San Clemente City Council
July 18, 2023

personnel have also maintained that existing Corps regulations prohibit reliance on mitigation ratios and thus preclude the Corps from achieving full consistency with the CCMP in the manner recommended in Condition 8. The Commission staff has requested a copy of the regulation cited and will respond after receiving it and considering its implications. Finally, discussion is ongoing between the Corps and Commission staff on several other conditions.

The results of any such discussions will be explained in a subsequent addendum to this report.] List of Exhibits
Exhibits 1 & 2 – Location Map
Exhibit 3 – Borrow Site
Exhibit 4 – Beach Fill and Impact Area
Exhibit 5 – Staging Area
Exhibits 6 – 8 – Offshore Surfgrass and Kelp
Exhibit 9 – Mariposa Point
Exhibit 10 – Larger Beach Fill Alternative
Exhibit 11 – Draft Biological Monitoring Plan MMRP
Exhibit 12 – USFWS Coordination Act Report Recommendations Exhibit 13 – SANDAG CDP 6-11-018 Permit Condition No. 8 (Grunions) Exhibit 14 – San Clemente Opportunistic Sand Monitoring Report Conclusions Exhibit 15 – Draft Surfing Monitoring Plan
Exhibit 16 – NMFS DEIS Comment letter

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has submitted a consistency determination for San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project, a 50-Year Beach nourishment program for San Clemente 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. The beach disposal would be on the dry sandy beach, in a 3,412 ft. long area centered around the San Clemente Pier. Dredging would be by hopper dredge; after dredging the dredge vessel would be towed to a mooring offshore San Clemente and the material pumped onshore. The initial phase would be during the fall and winter season, in part to avoid effects on grunion spawning. When the beach erodes to its design width, the Corps would repeat the process, which it estimates would occur, on average, at six-year intervals.

The primary habitat and marine resource concerns raised by the project are potential effects on grunions, least terns, snowy plovers, reef habitats, surfgrass, and giant kelp. The dredging (offshore borrow site) and disposal (beach site) are not themselves environmentally sensitive habitat areas or areas of particularly valuable marine resources. Least terns and snowy plovers do not nest in the project area, and the project has been scheduled to avoid the grunion spawning season. The primary marine resources concerns raised by the project are the indirect effects of where and how much material will be transported by waves through 1040
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

the littoral system, where it has the potential to temporarily or permanently affect offshore sensitive marine habitats, which, in San Clemente, consist of offshore surfgrass, reef, and giant kelp habitats.

Unlike the SANDAG beach nourishment project1 the Commission reviewed in June of this year, which had been previously implemented and studied, no history of large nourishment activities and how sand has moved downcoast is available for San Clemente’s offshore area.

The Corps has selected a project size that, based on its modeling, it expects to result in only temporary impacts, and it believes that the offshore habitats (particularly surfgrass, likely the most sensitive species potentially affected in this location) will recover from temporary sand cover as it moves downcoast. The Corps acknowledges uncertainties in its modeling and analysis and assumes some mitigation may be necessary. The Corps has committed to monitoring the offshore areas, and also committed, if impacts are found, to provide one acre of surfgrass mitigation and one acre of reef mitigation. The Corps also acknowledges that because surfgrass mitigation success is not currently a known science, and thus its success cannot be guaranteed, if the monitoring shows the need for surfgrass mitigation, and the mitigation is attempted but not ultimately successful, it will then implement kelp mitigation (which is more predictable) to offset surfgrass effects.

The Corps has met with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, the California Dept. of Fish and Game, and the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss the habitat issues, and these agencies have expressed a number of concerns, including the need for: (1) more extensive monitoring and assurances of mitigation success; (2) interagency review and agreement before monitoring and mitigation plans are finalized; and (3) identification of backup funding mechanisms and commitments if currently committed funding levels are not sufficient. These agencies have also recommended initial implementation of smaller nourishment project (identified as a 10 meter beach width, as opposed to the proposed 15 meter beach width), until more is learned about the shoreline dynamics in San Clemente. These recommendations are summarized on pages 22-24.

The staff is recommending nine conditions to assure the monitoring and mitigation measures are effective, adequate to protect, and if impacts occur, mitigate, the project’s effects on marine resources, and to enable the project to be found consistent with the marine resource policies of the Coastal Act. The recommended conditions would provide for: (1) implementing additional grunion monitoring and protection measures, in the event unforeseen circumstances delayed work into the grunion season; (2) Commission staff review of and concurrence with the final monitoring plans; (3) specification of success criteria to be included in the monitoring plans to assure they will adequately measure impacts; (4) increasing the mitigation ratio if out-of-kind mitigation is implemented (which is triggered if in-kind mitigation is unsuccessful); (5) lengthening the monitoring period from 2 to 5 years; (6) submitting all monitoring reports to the Commission staff; and (7) assuring that subsequent re-nourishments will not be implemented unless and until the Commission 1 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) coastal development permit 6-11-018. 1041
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

staff has reviewed the monitoring and mitigation and agrees the habitats have been adequately restored and/or that the permanent loss of habitat has been adequately mitigated.

If the Corps were to agree to implement these conditions, the staff believes the proposed project could be found consistent with the marine resource and dredging and filling policies (Sections 30230, 30231, and 30233) of the Coastal Act.

In the long-term, the project will improve public access by increasing available public beach area and lessening the need for shoreline protection works such as seawalls or increasing size of the revetment that protects the rail line located inland of the beach. Public access and recreation impact issues include temporary effects blocking access to disposal areas during construction, and possible alteration of offshore bathymetry, which could temporarily affect surfing conditions until the sand moves downcoast. The project is being scheduled to avoid the peak recreation season, and the staging area would not interfere with public accessibility or parking. The Corps has agreed to monitoring effects on surfing. The staff believes additional details and specifications are needed to assure the effectiveness of the monitoring, and is recommending conditions providing for Commission staff review of the final staging and surfing monitoring plans, including several details needed to reduce effects and improve monitoring validity. If the Corps were to agree to implement these conditions, the staff believes the proposed project could be found consistent with the public access and recreation and surfing policies (Sections 30210-30213, and 30220) of the Coastal Act.

Water quality issues include turbidity and practices addressing construction equipment on the beach. With conditions assuring Commission staff review (prior to project implementation) of turbidity monitoring and best management practices for construction activities, the staff believes the project would be consistent with the water quality policy (Section 30231) of the Coastal Act.

STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
I. STAFF SUMMARY:

A. Project Description. The Corps is proposing a 50-year program to nourish San Clemente State Beach. The initial nourishment would consist of placing 251,000 cu. yds. of predominantly sandy sediment in a 50 ft. wide by 3,412 ft. long area of dry sandy beach (Exhibits 2 & 4). The material would be dredged by a hopper dredge from an offshore area, approximately one mile offshore of the Del Mar Boat Basin on Camp Pendleton, in northern San Diego County, just north of the City of Oceanside (Exhibit 3). The hopper dredge would be filled at the borrow site and transported 21 mi. north to San Clemente, where it would be attached to a moored floating section of pipeline (monobuoy) extending 1,500 ft. to the shoreline. The monobuoy would be anchored in water depths of at least 25 ft. The material would be re-suspended and discharged through the on-board pumping system to the receiver site, which is centered around the San Clemente Pier, and which extends from Linda Lane to the north, to T Street (Esplanade/T Street) to the south. 1042
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

The material would be placed behind L-shaped beach berms, designed to allow dewatering. The dredge material would be mixed with seawater to form a slurry, which would be pumped onto the beach between the berm and toe of the berm. 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 200 ft. section of berm is filled in with sand, another 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, and would eventually settle down to a natural grade for the beach. The design berm elevation would be + 17 ft. MLLW (17 ft. above mean lower low water), and the design foreshore slope is 8:1 (8 ft. horizontal to 1 ft. vertical), both designed to match historic beach heights and slopes in the area.

For the equipment staging area, the Corps would use the open area on the inland edge of the beach adjacent to the Marine Safety Headquarters (Exhibit 5), which is north of the San Clemente Pier. Offshore equipment would be moored at Dana Point Harbor (5 mi. north) when not in use.

