and occur above (i.e., up-slope) from aquatic areas. In a watershed, uplands comprise the landscape in which aquatic areas form. They are the primary sources of sediment, surface runoff, and associated chemicals that are deposited in aquatic areas or transported through them .

Water quality objectives and other appropriate requirements of state law - means the water quality objectives and beneficial uses as specified in the appropriate water quality control plan(s); the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act; and any other appropriate requirement of state law.

Waters of the State - means any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.
16 1022
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project ATTACHMENT 2-Annual Progress Report Requirements
Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
The reporting period for each Annual Progress Report shall be January 1st through December 31st of each year. Annual Progress Reports must be submitted even if Project construction has not begun or if Project construction is complete and compensatory mitigation site construction or monitoring is ongoing. Annual Progress Reports must include, at a minimum, the following:

1. Project Status and Compliance.
a. The status and anticipated schedule for completion of Project construction activities, including the installation and operational status of construction best management practices for water quality protection;
b. A description of any Project construction delays encountered or anticipated that may affect the schedule;
c. Receiving water visual monitoring documentation;
d. All records, field logs, and/or field notes created by the on-site qualified biologist or other environmental professional; and
e. A description of: each incident of noncompliance during the annual monitoring period and its cause; the period of the noncompliance including exact dates and times; if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and the steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance; f. Photo documentation of all areas of impact before, during, and after construction . Photo documentation must be conducted in accordance with guidelines posted at https ://www.waterboards.ca .gov/sandiego/water issues/prog rams/401 certification/docs/401 c/ 401 PhotoDocRB9V713.pdf. In addition, photo documentation must include GPS coordinates for each photo location; and
g. In addition, the final annual report must include as-built drawings of the Project Site(s), no bigger than 11 "X 17".

2. Records of Monitoring.
a. The date, exact place, and time of monitoring;
b. The names, qualifications, and affiliations of individuals who performed the monitoring, sampling, analyses, and otherwise contributed to the report; c. The analytical techniques or methods used;

3. Results of Construction Monitoring.
a. Pre-construction (if applicable) survey reports for Caulerpa taxifolia and C. prolifera; 17 1023
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
b. Eelgrass survey reports (if applicable). Pre-construction eelgrass survey report must be included in the first annual progress report, and, if eelgrass is identified within 30 feet of Project activities, post-construction eelgrass survey report must be included in the final progress report; and
c. Receiving water visual monitoring. The Discharger shall submit monitoring reports that contain the results of visual monitoring activities for each week of monitoring. The receiving water visual monitoring reports must include, at a minimum:
i. The names, qualifications, and affiliations of the persons contributing to the report; ii. Copies of records, field notes/logs, .and/or photo documentation of the visual observations required under Condition I1.D.4 of the Order;
iii. A summary, evaluation, and interpretation of the visual observations recorded and any response actions taken as required under Condition 11.D.4 of the Order, including interpretations and conclusions as to whether applicable receiving water limitations were attained at the site.

4. Compensatory Mitigation Status and Compliance. Mitigation monitoring, if applicable, information must be submitted as part of the Annual Progress Report for a period of at least five years. The San Diego Water Board may reduce or waive compensatory mitigation monitoring requirements upon a determination that performance standards have been achieved. Conversely, the San Diego Water Board may extend the monitoring period beyond five years upon a determination that the performance standards have not been met or the compensatory mitigation project is not on track to meet them.
a. The status and anticipated schedule for"completion of mitigation activities; b. A tabulation and interpretation of all data specified in the Mitigation Plan, including:
i. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of current conditions with pre-construction conditions and previous mitigation monitoring results;
ii. Conclusions as to how the Mitigation Site(s) is/are progressing towards meeting performance standards contained in the Mitigation Plan ; and iii. Photo documentation of Mitigation Site progress. Photo documentation must be conducted in accordance with guidelines posted at
https://www.waterboards .ca .gov/sandiego/water issues/programs/401 certification/docs/40 1 c/401 PhotoDocRB9V713.pdf. In addition , photo documentation must include GPS coordinates for each photo point.
c. The final Annual Progress Report must include the following additional information:
i. A description of the following Mitigation Site(s) characteristics:
ii. As-built drawings of the Mitigation Site(s), no bigger than 11"X17"; and iii. A survey report documenting boundaries of the Mitigation Site(s). 18 1024
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
ATTACHMENT 3 - Construction and Post-Construction Best Management Practices Construction Best Management Practices
A. Approvals to Commence Construction. The Discharger shall not commence Project construction until all necessary federal, State, and local approvals are obtained .

B. Personnel Education. Prior to the start of the Project, and annually thereafter, the Discharger must educate all personnel on the requirements in the Order, pollution prevention measures, spill response measures, and BMP implementation and maintenance measures.

C. Spill Containment Materials. The Discharger must, at all times, maintain appropriate types and sufficient quantities of materials on-site to contain any spill or inadvertent release of materials that may cause a condition of pollution or nuisance if the materials reach waters of the United States and/or State.

D. General Construction Storm Water Permit. Prior to start of Project construction, the Discharger must, as applicable, obtain coverage under and comply with the requirements of State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activity, (General Construction Storm Water Permit) and any reissuance. If Project construction activities do not require coverage under the General Construction Storm Water Permit, the Discharger must develop and implement a runoff management plan (or equivalent construction BMP plan) to prevent the discharge of sediment and other pollutants during construction activities.

E. Groundwater Dewatering. If groundwater dewatering is required for the Project, the Applicant shall enroll in and comply with the requirements of San Diego Water Board Order No. R9- 2015-0013 NPDES No. CAG919003, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Groundwater Extraction Discharges to Surface Waters within the San Diego Region or its successor permit.

F. Waste Management. Except for discharges permitted under the Order, the Discharger must properly manage, store, treat, and dispose of waste, trash , organic or earthen material, and other construction debris from Project activities in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The storage, handling, treatment, or disposal of waste shall not create conditions of pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code section 13050. Waste management shall be implemented to avoid or minimize exposure of wastes to precipitation or storm water runoff. Direct discharge of waste into waters of the United States and/or State, or adjacent to such waters in any manner which may permit its being transported into the waters, is prohibited. Upon Project completion, all Project-generated waste and debris shall be removed from the Project site(s) for disposal at an authorized disposal site in compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 19 1025
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
G. Upstream and Downstream Erosion. Discharges of concentrated flow during construction or after Project completion must not cause or contribute to upstream or downstream erosion or damage to properties or stream habitat.

H. Construction Equipment. All equipment must be washed prior to transport to the Project site and must be free of sediment, debris, and foreign matter. All equipment components used in direct contact with surface water shall be steam cleaned prior to use. All equipment using gas, oil, hydraulic fluid, or other petroleum products shall be inspected for leaks prior to use and shall be monitored for leakage. Stationary equipment (e.g ., motors, pumps, generator, etc.) shall be positioned over drip pans or other types of containment.

I. Process Water. Water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from equipment washing or other activities, must not be discharged to waters of the United States and/or State or placed in locations that may be subjected to storm water runoff flows. Pollutants discharged to areas within a stream diversion must be removed at the end of each workday or sooner if rain is predicted .

J. Surface Water Diversion. All surface waters, including ponded waters, must be diverted away from areas of active grading, construction, excavation, vegetation removal, and/or any other activity which may result in a discharge to the receiving water. Diversion activities must not result in the degradation of beneficial uses or exceedance of the receiving water quality objectives. Any temporary dam or other artificial obstruction constructed must only be built from materials such as clean gravel which will cause little or no siltation. Normal flows must be restored to the affected stream immediately upon completion of work at that location.

K. Cofferdams or Water Barriers. Cofferdams and water barrier construction shall be adequate to prevent seepage into or from the work area. Cofferdams or water barriers shall not be made of earth or other substances subject to erosion or that contain pollutants. When dewatering is necessary to create a temporary dry construction area, the water shall be pumped through a sediment-settling device before it is returned to the water body. The enclosure and the supportive material shall be removed when the work is completed , and removal shall proceed from downstream to upstream.