The construction period is approximately four months in duration and would occur from late August/early September, 2012, through March, 2013. It would be timed to avoid the peak recreation period and the least tern breeding and grunion spawning seasons.

Dredging would be performed 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours/day, 6 days/week.

The Corps proposes to conduct long-term monitoring of the shoreline, to determine when renourishment is needed, for the project duration, which the Corps has defined as a 50 year period. Renourishment efforts would occur when the shoreline reaches the base beach width (i.e., approximately 35 ft.) and would likely involve similar dredging and disposal amounts as the initial proposed nourishment.

B. Federal Agency's Consistency Determination. The Corps has determined the project consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP).
1043
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following motion:

MOTION: I move that the Commission conditionally concur with consistency determination CD-029-11 and determine that, as conditioned, the project described therein is fully consistent, and thus is consistent to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends a YES vote on the motion. Passage of this motion will result in a conditional agreement with the determination and adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present is required to pass the motion.

RESOLUTION TO CONDITIONALLY CONCUR WITH CONSISTENCY
DETERMINATION:

The Commission hereby conditionally concurs with consistency determination CD-029-11 by the Corps on the grounds that the project would be fully consistent, and thus consistent to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the CCMP, provided the Corps agrees to modify the project consistent with the conditions specified below, as provided for in 15 CFR §930.4.

Conditions:

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 Corps will inform the Commission 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.

2. Final Monitoring Plans. Prior to commencement of construction, the Corps will provide to the Commission’s Executive Director, for his review and concurrence, a copy of the final Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) phase surveys and the subsequent monitoring plans, including:
(a) the final biological (reef/surfgrass) Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMRP), including all surveys conducted in preparation of that plan; 1044
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

(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. 1045
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

(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 Corps has received written concurrence from the Executive Director that the MMRP satisfies all these criteria.

4. Surfing Monitoring Details. The Corps will revise its Surfing Monitoring Plan (Exhibit 15) to include and implement the following features:
(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). (A control site would also assist in examining and understanding long-term trends.) (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 Corps has received written concurrence from the Executive Director that the monitoring plan satisfies all of these criteria. 1046
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

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; (c) 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; and (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 Corps will provide to the Executive Director all monitoring reports, including biological monitoring (including biological 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 Corps 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 shallowwater habitat impacts) without showing to the satisfaction of the Executive Director that in-kind mitigation is infeasible. In addition, if out-of-kind mitigation is agreed to and impelemented, 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 Corps will notify the Executive Director prior to any reinitation (after the first phase) of nourishment, and the Corps shall not implement any such renourishment until the Exective 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.

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL AUTHORITIES.

A. Standard of Review. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1451-1464, requires that federal agency activities affecting coastal resources be “carried out in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 1047
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

enforceable policies of approved State management programs.” Id. at § 1456(c)(1)(A). The implementing regulations for the CZMA (“federal consistency regulations”), at 15 C.F.R. § 930.32(a)(1), define the phrase “consistent to the maximum extent practicable” to mean:
… fully consistent with the enforceable policies of management programs unless full consistency is prohibited by existing law applicable to the Federal agency.

This standard allows a federal activity that is not fully consistent with California’s Coastal Management Program (“CCMP”) to proceed if full compliance with the CCMP would be “prohibited by existing law.” The Corps, in its consistency determination, did not argue that full consistency is prohibited by existing law or provide any documentation to support a maximum extent practicable argument. Therefore, until recently, there was no basis to consider the possibility that existing law applicable to the Federal agency might prohibit full consistency. However, in recent discussions between Commission staff and the Corps, Corps personnel responded to Commission staff’s proposed Condition 8 by stating that existing Corps regulations prohibit reliance on mitigation ratios, and thus, if the Commission were to find that compliance with Condition 8, as proposed, were required to achieve full consistency with the CCMP, then full compliance would, in fact, be precluded by Corps regulations. In any event, the Corps personnel indicated that achieving consistency with the CCMP in the manner recommended in Condition 8 is precluded, which may have “maximum extent practicability” implications. However, the status of the alleged regulation is unclear, as it appears not to be a formal regulation codified in the CFR, and as of the production of this staff report, the Corps has neither clarified the status of the "regulation" nor provided us with a copy. The Commission staff has requested a copy it and will respond further after receiving and considering its implications. Since the Corps has not formally raised the issue of practicability, as so defined, the standard before the Commission as of the issuance of this report is full consistency with the enforceable policies of the CCMP, which are the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30200-30265.5).

B. Conditional Concurrences. The federal consistency regulations (15 CFR § 930.4) provide for conditional concurrences, as follows:
(a) Federal agencies, … should cooperate with State agencies to develop conditions that, if agreed to during the State agency’s consistency review period and included in a Federal agency’s final decision under Subpart C … would allow the State agency to concur with the federal action. If instead a State agency issues a conditional concurrence:
(1) The State agency shall include in its concurrence letter the conditions which must be satisfied, an explanation of why the conditions are necessary to ensure consistency with specific enforceable policies of the management program, and an identification of the specific enforceable policies. The State agency’s concurrence letter shall also inform the parties that if the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of the section are not met, then all parties shall treat the State agency’s conditional concurrence letter as an objection pursuant to the applicable Subpart . . . ; and 1048
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

(2) The Federal agency (for Subpart C) … shall modify the applicable plan [or] project proposal, … pursuant to the State agency’s conditions. The Federal agency … shall immediately notify the State agency if the State agency’s conditions are not acceptable; and
…
(b) If the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section are not met, then all parties shall treat the State agency’s conditional concurrence as an objection pursuant to the applicable Subpart.

IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.

The Commission finds and declares as follows:

A. Marine Resources/Beach Nourishment/Dredging and Filling. Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act require the protection of marine resources and biological productivity. These sections provide:

Section 30230. Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.

Section 30231. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of groundwater supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow,
Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act applies to dredging and filling activities; this section provides in relevant part:
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: … 1049
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

(5) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. …
Section 30233(b) encourages beach replenishment and requires disposal to occur in a manner protecting sensitive habitat; this section provides:
(b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation.

Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable long shore current systems.

Under the above policies, the project needs to be an allowable use for dredging and filling, the project needs to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative, marine resources need to be protected, and adverse impacts need to be mitigated.

1. Allowable Use. The Commission has historically found beach nourishment to be an allowable use under Section 30233(a)(5), which allows dredging and filling for mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. Moreover, Section 30233(b) encourages beach nourishment whenever dredge material is suitable, and material being dredged for the sole purpose of replenishing beaches is inherently suitable for use (assuming, as is the case here, it tests free of contaminants and is predominantly sand sized material). The project site is not an environmentally sensitive area. The borrow site offshore the Del Mar Boat Basin is not an environmentally sensitive area. The disposal site, San Clemente Beach, is also not an environmentally sensitive area, as it does not contain snowy plover or least tern nesting. In addition, the project is being scheduled to avoid effects on grunion spawning. The Commission therefore finds the project is an allowable use under Section 30233 for dredging and filling.

2. Alternatives. Alternatives considered by the Corps included:
(1) No Action, which the Corps states would lead to continued loss of recreational and economic benefits, and may induce the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), which maintains the rail line that runs along the inland side of San Clemente Beach, to expand its existing revetment and/or build larger seawalls;

(2) Managed Retreat, which the Corps concludes is not a viable non-structural alternative in this situation, in part due to the cost of relocating the rail line;

(3) Beach Nourishment (proposed), which the Corps concludes is the most socially and environmentally appropriate alternative; and
1050
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

(4) “Hard” Structural Measures, including onshore revetments and seawalls, offshore reefs and breakwaters, and perpendicular groins, all of which, the Corps notes (and the Commission agrees) raise a number of more problematic Coastal Act and coastal resource concerns.

In terms of alternatives within the category of beach nourishment, the Corps considered various beach width alternatives in five meter increments and looked at beach widths of between 10 and 60 meters. The proposed alternative is a 15-meter (50 ft.) beach width.