L. Sediment Dredging and Placement of Material. The Discharger shall conduct dredging and placement of dredged material in accordance with, but not limited to, the following best management practices:

1. Dredging must be conducted to remove dredge material and not stockpile material on the floor of the waterbody or level the bottom surface with the clamshell bucket;

2. The swing radius of unloading equipment must be controlled to prevent spillage of dredged sediments back into the waterbody;

3. The drop height from a clamshell bucket onto the scow must be controlled to prevent splashing or sloshing of dredged material back into the waterbody; 20 1026
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022

4. Excess or decanted water from dredged sediments must not be discharged back into the waterbody;

5. Dredged sediments must be loaded into material barges with watertight compartments and water collection systems to prevent return water from re-entering the waterbody;

6. Dredged material barges and scows must not be filled to a point that overflow or spillage could occur. Each material scow must be marked in such a way to allow the operator to visually identify the maximum load point;

7. Load-controlled boat movement, line attachment, and/or horsepower requirements of tugs and support boats at the Project site must be specified to avoid resuspension of sediment.

Such measures may include speed restrictions , establishment of off-limit areas, and use of shallow draft vessels ;

8. Final dredge side slopes shall be designed to be stable in order to minimize sloughing; and

9. Silt screens or other appropriate methods shall be used to confine suspended particulate/turbidity to a small area where settling or removal can occur.

Make use of ocean currents and circulation to mix, disperse and dilute the discharge of dredged material.

M. Protection of Eelgrass Beds . If eelgrass is found during the pre-construction survey, the Discharger shall comply with the following requirements:

1. Prior to construction, the boundaries of adjacent eelgrass beds must be staked with ridged PVC markers or self-centering buoys visible at all tide heights. The markers or buoys must be protected, replaced, and maintained as needed to ensure they remain in place for the duration of Project construction activities;

2. During Project construction activities and regardless of the timing, the eelgrass beds must be protected with silt curtains deployed in a manner that will protect the beds from excessive turbidity or sediment deposition from Project activities; and

3. Any silt curtains must be kept at least 30 feet away from staked eelgrass beds in order to prevent damage to eelgrass beds from curtain drag or movement.

N. Re-vegetation and Stabilization. All areas that have 14 or more days of inactivity must be stabilized within 14 days of the last activity. The Discharger shall implement and maintain BMPs to prevent erosion of the rough graded areas. After completion of grading, all areas must be re-vegetated with native species appropriate for the area. The re-vegetation palette must not contain any plants listed on the California Invasive Plant Council Invasive Plant Inventory, which can be accessed at http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/. 21 1027
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 01 71
November 3, 2022
0 . Hazardous Materials. Except as authorized by the Order, substances hazardous to aquatic life including, but not limited to, petroleum products, unused cement/concrete, asphalt, and coating materials, must be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering waters of the United States and/or State. BMPs must be implemented to prevent such discharges during each Project activity involving hazardous materials.

P. Vegetation Removal. Removal of vegetation must occur by hand, mechanically, or through application of United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approved herbicides deployed using applicable BMPs to minimize adverse effects to beneficial uses of waters of the United States and/or State. Discharges related to the application of aquatic pesticides within waters of the United States must be done in compliance with State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2013-0002--DWQ, the Statewide General National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES Permit for Residual Aquatic Discharges to Waters of the United States from Algae and Aquatic Weed Control Applicators as amended, and any subsequent reissuance as applicable.

Q. Limits of Disturbance. The Discharger shall clearly define the limits of Project disturbance to waters of the United States and/or State using highly visible markers such as flag markers, construction fencing , or silt barriers prior to commencement of Project construction activities within those areas.

R. On-site Qualified Biologist or Environmental Professional. The Discharger shall designate an on-site qualified biologist or other qualified environmental professional to monitor Project construction activities within or adjacent to waters of the United States and/or State to ensure compliance with the Order requirements, including Receiving Water Visual Monitoring as detailed in Condition 11.D and Attachment 2. The biologist or other qualified environmental professional shall be given the authority to stop all work on-site if a violation of the Order occurs or has the potential to occur. All records, field logs, and/or field notes created by the onsite biologist/environmental professional for the purpose of documenting observations during Project activities shall be submitted with the Annual Progress Report(s).

Post-Construction Best Management Practices
A. Post-Construction Discharges. The Discharger shall not allow post-construction discharges from the Project site to cause or contribute to on-site or off-site erosion or damage to properties or stream habitats.

B. Post-Construction BMP Design. The Project must be designed to comply with the requirements for priority development projects in section E.3. of the Regional MS4 Permit Order No. R9-2013-0001 , National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds within the San Diego Region (Regional MS4 Permit), as amended by Order Nos.

R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100, as well as the most current BMP Design Manual for the City of San Clemente. Where conflict exists between the referenced documents the most stringent requirements shall apply.
22 1028
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project ATTACHMENT 4 - Standard Provisions

1. Compliance
Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
a. Duty to Comply. The Order is subject to modification or revocation upon administrative or judicial review, including review and amendment pursuant to Water Code section 13330 and California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 3867 et seq. b. Duty to Comply. The Discharger must comply with all conditions and requirements of the Order. Any Order noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Water Code and is grounds for enforcement action or Order termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification. c. Property Rights. The Order does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege.
d. Property or Private Rights. The issuance of the Order does not authorize any injury to persons or property or invasion of other private rights, or any infringement of state or local law or regulations.
e. Project Modification. The Discharger must submit any changes to the Project, including Project operation, which would have a significant or material effect on the findings, conclusions, or conditions of the Order, to the San Diego Water Board for prior review and written approval. If the San Diego Water Board is not notified of a significant change to the Project, it will be considered a violation of the Order. f. Project Conformance with Application. All water quality protection measures and BMPs described in the application and supplemental information for water quality certification are incorporated by reference into the Order as if fully stated herein. Notwithstanding any more specific conditions in the Order, the Discharger shall construct, implement and comply with all water quality protection measures and BMPs described in the application and supplemental information . The conditions within the Order shall supersede conflicting provisions within the application and supplemental information submitted as part of this action. g.

Water
Inspection and Entry. The Discharger must allow the San Diego Water Board or the State Resources Control Board, and/or their authorized representative(s) (including an authorized contractor acting as their representative), upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required under law, to:
i. Enter upon the Project or Compensatory Mitigation premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted , or where records must be kept under the conditions of the Order;
ii. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of the Order;
iii. Inspect, at reasonable times, any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under the Order; and 23 1029
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
iv. Sample or monitor, at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring Order compliance, or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act or Water Code, any substances or parameters at any location.

2. Permit Administration
a. Term of Order. The Order shall expire (a) upon the expiration or retraction of the Clean Water Act section 404 (33 U.S.C. section 1344) permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for this Project; or (b) five (5) years from the date of issuance of the Order if Project construction has not started, whichever occurs first.
b. Payment of Fees. The Order is conditioned upon total payment of any fee required under California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 3830 et seq. and owed by the Discharger.