In its Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the project, the Corps narrowed the focus its analysis on two of these: the 15- and 35-meter beach widths. A 35-meter beach width would involve initial placement of 586,000 cy. yds. of sand on the beach. The Corps rejected this alternative as the EIS concluded it would have significant adverse long-term and possibly irreversible impacts on the offshore biological resources (reef habitat, surfgrass, and kelp). In its EIS and consistency determination the Corps concluded that the proposed 15-meter (50 ft.) beach width nourishment would avoid these significant adverse effects, and is therefore the preferred alternative.

As will be discussed below, several agencies reviewing the proposal have recommended a 10 meter beach width, and they believe it may reduce offshore biological effects while still being a feasible alternative. Because this area has not been nourished in the past at a magnitude approaching the proposed project (i.e., only much smaller nourishment has occurred here), unlike the SANDAG project (i.e., the San Diego County beach nourishment) discussed elsewhere in this report, where prior nourishment efforts had improved the knowledge of how material would move downcoast and affect offshore sensitive habitats, it is not clear the extent to which sand will be mobilized and temporarily cover offshore sensitive habitats. Thus, future monitoring will be needed to assess the littoral and habitat dynamics and impacts in this location, and there is insufficient data, at this point, to require the reduction in width of the project from 15 meters to 10. Also, maintaining a narrower beach width could lead to more frequent nourishment events, which could offset the benefits of a reduced project size. If unmitigable or unanticipated effects occur, future re-nourishment events may need to be reduced in scope. However, given the information and analysis included in this consistency determination (and accompanying EIS), and based on the information currently available, the Commission finds that the proposed beach width proposal would represent the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. This finding is contingent on the assumption that the Corps will agree to Condition 9, which provides that the will not implement follow-up renourishment until the Exective Director reviews the monitoring reports and agrees that the biological effects have been adequately mitigated, and affected habitat restored.

3. Mitigation. The primary habitat and marine resource concerns raised by the project are potential effects on grunions, least terns, snowy plovers, reef habitats, surfgrass, giant kelp, and various birds and intertidal organisms. The dredging (offshore borrow site) and disposal (beach site) are not themselves environmentally sensitive 1051
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

habitat areas or areas of particularly valuable marine resources. Least terns and snowy plovers do not nest in the project area, and the project has been scheduled to avoid the grunion spawning season. The primary marine resources concerns raised by the project are the indirect effects of where and how much material will be transported by waves through the littoral system, where it has the potential to temporarily or permanently affect offshore sensitive marine habitats.

In its past reviews of beach nourishment projects using offshore borrow sites, the Commission has generally considered as minimal the temporary turbidity, burial and resuspension of material and organisms; these areas are generally recolonized within relatively short timeframes. SANDAG has surveyed the offshore borrow site being proposed by the Corps in its studies of beach nourishment borrow site options.2 No kelp
beds are present, and the SANDAG surveys do not show environmentally sensitive in this area at the depths proposed. The sensitive marine areas for the proposed project are the areas offshore where sand will migrate through, after initial placement. The Corps’ consistency determination notes the particular significance of the offshore surfgrass, reef, and giant kelp marine habitats in San Clemente; the consistency determination states:

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

The Corps reviewed existing habitat studies and conducted surveys for surfgrass, reef, kelp, and other offshore habitats in the project vicinity. The Corps states:

Marine Shoreline and Offshore Habitats
The predominant intertidal habitat along San Clemente’s shoreline is sandy beach, although some rocky outcrops that extend from mid-beach to the low intertidal are present at Mariposa Point, north of San Clemente Pier. Beyond the surf zone, the seafloor is a mosaic of sand and low-to-high relief patch reef. Some pinnacles of the reef are visible in the nearshore zone at low tide while two prominent offshore pinnacles break the surface offshore of Mariposa Point and south of the San Clemente Pier. Other reef habitats are located south of the Pier offshore of T-Street that extends west, and then north around the end of the San Clemente Pier.

2 Appendix D to the SANDAG Regional Beach Sand Project EIR/EA. 1052
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

Exhibits 6-9 show the location of the offshore reef, kelp, and surfgrass areas. The consistency determination notes that kelp canopy has fluctuated considerably during the past decade. Concerning surfgrass, the consistency determination states:

Surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi), an important species that enhances the biological value of nearshore habitat, is present in the low intertidal beginning approximately 300 ft (91 m) offshore of the sand beach. Surfgrass serves as a nursery for California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) and provides shelter for a variety of juvenile and adult fishes. Surfgrass is present throughout the low intertidal platform of Mariposa Point, which is upcoast outside of the project area. Surfgrass off Mariposa Point occurs a minimum of three feet above the sand line with no more than one inch of sand covering the surface of the rocks.

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

In the area north of the Pier, the surveys identified scattered patches of surfgrass on the upper surfaces of one foot high boulders. Surfgrass blades were generally 2-3 ft. long.

South of the Pier, the survey found surfgrass meadows were observed, particularly on the T Street Reef, in water depths of -4 to -13 ft. MLLW (Exhibits 6 & 7). The consistency determination describes the subtidal reef south of the Pier as follows:

The subtidal reef habitat south of the Pier is extensive and angles around the tip of San Clemente Pier. This reef formation is shown on Figure 4-6. Larger macrophytes observed on the reef include giant kelp, feather boa kelp (Endarchne binghamiae) and bladder chain kelp (Cystoseira/ Halidrys) (CRM 2000). A small patch of giant kelp consisting of 12 plants was observed 650 ft (197 m) south of the Pier at a depth of 16 ft (5 m) in October 1999, but was not observed in June 2000. Kelp canopy was observed on the entire reef in July 2009.

The consistency determination also notes that the:

California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) is common in the subtidal reef habitat in the project area. Commercial lobster fishermen set traps in the area during the lobster fishing season of October through mid-March and lobster also are fished in the area by SCUBA divers.

The Corps also notes that California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) spawning, which was a significant concern during the Commission recent review of the SANDAG beach nourishment proposal in San Diego County, occurs in the intertidal area in the vicinity of San Clemente Pier; however the project scheduling (late August/early September through March) is intended to avoid the disposal during the grunion season.

Concerning sensitive bird species, least tern and snowy plover breeding and nesting have not been observed in the project area; the beach is too narrow for plover nesting, and least terns breed further south on Camp Pendleton (primarily at the Santa Margarita River 1053
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

mouth). The proposed offshore borrow site is within the range of the foraging area for least terns; however the project scheduling would avoid the least tern breeding season.

The project would avoid direct effects on sensitive beach, intertidal, and marine habitats.

The consistency determination states:

Figure 3-7 [Exhibit 6] shows the construction and equilibrium footprints for the Project in relationship to surfgrass and kelp in the Project area. The sand placement footprint does not include any kelp beds, surfgrass, or rocky intertidal areas. Therefore, no direct impacts to sensitive habitats would occur from the placement of sand on the beach. In addition, the proposed Project would not place anchors for the mono buoy, where the hopper dredge will moor while it discharges sand to the beach, or place the sinker pipeline that will pump the sediment to shore from the hopper dredge on any sensitive habitat. The construction contractor shall avoid placement of anchors or the submerged pipeline onto reef habitat, which could crush attached organisms. The construction contractor shall also avoid side to side movement of the anchors or pipeline as they are placed, which could abrade surfgrass, algae, or attached invertebrates. If a substantial amount of surfgrass or kelp were affected by placement and removal of anchors and pipelines, the impact would be considered significant. These impacts would be avoided and minimized by performing a preconstruction survey to identify anchor and pipeline locations that would avoid sensitive resources. Because most of the surfgrass in the Project area grows on TStreet reef, it is possible to avoid surfgrass by avoiding the reef when laying the pipeline.

Thus, as stated above, the habitat concerns raised are over where and how the sand moves after its initial placement. The Corps indicates primary littoral drift direction to be southward, which, if it does occur in this manner, should protect the important reef to the north (Mariposa Point (Exhibit 9)). The Corps states:

The net movement of beach sands in the Project area is expected to be southerly, but some northerly movement may occasionally occur. Based on monitoring of the SANDAG beach fill project at Oceanside, most sand movement is expected to be toward the south (Appendix D). Therefore, it is unlikely that significant quantities of sand will be transported to the north to the rocky intertidal habitat at Mariposa Point. The equilibrium footprint for the 50 ft Beach Width Alternative indicates that sand will not extend as far upcoast as Mariposa Point (Figure 3-2).

Therefore, the proposed action would not be expected to result in the net loss of habitat value of sensitive rocky intertidal habitat, and impacts to rocky intertidal habitat would not be significant.
1054
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

The Corps used modeling to predict an equilibrium footprint, and states that the available evidence suggests that surfgrass could withstand temporary burial of up to 2/3 of its blade length. Surfgrass blade lengths average 2-3 ft. The Corps notes:

Therefore, the equilibrium footprint of the Project likely would result in a range of impacts between no burial of surfgrass on the larger rocks and partial burial on the smaller boulders. Burial of surfgrass on the outer portions of T-street reef would be minimal. Surfgrass is adapted to partial sand burial, routinely survives seasonal sand burial of part of its blades, and can recover quickly via regrowth if the root system is intact; however, the degree of sand burial surfgrass can withstand is not well documented (SANDAG 2000).

For a similar large fill project proposed (but not implemented) in the area, which was a 175,000 cu. yd. disposal in San Clemente, the consultants (Coastal Resources Management, June 26, 2000 (CRM 2000)) predicted such a fill would result in a maximum 1 ft. of cover of surfgrass for a 6 month period, which would not exceed 2/3 of blade length. That study predicted:

Based on observation of burial of existing offshore surfgrass in the area, CRM (2000) proposed a criterion of sand burial of no more than 2/3 of the blade length for six months or less as a level that surfgrass can withstand, and concluded that burial of less than half the blade lengths for less than six months would not be expected to result in long-term damage (CRM 2000).

Looking at a more recent laboratory study, the consistency determination acknowledges some burial can cause mortality. The consistency determination states:

A recent laboratory study of Phyllospadix scouoleri suggested that short term sand burial may result in shoot mortality, decreased shoot counts, and reduced growth of surfgrass (Craig et al. 2008). The study found that shoot density decreased compared to controls for a burial depth of 0.8 feet (25 cm), but not shallower burial depths. Mean shoot growth rate decreased in all burial treatments. Therefore, the Project may result in some degradation of the shallower portion of the surfgrass habitat, but would not result in a significant loss of surfgrass. For the Project, the sand from the beach fill is predicted to move out of the equilibrium footprint within 6 years.

Concerning effects on lobsters, the Corps’ consistency determination states:

In addition to partial burial of surfgrass, offshore movement of sediment may result in filling in some holes and crevices in the shallow subtidal that are used by lobsters. These shallow subtidal reef areas are periodically covered and uncovered by sand naturally (i.e., in the absence of a beach nourishment project).

The beach fill from this alternative would have only minimal effects on the 1055
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

considerable reef area near the end of San Clemente Pier and would not degrade that habitat for lobsters. Temporary degradation of a limited amount of inshore lobster habitat would not be significant.

Concerning future effects from periodic renourishment, the Corps states:

Periodic renourishment at San Clemente would occur approximately every 6 years.

The impacts of renourishment to sensitive habitats would be similar to those of initial placement. Effects, if any, are expected to be transitory and within natural variation.

Because observations of other beach fill projects have documented that observed effects on sensitive habitats last between six months and two years, maintenance renourishment at a frequency of every 6 years would not be expected to result in permanent degradation of sensitive habitats. Sensitive habitats should be monitored to document any effects that may occur from beach renourishment. If impacts to surfgrass are observed, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified. If longterm impacts still are observed after modifying renourishment, then renourishment would not occur again until impacted surfgrass has recovered or mitigation is implemented.

Because extensive beach nourishment has occurred, and offshore impacts studied, in San Diego County, for comparison purposes the Corps also looked (in its EIS) at SANDAG’s beach nourishment monitoring (further described on pages 31-32 of this report.) The Corps’ EIS states:

Biological monitoring of sensitive habitats, including rocky intertidal, shallow subtidal reefs, and kelp forests, was conducted following implementation of the SANDAG Regional Beach Sand project, which placed sand on several beaches in San Diego County (AMEC 2005). Beach profile and biological monitoring data indicated a great deal of spatial and temporal variability in sediment transport. …
Of 18 shallow subtidal reef locations monitored to assess potential impacts of the SANDAG project, only three showed an increase in sediment cover that may have been a result of the project (AMEC 2005). A monitoring site near Batiquitos Lagoon showed increased sedimentation two years following the SANDAG beach fill, suggesting a cause and effect relationship, but the increased sand levels were within variation observed during monitoring of the site before the beach fill. The increase in sediment cover at this site did not appear to have any biological effects because the cover and abundance of indicator species did not change. A monitoring site in North Carlsbad showed an increase in cover following the SANDAG beach fill and an associated decrease in surfgrass cover. However, there were multiple sources of sediment near this site and it is unclear to what extent the observed effects were related to the SANDAG project. The third site that showed a significant increase in sedimentation following the SANDAG beach 1056
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

fill was at Solana Beach. The SANDAG project was the only apparent source of sediment at this site. The increased sedimentation did not appear to affect surfgrass cover, but shoot density declined, possibly in response to the increased sedimentation.

Of the kelp bed sites monitored as part of the SANDAG program, some showed relatively constant sand cover, and some showed an increase in sediment cover following the SANDAG beach fill (AMEC 2005). The sand cover observed at the sites with increased sedimentation was within levels observed during pre-project monitoring, suggesting natural variation. The increases in sand cover did not appear to affect the distribution and abundance pattern of kelp bed indicator species. Giant kelp recruitment and persistence either increased or remained stable during the period following the SANDAG Regional Beach Sand project.

The EIS concludes:

Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts:

If a substantial amount of surfgrass were lost, impacts may remain significant even with mitigation. Although the beach fill sand would be expected to move out of the equilibrium footprint within 6 years, because models are not precise, it is not clear if surfgrass would recover. If adverse significant impacts to surfgrass are observed from the monitoring, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse significant impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, additional renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass has recovered or and compensatory mitigation is completed. A consistently successful method to transplant surfgrass has not yet been devised, although recent experiments may provide new options. Potential mitigation, if necessary, is described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Appendix B).

Thus, the Corps accepts the need for continued monitoring to assess impacts, to use adaptive management and modify the project if impacts to surfgrass are observed, and most importantly, that renourishment would not occur until affected surfgrass has recovered or mitigation is implemented. The Corps’ monitoring and mitigation measures include:
(1) pre-construction kelp and surfgrass surveys before finalizing anchor, pipeline, and mooring placement;
(2) more detailed monitoring of surfgrass prior to construction to provide baseline for post-construction surveys;
1057
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

(3) if post-construction surveys cause adverse effects, adaptive management in consultation with resource agencies will be implemented to avoid or minimize effects during future nourishment events;
(4) if rocky reef impacts occur, creation of 1:1 mitigation of rocky reef habitat; and (5) if surfgrass impacts occur, experimental surfgrass mitigation, and since surfgrass mitigation is not able to be assured, additional kelp reef mitigation in the event the surfgrass mitigation does not succeed.

The EIS notes that the project’s mitigation budget is sufficient to cover what it considers a worst case scenario – 1 acre of surfgrass impacts and 1 acre of reef impacts. The T-street reef is 5 acres in size, and the Corps’ “best professional judgment” is that 20% of it could be affected. The EIS states:

The Project has a mitigation budget that accommodates 1 acre of impacts to surfgrass plus 1 acre of impacts to reef, for a total potential impact to 2 acres of resources as a worst-case scenario. Initial modeling by the Corps shows that there is potential to impact 20 percent of the inshore edge of T-Street reef; and 5 acres of the T-Street reef. Twenty percent of the inshore edge is a reasonably foreseeable estimate of impacts based on a best professional judgment functional habitat evaluation assessment and the coastal engineering model. Both the BPJ FA [Best Professional Judgment/Functional Assessment] and the coastal engineering model considered the potential depth in addition to area; however that detail is not in inches, but in feet. A greater impact area would be unlikely, but an additional acre of potential impacts was included in the contingency mitigation budget to account for an unlikely worstcase scenario.