3. Permit Actions
a. Transfers. The Order is not transferable in its entirety or in part to any person or organization except after notice to the San Diego Water Board is provided in accordance with the following terms:
i. Transfer of Property Ownership. The Discharger must notify the San Diego Water Board of any change in Project area ownership. Notification of change in ownership must include, but not be limited to, a statement that the Discharger has provided the purchaser with a copy of the Order and that the purchaser understands and accepts the Order requirements and the obligation to implement them or be subject to liability for failure to do so. The seller and purchaser must sign and date the notification and provide such notification to the San Diego Water Board within 10 days of the transfer of ownership. ii. Transfer of Mitigation Responsibility. Any notification of transfer of responsibilities to satisfy the mitigation requirements set forth in the Order must include a signed statement from an authorized representative of the new party (transferee) demonstrating acceptance and understanding of the responsibility to comply with and fully satisfy the mitigation conditions, and an agreement that failure to comply with the mitigation conditions and associated requirements may subject the transferee to enforcement by the San Diego Water Board under California Water Code (Water Code) section 13385(a). Notification of transfer of responsibilities meeting the above conditions must be provided to the San Diego Water Board within 10 days of the transfer date.
iii. Transfer of Post-Construction BMP Maintenance Responsibility. The Discharger assumes responsibility for the inspection and maintenance of all post-construction structural BMPs until such responsibility is legally transferred to another entity. At the time maintenance responsibility for post-construction BMPs is legally transferred, the Discharger must submit to the San Diego Water Board a copy of such documentation and must provide the transferee with a copy of a long-term BMP maintenance plan that complies with manufacturer specifications. The Discharger must provide such notification to the San Diego Water Board within 10 days of the transfer of BMP maintenance responsibility. 24 1030
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
Upon properly noticed transfers of responsibility, the transferee assumes responsibility for compliance with the Order and references in the Order to the Discharger will be interpreted to refer to the transferee as appropriate. Transfer of responsibility does not necessarily relieve the Discharger of the Order in the event that a transferee fails to comply. b. Order Reopener Actions. The Order may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause including but not limited to the following:
i. Violation of any term or condition of the Order;
ii. Monitoring results indicating that continued Project activities could violate water quality objectives or impair the beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean; iii. Obtaining the Order by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; iv. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; and
v. Incorporation of any new or revised water quality standards and implementation plans adopted or approved pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act or section 303 of the Clean Water Act.

The filing of a request by the Discharger for modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any Order condition.

4. Monitoring
a. Representative Monitoring. Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring under the Order shall be representative of the monitored activity. b. Monitoring Instruments. All monitoring instruments and devices, which are used by the Discharger to fulfill the prescribed monitoring program, must be properly maintained and calibrated as necessary to ensure their continued precision and accuracy. c. Certified Laboratory. All laboratory analyses must be performed in a laboratory certified to perform such analyses under the State Water Resources Control Board's Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program or a laboratory approved by the San Diego Water Board. d. USEPA Test Procedures. Monitoring must be conducted according to USEPA test procedures approved under Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 136, Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act as amended, unless other test procedures have been specified in the Order. e. Records of Monitoring Information. Records of monitoring information shall include:
i. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements; 25 1031
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
ii. The individual(s) who performed the sampling, measurements, and analyses; iii. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
iv. The results of such analyses.
f. Records Retention. The Discharger must retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by the Order, and records of all data used to complete the application for the Order. Records must be maintained for a minimum of five years from the date of the sample, measurement, report, or application. This period may be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding this Project or when requested by the San Diego Water Board.
g. Modifications to Monitoring and Reporting. The San Diego Water Board may modify the monitoring program at any time during the term of the Order and may reduce or increase the number of parameters to be monitored, the locations monitored, the frequency of monitoring, or the number and size of samples collected.

5. Reporting
a. Duty to Report. The submittal of information required under the Order, or in response to a suspected violation of any condition of the Order, is required pursuant to Water Code section 13383. Monitoring and reporting costs are reasonable and necessary to evaluate compliance with the Order and water quality and other impacts. Civil liability may be administratively imposed by the San Diego Water Board for failure to submit information pursuant to Water Code section 13385.
b. Duty to Provide Information. The Discharger shall furnish to the San Diego Water Board, within a reasonable time, any information which the San Diego Water Board may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating the Order or to determine compliance with the Order.
c. Anticipated Noncompliance. The Discharger shall give advance notice to the San Diego Water Board of any planned changes in the Project or the Compensatory Mitigation project which may result in noncompliance with the Order.
d. Twenty-Four Hour Non-Compliance Reporting. The Discharger shall report any noncompliance which may endanger human health or the environment. Any such information shall be provided orally to the San Diego Water Board within 24 hours of the time the Discharger becomes aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within five days of the time the Discharger becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and, if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. The San Diego Water Board, 26 1032
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
or an authorized representative, may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been received within 24 hours.