The Corps’ biological monitoring plan (Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMRP)) is attached as Exhibit 11. This plan is preliminary; the Corps indicates it will finalize it after conducting more intense pre-construction surveys during the Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) phase of the project. The Corps states:

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) 1058
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

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.

The current MMRP outlines:
1) a post-construction monitoring program for rocky reef/surfgrass habitat in the San Clemente Pier area 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 MMRP acknowledges that the Corps has assessed potential impacts based primarily on modeling, and that:

Due to the uncertain nature of this modeling because of the multiple variables in the natural environment itself, impacts and mitigation requirements are expected to be unlikely, but currently are unknown. A post construction monitoring plan has been developed to determine if project impacts require mitigation based on comparisons to pre-construction conditions.

The MMRP suggests triggers for mitigation, but the Corps notes that these too have not been finalized; the Corps states:

The following criteria are suggested as potential triggers for mitigation. Actual triggers would be determined in coordination with the resource agencies prior to initiation of post-construction monitoring activities.
1) For random transects: 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).
2) For permanent transects: a persistent 20% decrease in surfgrass cover or surfgrass density coupled with a 20% increase in sand depth and/or cover.

The MMRP proposes baseline and post-construction monitoring, with the post construction monitoring transects taken annually, for 2 years after completion (four times in the first year, and two times in the second year).
1059
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

Also, in response to one of the comments below concerning potential overlap between Corps nourishment and City of San Clemente Opportunistic nourishment, the Corps states that no such overlap will occur.

In developing its proposal, the Corps has met with the “resource” agencies (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Dept. of Fish and Game, and Environmental Protection Agency) to discuss the Corps’ habitat analysis methodology, monitoring, and mitigation components. The resource agencies have expressed a number of concerns during these meetings, in DEIS comments, and through email communications. A July 13, 2011, email communication from the Fish and Wildlife Service summarizes these concerns as follows:
(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 and the fact that the entire 5-ac T-Street Reef could be in the equilibrium footprint in which cross shore sand movement is expected to occur; (2) the use of only a 1 to 1 mitigation ratio for surf grass impacts given temporal loss and uncertainty of surfgrass restoration;
(3) modifying the project to 10 meter (33 feet) 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 role in determining the criteria for triggering mitigation; (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) allowing subsequent beach replenishment before any previous impacts are successfully mitigated.
(9) the provision for only 2 years of monitoring for any necessary reef mitigation, instead of 5 years as for surfgrass mitigation;
(10) the provision for out-of-kind kelp mitigation for surfgrass impacts that could lead to continual loss of surfgrass from subsequent beach replenishment; and 1060
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

(11) lack of requirement to do surfgrass restoration research in the event of mitigation failure.

On July 26, 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service sent the Corps its Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (CAR), concluding its consultation with the Corps for the project. This report: (1) reiterated the above concerns; (2) agreed with the Corps that least terns and snowy plovers would not be affected; (3) indicated that the resource agencies would continue to be involved in the development of the final monitoring plan and the determination as to the levels and significance of impacts observed by the monitoring; (4) stated that the Corps’ current monitoring plan does not fully address the above summarized resource agencies’ concerns; and (5) made the following comments and recommendations to address these concerns (a full text of the recommendations can be found in Exhibit 12):

RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Due to “a great deal of uncertainty regarding the ability to mitigate impacts to surfgrass inkind,” combined with the fact that 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 for the project,” 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) Due to a limited number of baseline survey transects taken, combined with the fact that the entire 5 acres of T-street reef are in the equilibrium footprint, “the MMRP should be revised to assume at least 5 acres of surfgrass/reef impacts to help ensure that adequate funds are budgeted for potential mitigation costs.” 3) Rather than only 2 years of monitoring for surfgrass/reef mitigation, “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. … 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 “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.”
1061
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

6) While the intertidal reef at Mariposa Point is north of the beach replenishment site, and littoral sand movement generally southward, it “is not far enough north of the project site to assume that no impacts will occur.” The MMRP “should be revised to include monitoring of the intertidal reef at Mariposa Point and mitigation for any significant long term impacts.”
7) Since Mariposa Point itself could be affected, it should not be the only control site. The MMRP “should be revised to include multiple control sites approved by the resource agencies.”
8) Mitigation measures should be planned and provided for up-front (prior to or concurrent with project impacts) and supplemented as needed. “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 not, 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 turbidity at the borrow and disposal site throughout the duration of the project, with up-front resource agency agreement with the turbidity monitoring plan, and with weekly reports submitted to the resource agencies. 10) Subsequent dredging/disposal should not occur if significant impacts to surfgrass/reef resources are documented, “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 adequate budgeted funding to cover mitigation costs as recommended by the resource agencies, and the Corps and City should identify and assure backup contingency funding mechanisms, such as “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.”
The Commission agrees with the resource agency concerns expressed over several uncertainties which make it difficult to predict the project’s impacts, including:
(1) the fact that the impact analysis is based on primarily on modeling; (2) the fact that the wave climate and littoral system in San Clemente is different than in areas where beach nourishment has been studied in San Diego County; and 1062
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

(3) the acknowledged difficulty in successfully mitigating surfgrass impacts.

Due to these uncertainties, the Commission finds that several measures are needed to assure the project’s effects are minimized, adequate monitored, and if impacts occur, adequately mitigated. Compliance with the conditions on pages 6-9 above is needed to assure the monitoring and mitigation measures are adequate to protect, and where impacts occur, mitigate, the project’s effects on marine resources, before it can be found consistent with the marine resource policies of the Coastal Act. The recommended conditions would provide for: (1) implementing additional grunion monitoring and protection measures, in the event unforeseen circumstances delayed work into the grunion season; (2) Commission staff review of and concurrence with the final monitoring plans; (3) specification of success criteria to be included in the monitoring plans to assure they will adequately measure impacts; (4) increasing the mitigation ratio if out-of-kind mitigation is implemented (which is triggered if in-kind mitigation is unsuccessful); (5) lengthening the monitoring period from 2 to 5 years; (6) submitting all monitoring reports to the Commission staff; and (7) assuring that subsequent re-nourishments will not be implemented unless and until the Commission staff has reviewed the monitoring and mitigation and agrees the habitats have been adequately restored and/or that the permanent loss of habitat has been adequately mitigated.

If, and only if, the Corps were to agree to implement these conditions, the Commission finds that the proposed project could be found consistent with the marine resources, beach nourishment, and dredging and filling policies (Sections 30230, 30231, and 30233) of the Coastal Act.

B. Public Access and Recreation. The Coastal Act provides:

Section 30210. In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.

Section 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Section 30212
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (l) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby... 1063
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

Section 30213. Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred....

Section 30220. Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses.

San Clemente City and State Beaches rank at the top of California’s beaches in terms of both popularity and extent of visitor use (approximately 2 million visitors per year, according to the Corps). In many ways these beaches and surf zones represent quintessential coastal resources. The Corps’ statement of Purpose and Need in its consistency determination aligns closely with the goals and objectives of the above Coastal Act policies; the Corps states:

The public interest related to the establishment of planning objectives and planning constraints are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The consistency determination notes that while relatively stable in recent historical time, the City’s beaches have been eroding since the 1990s, which has caused concern both over loss of recreational beach areas, and the need to protect the heavily travelled rail corridor located on the east side of the beach (i.e., the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)) tracks and trackbed. This rail line is both vital for national defense and serves as an important public access and transportation corridor.

While clearly intended to protect and preserve public access and recreation opportunities, the project has the potential for temporary construction period adverse effects such as reduction of recreational quality from noise, turbidity, and air emissions, reduction of public parking from equipment staging, direct blocking of access by pipelines and disposal/beach moving equipment, and modifications to popular surf breaks that could affect surfing. The Corps’ consistency determination notes that at any one time, 300 ft. 1064
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

of beach would be inaccessible due to the discharge pipeline and berms, and 350 ft. intermittent access restrictions would be put in place on either side of the discharge zone, to allow maneuvering heavy equipment. The consistency determination states:

Only portions of the beach would be closed during construction. As portions of the beach are completed, the construction zone would be moved down the beach.