6. Notifications to Discharger
a. General Waste Discharge Requirements. The requirements of the Order are enforceable through Water Quality Order No. 2003-0017-DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material that have Received State Water Quality Certification (Water Quality Order No. 2003-0017-DWQ). This provision shall apply irrespective of whether: (a) the federal permit for which the Order was obtained is subsequently retracted or is expired; or (b) the Order is expired. Water Quality Order No. 2003- 0017-DWQ is available at:
https://www .waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/cwa401/docs/generalorders/go wdr4 01 regulated projects.pdf.
b. Hydroelectric Facility Exclusion. The Order is not intended and shall not be construed to apply to any discharge from any activity involving a hydroelectric facility and requiring a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license or an amendment to a FERC license unless the pertinent Order application was filed pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 3855(b), and that application specifically identified that a FERC license or amendment to a FERC license for a hydroelectric facility was being sought. c. Enforcement Notification. In the event of any violation or threatened violation of the conditions of the Order, the violation or threatened violation shall be subject to any remedies , penalties, process or sanctions as provided for under State law. For purposes of section 401 (d) of the Clean Water Act, the applicability of any State law authorizing remedies, penalties, process or sanctions for the violation or threatened violation constitutes a limitation necessary to assure compliance with the water quality standards and other pertinent requirements incorporated into the Order.
d. Petitions. Any person aggrieved by this action of the San Diego Water Board may petition the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to review the action in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 3867 et seq. The State Water Board must receive the petition no later than 5:00 p.m. 30 days after the date of the Order. Copies of the law and regulations applicable to filing petitions may be found at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/public notices/petitions/water quality or will be provided upon request.
27 1033
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project ATTACHMENT 5- Compliance with 40 CFR Part 121.7(d)(1)
Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
The federal Clean Water Act section 401 Certification Rule (401 Certification Rule) found at Title 40 , Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Part 121 .7(d)(1) requires an explanation of why a condition in a water quality certification is necessary to assure that the authorized discharge will comply with water quality requirements, and a citation to federal, state, or tribal law (citations) that authorizes the condition. This attachment (Attachment 5) includes the legal requirements and technical rationale that serve as the basis for the requirements of Order No. R9-2022-0171 (Order) as required by the 401 Certification Rule.

This attachment uses the same organizational structure as the Order. Conditions and statements below correspond with the conditions set forth in Sections II and Attachment 4 of the Order.

This attachment includes citations to some sources of authority that are applicable to all conditions.

These sources are specifically identified where they are most relevant but are also generally applicable to the conditions below. These conditions are generally required to comply with the state's Anti-Degradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16), which requires that any "activity which produces or may produce a waste or increased volume or concentration of waste and which discharges or proposes to discharge to existing high quality waters will be required to meet waste discharge requirements which will result in the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary to assure that (a) a pollution or nuisance will not occur and (b) the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained." All Regional Water Board Water Quality Control Plans incorporate the state's Anti-Degradation Policy by reference. The state Anti-Degradation Policy incorporates the federal Anti-Degradation Policy (40 CFR Part 131.12 (a)(1 )), which requires "[e]xisting instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected." According to U.S. EPA, dischargers of dredged or fill material comply with the federal Anti-Degradation Policy by complying with U.S. EPA's section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The State Water Boards adopted a modified version of U.S. EPA's section 404(b)(1) Guidelines in the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Dredge or Fill Procedures).

The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9) (Basin Plan), adopted on September 8, 1994 as subsequently amended, establishes the following Waste Discharge Prohibitions pursuant to California Water Code section 13243 applicable to the authorized discharge. The following Waste Discharge Prohibitions provide the basis for conditions in the Order necessary to protect water quality and ensure compliance with water quality standards.
• Prohibition No. 1. The discharge of waste to waters of the state in a manner causing, or threatening to cause a condition of pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in California Water Code section 13050, is prohibited.
• Prohibition No. 2. The discharge of waste to land, except as authorized by waste discharge requ irements or the terms described in California Water Code section 13264 is prohibited. • Prohibition No. 3. The discharge of pollutants or dredged or fill material to waters of the United States except as authorized by an NPDES permit or a dredged or fill material permit (subject to the exemption described in California Water Code section 13376) is prohibited. 28 1034
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
• Prohibition No. 7. The dumping , deposition, or discharge of waste directly into waters of the state, or adjacent to such waters in any manner which may permit its being transported into the waters, is prohibited unless authorized by the San Diego Water Board. • Prohibition No. 14. The discharge of sand , silt, clay, or other earthen materials from any activity, including land grading and construction, in quantities which cause deleterious bottom deposits, turbidity or discoloration in waters of the state or which unreasonably affect, or threaten to affect, beneficial uses of such waters is prohibited.