Construction is typically performed in sections. Each section is closed off with no horizontal (alongshore) access through the area. Vertical (cross shore) access is allowed along the section boundaries. To the maximum extent practicable, USACE specifies the public access in the pre-construction, engineering and design (PED) Phase. At each access point, only a small fraction of that entry point would be closed or pedestrian traffic detoured around the construction.

Access to the San Clemente Pier would not be closed. If necessary, USACE can specify additional access be provided, nonetheless it would have to coordinated with the City of San Clemente. Given the short-term period of construction (up to four months), impacts would be considered temporary and not significant. [Emphasis in original]
The Commission agrees that the short-term temporary impacts to public access would be minor and would be offset by the long term benefits to access and recreation from beach widening.

Concerning effects on surfing, the consistency determination states:

Some of the sand placed on San Clemente Beach to widen the beach by 50 ft would be carried offshore. The T-Street surfing location is within the alongshore extent of the proposed beach nourishment. The reef at T-Street is a seabed perturbation such that its elevation, shape, and orientation to incoming waves are a unique combination that tends to shoal waves to a peak with a resulting plunging “left” (from the surfer’s perspective, wave breaks from right to left) and “right” (from the surfer’s perspective, wave breaks from left to right), which results in a variety of waves and favorable surfing characteristics. The configuration and orientation of the reef to incoming waves create consistent surfing waves, making T-Street a popular break in the south Orange County coastal area. High steepness waves result in plunging breakers, which are associated with beaches with steeper gradients. Plunging breakers descend very quickly and with substantial force; noted for a “lip,” or shoreward facing edge, at the top of the wave. With the proper set of conditions, the plunging lip can create a “tube” or barrel.” The consistent steepness of the wave coupled with the structure of the lip enables surfers to consistently reach higher speeds and perform more maneuvers. The surfing extends from the beach to about 600 ft (200 m) offshore and typically is in water depths less than 15 ft (5 m). The surfing area is closer to the beach than the actual reef location, as incoming waves require time and space to be transformed by the reef bathymetry. 1065
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

Most of the sand from the Project would settle in the inshore portion of the reef and would not affect the refractive abilities of the reef or the characteristics of the “take-off.” However, as the wave encounters the straightened bathymetry inshore, it may “close-out,” resulting in a shorter ride in the realm of seconds.

This condition would be temporary and would lessen as the sand moves off the reef steadily over the course of 6 years at a long-term erosion rate of 13 ft (4 m) per year. Although impacts due to the wider beach may occur, an aerial photographs of San Clemente Beach at the Pier (Figure 4-4) indicates that the beach width in 1994 was approximately 55 ft (17 m) wide and no records have been found that indicate surfing ceased within the Project area during that time.

Because the shorter rides are a temporary condition, impacts to surfing would not be significant. The wider beach would improve the recreational experience for sunbathers, walkers/joggers, and picnickers. More beach area would be available for these activities construction areas, including the beach and nearshore zone.

The effects on public safety while the beach fill Project is reaching equilibrium would be a significant, but temporary, impact.

The Corps has agreed to monitoring for impacts to surfing. This monitoring would include direct surveys of the beach and seabed morphology to determine changes in beach and seabed morphology, define the sediment transport patterns at the shoreline, and ultimately identify the short term and long term beach erosion processes. The survey methods would consist of topographic measurements, bathymetric measurements, surf quality observations, and video stereo photogrammetric methods. Monitoring would begin one year before construction (for the surf quality observations) and continue for the 50- year period of the project. The monitoring would measure beach widths, topography and bathymetry, surf quality (surfability). The Corps summarizes this last effort as follows (further described in full in Exhibit 15):

Surfing and high quality surfable waves are an increasingly valuable resource.

An innovative method pioneered by the Los Angeles District has been developed to quantify surf quality (surfability). A trained observer visually estimates the breaking wave climate at the shoreline twice daily, typically at first light and at 1300; the times are approximate. Wave characteristics measured included height, period, and direction. Wave heights from the crest to the trough are visually estimated to the nearest 1 foot. Waves are observed for a period of 5-10 minutes and the minimum, average, and maximum wave heights are estimated. Wave period is based on an average of 30 waves over the 5-10 minute observation period and is reported to the nearest 1 second. Wave directions are reported relative to the beach normal and estimated to the nearest 5 degrees. Wave directions are recorded as normal (0-10 degrees); slightly from the left (or right) (10-25 degrees); significantly from the left (or right) (greater than 25 degrees).

Surf quality is also expressed in common surf language by the observer. Visual observations are supplemented with video recordings.
1066
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

The Commission finds that several conditions are needed to minimize, and assure adequate monitoring of, the project’s public access and recreation impacts. The conditions (pages 6-9) providing for Commission staff review of the final staging and surfing monitoring plans, including several details needed to reduce effects and improve monitoring validity (Conditions 4 and 5). The Commission concludes that if the Corps agrees to modify the project consistent with these conditions, the project could be found consistent with the public access and recreation and surfing policies (Sections 30210-30213, and 30220) of the Coastal Act.

C. Water Quality. The Coastal Act provides:

Section 30230. Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.

Section 30231. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of groundwater supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.

Water quality impacts can occur at either the offshore borrow site or the onshore replenishment, due to fuel spill and contaminant releases, or excessive turbidity from dredging or disposal. The Corps proposes to minimize these effects through adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Oil Spill Prevention and Response Plan (OSPRP).

The Commission has generally considered open ocean turbidity from beach nourishment projects, with their predominantly large grain sizes, to be minor. In its recent SANDAG findings, the Commission noted:

Monitoring data from previous California beach nourishment projects have found concentrations within the plumes to be no higher than that which occurs naturally in nearshore waters under higher wave or storm conditions. Plumes from dredging and sand placement of this project are not expected to have a significant impact.
1067
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

To address fuel and other equipment spill concerns, and turbidity concerns, the Corps proposes the following monitoring and mitigation measures to protect water quality:

MM-WR-50-1.1: A SWPPP and an OSPRP shall be prepared for all construction activities. These plans shall specify specific measures that shall be taken during dredging and beach construction to avoid introducing contaminants to the ocean via leaks and spills. All measures shall be adhered to during Project construction.

MM-WR-50-1.2: Turbidity shall be monitored during dredging. If a visible turbidity plume is observed beyond the immediate dredging area, dredging activities shall be modified (e.g., decrease the rate of dredging, move to a new dredge location) until the turbidity plume disperses. Turbidity also shall be monitored during beach fill operations. If significant turbidity (i.e., a visible turbidity plume beyond the surf zone or rip current area) is observed, beach fill operations shall be modified (e.g., by slowing the rate of fill) until the turbidity plume disperses.

Construction equipment used for the project has the potential to contaminate the beach area from minor spills and leaks from equipment. The Commission’s Water Quality Unit reviewed the proposed measures. The Commission is adopting Conditions 2, 6, and 7 (pages 6-9) to address the need for the above plans to be submitted for review by the Executive Director, and to assure that water quality impacts are minimized through, among other means, prohibiting the storage of construction material in the surf zone, washing vehicles on the beach, or refueling or fuel storage on the beach, and where practicable, providing for contractor use of biodegradable (e.g., vegetable oil-based) lubricants and hydraulic fluids, and/or electric or natural gas powered equipment. Thus, if the Corps were to agree to implement the conditions, the Commission concludes that the project would be consistent with the water quality policy (Section 30231) of the Coastal Act.

D. Related Commission Action. In Consistency Certification CC-033-03 (Southern California Regional Rail Authority ((SCRRA)), the Rail Authority was proposing the replacement of rocks forming the existing railroad bed for the rail line traversing the inland edge of San Clemente Beach, in four areas where erosion was threatening the tracks. The Commission found it was necessary to protect the trackbed; however the Commission urged the rail authority, in looking at long term needs, to “Participate in studies currently underway by the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate sand replenishment and other potential methods for future protection of public and private properties within San Clemente.” In concurring with SCRRA’s consistency certification, in June 2003, the Commission found:

The Commission suspects that an adequately engineered structure would have substantially less maintenance requirements and provide better protection for the railroad tracks. Alternatively, it may be feasible to replace the riprap with sand, as part of a regional beach nourishment project.
1068
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

The Commission notes that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is investigating shoreline erosion issues in San Clemente. It is working with the SCRRA, the City of San Clemente, and Orange County to analyze the erosion problem and various solutions. The Commission believes that the Corps is considering beach replenishment as one of its alternatives to the erosion problem in this area.

However, the Corps is in the early stages of its investigation and has not determined if there is a federal interest for a project or if it is feasible. …
In addition, the SCRRA has agreed to investigate long-term projects such as beach nourishment or engineered revetment as methods to address erosion problems in this area while reducing the maintenance needs of the existing structure. With these modifications, the SCRRA will reduce the long-term cumulative impacts on sand supply from its regular maintenance activities.

In conclusion, the Commission finds that the proposed project is necessary to protect an existing structure threatened by erosion. Additionally, the Commission finds that the applicant will mitigate for impacts to sand supply by developing a short-term and long-term plan to address cumulative impacts associated with repeated maintenance activities. Therefore, the Commission finds that the project, as modified, is consistent with the shoreline structure policy of the CCMP, specifically Section 30235 of the Coastal Act.

In reviewing the City of San Clemente’s CDP application for its Opportunistic Nourishment Program (CDP No. 5-042-142), in December 2004 the Commission approved a 5-year permit for opportunistic beach replenishment at four receiver sites.

The Commission’s permit conditions required:
1) local public hearings for every sand replenishment project, 2) preliminary pre-construction monitoring of surfgrass resources, 3) a prohibition on construction during summer holiday weekends, and a limit on the number of beaches at which work can occur simultaneously to two, 4) a requirement that an on-site debris manager be present at all nourishment projects,
5) water quality BMPs to be incorporated into every project, 6) affirmative approval of the Executive Director for any future beach nourishment projects approved under this permit, evidence of Army Corps of Engineers approval, and assumption of risk,
7) monitoring of recreational and access impacts associated with individual beach replenishment projects, and
8) a requirement that any biological impacts be mitigated. 1069
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

To date, the permit has only been used once; this use consisted of a 5,000 cu. yd. disposal of sand taken from the Santa Ana River and placed at North Beach (at the north end of San Clemente, seaward of Avenida Pico and El Camino Real). The only adverse effect documented by the post-construction monitoring report was “dissatisfaction of sand quality by volleyball players.” Offshore biological effects (effects on reef habitat, surfgrass, and kelp) were minor; the monitoring report states: … sediments did not bury any reef habitat, nor appeared to adversely affect the cover of marine plants and organisms.” The fill occurred in the summer; however grunions, although present in the area, were not adversely affected. A longer term (one year post-construction) monitoring report confirmed a lack of significant biological effects, although it must be noted that one of the reasons cited for the lack of reef and surfgrass effects was the small size of the project (5000 cu. yds.) and its location. The report concluded, among other things (Exhibit 14):

A lack of sediment-related effects may also be a function of the volume of beach fill that actually eroded off the shoreline. The sand was placed above the Man Higher High Water (MHHW) line to avoid impacting grunion eggs that had been recently spawned, and thus was located above the majority of wave action. It is therefore unlikely that a large portion of the beach fill would have been entrained into the longshore current within the time frame of the post-nourishment subtidal marine biological surveys ….

In 2009 the Commission approved a subsequent immaterial amendment to the CDP to extend this permit for an additional five years (CDP 5-02-142-A1).

Initially in 2000, and subsequently in 2011, the Commission has twice approved the countywide San Diego County beach nourishment program conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG Regional Beach Sand Project (RBSP) I and II - CDPs 6-00-038 (with several amendments) and 6-11-018). The permit conditions for both projects required, among other things, monitoring of recreational (including surfing) and biological impacts monitoring. Under the first of these permits, SANDAG placed approximately two million cu. yds. of sand on 12 San Diego County Beaches (RBSP I), completed in the Spring and Summer of 2001. The Commission’s findings on RBSP II noted:

Extensive monitoring was completed in association with RBSP I and found no significant impacts to biological resources. The Commission also did not receive any adverse comments in regard to public access during or following construction of RBSP I.

The second of these permits (RBSP II) involved placing 2.3 million cu. yds. on 10 San Diego County Beaches. During the Commission’s review of this permit the paramount issue of concern appeared to be grunion protection and monitoring, and the Commission adopted an extensive set of conditions and criteria to monitor and protect grunions. The 1070
CD-029-11, Army Corps
San Clemente Beach Nourishment

Commission also adopted conditions requiring beach sand monitoring, biological monitoring, surf break monitoring, Executive Director review and approval of the Final Monitoring Plan, and of final Staging Plans, Lagoon monitoring and mitigation, and applicant assumption of risk. The permit condition addressing grunion monitoring is attached as Exhibit 13.

V. SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS:

1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Consistency Determination, June 7, 2011.

2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (CAR), July 26, 2011.

3. Project EIS/EIR: Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project, San Clemente, CA, Draft EIS/R, July 2010, Volumes I & II, Portions of Final EIS/EIR – Response to Comments, and revised Chapter 5.4 (Biological Resources), May 2011.

4. EIS/EIR Appendix - Coastal Engineering Appendix.

5. Updated Monitoring, Mitigation, and Reporting Plan (MMRP) .

6. Consistency Certification CC-033-03 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) (Replacement of rock to protect railroad).

7. CCC CDPs 6-11-018 and 6-00-038 (and amendments A1 to A3) (SANDAG Beach Nourishment).

8. CCC CDP 5-042-142 (City of and San Clemente, Opportunistic Beach Nourishment Program).

9. San Clemente Opportunistic Beach Nourishment Program, Monitoring report for Project Number One at North Beach, 30 Days Post Construction, Mofffat & Nichol, Summer 2005.

10. Appendix D to the SANDAG Regional Beach Sand Project EIR/EA, Evaluation of Impacts to Marine Resources and Water Quality from Dredging of Sands from Offshore Borrow Sites and Beach Replenishment at Oceanside, Carlsbad, Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff, Solana Beach, Del Mar, Torrey Pines, Mission Beach, and Imperial Beach, CA, March 2000.
1071
Section 1.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Admin Draft San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1-2
Figure 1.1-1 Vicinity Map
1072
~Chambers Group Inc.
(I 2 4 l;J,
s
r,......ill lU
Figure 11.1 -1
Project Vicinity \/lap
Section 1.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Admin Draft San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1-3
Figure 1.1-2 Location Map
1073
Leg:end
0 Projec Bow dm-y
~Chambers Group Inc.
f igure 1.1 -2
San Clemen e Pier
Prnjed Location IMap
Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Admin Draft San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-9
Figure 3.4-1 – Oceanside Borrow Site
1074
Lege1d * App:ro:;:;i ate· IB01rrmv Si e· Lo ca i:on
~Chambers Group Inc.
f igt11re 1.1-3
Approximate Oceanside Bmrow Site
Project Location Map
!ilJ0 1.000 3, 0 --===---i::::::==::i Fee'
Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Admin Draft San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-12
Figure 3.4-2 Plan View of 50 ft (15 m) Beach Width Alternative 1075
D Construction Footprint
□ Equilibrium Footprint
-- Bathymetry Lines
f?hambers Group tnc: WW
~ E
s
O 300 600 1,200
--c:=:::i---==------ Fest
Figure 3.4-2
Plan View of 50 ft (1 5 m)
Beach Width Alternative
Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Admin Draft San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-16
1 Figure 3.4-4 Beach Access and Staging Areas
2 3
4 3.4.2.4 Public Access
5 6 For the beach fill operation, up to 300 ft (91 m) of beach would be inaccessible to the public 7 around the discharge pipeline and berms. In addition, there would be intermittent restrictions on 8 public access for approximately 350 ft (107 m) on either side of this discharge zone. This space 9 would be needed for maneuvering heavy equipment during construction of the temporary berms. 10 11 3.4.2.5 Future Project Beach Profile Monitoring
12 13 Long-term shoreline erosional processes create damages through long-term profile translation 14 landward and the increasing potential for wave related damages. The landward advancing 15 shoreline reduces the beach width available for storm damage protection thereby increasing the 16 probability of wave related damages to facilities and structures. Long-term beach erosion also 17 results in the gradual reduction of the beach surface area available for recreation. The peak 18 erosion rate is –0.7 ft/yr (–0.21 m/yr), the maximum erosion rate is -1.5 ft/yr (–0.46 m/yr), and 19 the maximum accretion rate is +1.24 ft/yr (+0.38 m/yr). 20 21 The purpose of this monitoring is to allow the timing and the detailed design of the periodic 22 nourishment to be optimized. Surveying of the beach and seabed morphology is paramount to 23 the monitoring efforts. Changes in beach and seabed morphology will define the sediment 24 transport patterns at the shoreline and ultimately the short term and long term beach erosion 25 processes. Alongshore transects will be crucial to determine the effects, if any, of the proposed 26 Project on updrift and/or downdrift shorelines. The monitoring period will be for the 50-year 1076
1077
T-Street Reef Resources and
NED Plan Footprint in Reach 6
Construction Footprint
-- Equilibration Footprint
-- T-Street Surfing Area
Downcoast Surfgrass (T-Street Ree
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Admin Draft San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4-44
Figure 4.4-2 Surfgrass Survey
1078
Legend
2009 Survey
• Observed Su rfgra ss
Reef Position
-- Dive Tra nsects
Kelp Bed
2008 Survey 15m Alternative
e Observed Surfgrass - - Project Footprint
Surigrass Area --lmpact Area
- Intertidal Survey 35m Alternative
-- Scuba Survey
- - Project Footprint
---- Snorkel Survey
- lmpact Area
:•~
0 200 400 800
Feet
Figure 4.4-2
Surfgrass Survey
e:hambers Group Inc'.

Image Source: Aerials Express San Diego, April 2007
Section 4.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Admin Draft San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4-40
Figure provided by SCE, Wheeler North Reef Design Plan February 2008 Figure 4.4-1 Historic Kelp Canopy and Reef Map
1079
N
A
0 125 29J 500 750 1 ,0OJ
-•-□•-==---======i--Met s
Primary Reef Areas
c:::J Lease Are a
Kelp canopy 1967 to 2000
Years of Kelp Presenc e
1 2
1111 3
1111 Pers istent Kelp > 3 years
- . ~
6 ..
• 'J • 1 ••
. ,
4 -.
~.
' .
•
!t
i

2. •
~"'~~ ·-·· /4•}._-- :../; ;~;,~{~ ·· ~\Yi'-(,· ·c'-,f~ -\~~~l'ill '; -~•• ·•· • . -~(('3.l[i!,Ii~-:'.\: .. :l . ; l • ll( •I J/T/ l:;J~--:-~ .. -·:. ~.l-• =. . - " .. -(1>
OJ
a· ► m 0 ""[J
cc CJ1 -u X
-· r :r (') I -
Kelp reefs
·'l'·t 1•,;1, •
. .. -........ '~" .. '.,. :.,:-: .
. -:
,-' .: ·~
.. ,., ~.,',-::"'" ".I',-.... \"" , ... ~,~,,;:;~~,,\~,. r
'"
Surveyed Low-relief
patch reefs and
urfgrass (CRM 2000)
_ . . .... ,
~- -:,:.,.*·:,--:.,:·':." .• (.-.~•J'i "'·•\C'!,~;i•t::~n.:1·\tt:::::~:-:~ -,i,1•.- ,\.l .1--ijr~fr✓~• :-- -.• -r."7'i7.\ 1 \-.;,~ ·-" ,,: '•., ')).1\M~.\ ra~.-1· .-.- , ~-1· ,/,. •-·--· .. -·· ... p ...... ,. ___ , ·.·_··. J,,· __ , ,-1. ., '-. ~, '-;.!'~'' ~-::l.-·· ., --- ,,, . ... ""··•'" - r.. ' 0 1\f".!' } , .... ,r•l • , ....... -- ,; _V; 1; ,,n-,,;, -~iii~·•: .. _ ,.._~:..,.."r~ _ ~-~~ &; Kelp beds and reefs
!kelp In hl1tadcal mu from
118G • 191!1)
(Tidewater G!14>Y Habllal)
..

White Beach Least Tern Nesting Site
(located 12 mllt ■ IC<llh of T-SlrHI South Beach flll Site) Santa Margarita Least Tern Nesting Sita
(located 14 mll!'• south of T-StrHt South Beach FIii SIie! ~s::
g '1> I -o
i
3 '1> 0 0 - - N CO :o•~-1
m --oz
o ~zO c N .
... z (') 0 O>
• Beach Replenishment Program 11 Blological Resources Map 11 Flgt• I 1: m .

I: I;
Section 3.0
Prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Admin Draft San Clemente Shoreline Protection EIS/EIR 3313 002 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3-14
Figure 3.4-3 Plan View of 115 ft (35 m) Beach Width Alternative 1081
D Construction Footprint
D Equ ilibrium Footprint
~hambers Group me:

O 300 600 1,200
--c::::::i--c::=------ Feet
Figure 3.4-3
Plan View of 115 ft (35 m)
Beach Width Alternative
B-1
1 Biological Resources Monitoring Plan
2 3 Rocky Reef/Surfgrass Habitat
4 5 This appendix outlines 1) a post-construction monitoring program for rocky reef/surfgrass 6 habitat in the San Clemente Pier area to determine if project mitigation would be necessary; 2) a 7 preliminary mitigation implementation plan, if mitigation is determined to be necessary; and 3) a 8 preliminary mitigation monitoring plan, if mitigation is determined to be necessary. The details 9 of these plans will be finalized when a contractor has been selected to perform the monitoring 10 and mitigation. The monitoring shall be performed by qualified marine biologists. 11 12 Pre- and Post-Construction Monitoring Plan
13 14 The Proposed Project has been designed to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive biological 15 resources to the maximum extent practicable. Currently, potential project impacts have been 16 identified using a conservative coastal engineering model. Due to the uncertain nature of this 17 modeling because of the multiple variables in the natural environment itself, impacts and 18 mitigation requirements are expected to be unlikely, but currently are unknown. A post19 construction monitoring plan has been developed to determine if project impacts require 20 mitigation based on comparisons to pre-construction conditions. 21 22 Mitigation would be triggered only if certain conditions occur during the monitoring period and 23 persist through the two year post-construction monitoring period, as there may be transitory 24 effects and subsequent recovery that would not be apparent in a shorter period of time. 25 The following criteria are suggested as potential triggers for mitigation. Actual triggers would 26 be determined in coordination with the resource agencies prior to initiation of post-construction 27 monitoring activities.
28 29 1) For random transects: a persistent decrease in surfgrass cover or surfgrass density and 30 an increase in sand cover and/or depth that is statistically significantly different than 31 the controls and the baseline at the 0.05 confidence level (i.e., p-value = 0.05). 32 2) For permanent transects: a persistent 20% decrease in surfgrass cover or surfgrass 33 density coupled with a 20% increase in sand depth and/or cover. 34 35 Proposed Pre- and Post-Construction Monitoring Activities 36 37 Transects shall be established in the rocky reef area containing the surfgrass bed on T-street 38 (Project area) and in a control area of similar depth upcoast of the beach fill near Mariposa Point. 39 The transects may be either permanent transects, random transects, or a combination of both. 40 For random transects, a sufficient number should be conducted to detect a statistically significant 41 difference in the parameters being measured. Transects should cover, at a minimum, the inshore 42 portion, middle, and offshore portion of the reef. The same number of transects should be 43 established in the control area as in the T-street reef area and the transects should be at similar 44 depths. On each transect, the following parameters should be monitored at a minimum: 1) 45 surfgrass density (i.e., number of shoots per square meter), 2) percent cover of surfgrass, sand, 1082
B-2
1 and rock, and 3) sand depth. The line intercept method is recommended for measuring percent 2 cover and sand depth.
3 4 Transects should be monitored at the following intervals:