The above citations and justification for compliance with water quality requirements apply to all the conditions included in the Order. The following statements provides additional water quality justification and citations for conditions in section II of the Order.

II. 8. Project Conformance with Water Quality Control Plans Justification: This condition is necessary for protection beneficial uses and compliance with water quality standards .

Citation: California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 3860(a).

II. C. Compensatory Mitigation Site Long-Term Management Justification: These conditions are necessary to ensure that impacts to water quality functions and services of waters of the United States and/or State are mitigated. Compensatory mitigation replaces function and services lost during temporary and/or permanent impacts.

Citation: These conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal antidegradation policies. Compensatory mitigation requirements are consistent with Dredge or Fill Procedures, section IV.B.1.a (California Code of Regulations title 23, section 3013), which requires that the Water Boards will approve a project only after it has been determined that a sequence of actions has been taken to first avoid , then to minimize, and lastly compensate for adverse impacts that cannot be practicably avoided or minimized. (See also California Code of Regulations, title. 23, section 3856(h) [requiring submittal of proposed mitigation and description of steps taken to avoid, minimize, or compensate].) Compensatory mitigation conditions are consistent with Executive Order W-59-93 commonly referred to as California's "no net loss" policy for wetlands . Compensatory mitigation requirements are also authorized by California Water Code section 13263, which requires the imposition of requirements that implement water quality control plans, takes into consideration the beneficial uses to be protected , and the need to prevent nuisance. These conditions related to mitigation requirements are consistent with the Dredged or Fill Procedures, section IV.B.1.a, which requires that the Water Boards will approve a project only after it has been determined that a sequence of actions has been taken to first avoid, then to minimize, and lastly compensate for adverse impacts that cannot be practicably avoided or minimized. Accordingly, compensatory mitigation is required for projects that would result in permanent impacts. 29 1035
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project II. D. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
Justification:

United
These conditions are necessary to verify that the Project impacts to waters of the States and/or State do not exceed those authorized under the Order and that any compensatory mitigation and/or restoration is sufficient to protect beneficial uses and water quality objectives. The reports document the progress of the project in replacing the function and services lost during temporary and/or permanent impacts.

Citation: These monitoring and reporting conditions are authorized because the Water Boards have Water
the authority to investigate the quality of any waters of the state within its region under California Code sections 13267 and 13383.

II. E. Project Status Notifications
when
Justification: These conditions are necessary to ensure that the San Diego Water Board knows impacts to waters of the United States and/or State are occurring. In addition, notifications minimize
related to non-compliance are needed to ensure that corrective actions, if any, that are necessary to the impact or clean up such discharges can be taken as soon as possible.

Board
Citation: These notification and reporting conditions are authorized because the San Diego Water California
has
Water
the authority to investigate the quality of any waters of the State within its region under Code sections 13267 and 13383.

II. D - H. Standard Provisions
Justification: These are standard conditions that are included as conditions of all water quality certification actions. These standard conditions are necessary for the protection of beneficial uses and compliance with water quality standards.

Water
Citation: California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 3830, 3855(b), 3860, and 3867; California Code section 13330.

Attachment 4. Standard Provisions - Compliance
• Duty to Comply. Justification: Noncompliance with Order No. R9-2021-0101 can be enforced under Water Code sections 13331 , 13350, 13385, and 13386. • Project Modification. Justification: California Water Code section 13264 prohibits any discharge that is not specifically authorized in the Order. The Order is subject to modification or revocation upon administrative or judicial review, including review and amendment pursuant to California Water Code section 13330 and California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 3867.
30 1036
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
• Project Conformance with Application. Justification: California Water Code section 13264 prohibits any discharge that is not specifically authorized in the Order. • Construction and Post-Construction Best Management Practices. Justification: These conditions are necessary to prevent the discharge of construction related pollutants into waters of the United States and/or State that impact beneficial uses and exceed compliance with water quality standards.

Citation: Clean Water Act sections 301 and 402, California Water Code sections 13370 and 13260, Basin Plan Prohibition No. 14.
• Inspection and Entry. Conditions related to site access requirements are authorized because they support the Water Boards' authority to investigate the quality of any waters of the state within its region under California Water Code section 13267. California Water Code section 13267(c) provides that "the regional board may inspect the facilities of any person to ascertain whether the purposes of this division are being met and waste discharge requirements are being complied with ."
Citation: California Water Code section 13267(c).

Attachment 4. Standard Provisions - Permit Actions
Justification: Conditions regarding transfers are necessary to confirm that a new owner agrees to assume legal responsibility for compliance with the Order. The Order authorizes activities based on the information submitted in the application, including the legally responsible party. If a new owner does not agree to assume legal responsibility, then the original discharger remains responsible for compliance with this Order. Confirmation is also necessary to confirm whether liability for long-term best management practices maintenance is accepted by another entity. If not, the original discharger remains responsible for compliance with this Order.

Citation: California Water Code section 13264 prohibits any discharge that is not specifically authorized in the Order.

Attachment 4. Standard Provisions - Reporting
• Anticipated Non-compliance and 24-Hour Non-compliance Reporting. Justification:

These conditions are necessary to ensure that the San Diego Water Board knows when impacts to waters of the United States and/or State are occurring. In addition, notifications related to non-compliance are needed to ensure that corrective actions, if any, that are necessary to minimize the impact or clean up such discharges can be taken as soon as possible.

Citation: These notification and reporting conditions are authorized because the San Diego Water Board has the authority to investigate the quality of any waters of the State within its region under California Water Code sections 13267 and 13383. 31 1037
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
• Document Certification Requirements, Document Signatory Requirements, and Electronic Document Submittal. Justification: These conditions are necessary to verify that the Project impacts to waters of the United States and/or State do not exceed those authorized under the Order and that any compensatory mitigation and/or restoration is sufficient to protect beneficial uses and water quality objectives. The reports document the progress of the project in replacing the function and services lost during temporary and/or permanent impacts.

Citation: These monitoring and reporting conditions are authorized because the Water Boards have the authority to investigate the quality of any waters of the state within its region under California Water Code sections 13267 and 13383.
32 1038
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
San Clemente Shoreline Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project ATTACHMENT 6 - Project Maps
Figure 1: Project Area Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Oceanside Borrow Area
Figure 3: San Clemente Beach Placement Area
33 Order No. R9-2022- 0171
November 3, 2022
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219
VOICE AND TDD (415) 904- 5200
FAX ( 415) 904- 5400
W 6b

REVISED STAFF RECOMMENDATION

ON CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Consistency Determination No. CD-029-11
Staff: MPD-SF
File Date: 6/17/11
60th Day: 8/16/11
75th Day: 8/31/11
Extended to: 11/7/11
Commission Meeting: 11/2/11
FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

PROJECT
LOCATION: San Clemente State Beach and offshore of Del Mar Boat Basin, Orange and San Diego Counties (Exhibits 1-2)

PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project: 50-Year Beach nourishment program for San Clemente State Beach, consisting of initial nourishment on the beach in 2012 of approximately 251,000 cu. yds. of sand dredged from offshore the Del Mar Boat Basin, with periodic renourishment at approximately six year intervals (Exhibits 3-4)

SUBSTANTIVE
FILE DOCUMENTS: See page 33.

Staff Recommendation: Conditional Concurrence. Motion is on page 6. Conditions are on pages 6-9.
[Staff Note: This revised report is similar to the previous version of the report, which staff issued for the Commission’s September agenda, with the only changes being as follows. First, an Exhibit has been added (Exhibit 16 – a DEIS comment letter by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which we believe supports the staff-recommended conditions). Second, after discussions with the Corps over the wording of the conditions, a few minor changes have been made to several of the conditions. Third, in discussions with Commission staff, Corps ATTACHMENT 7
1039
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment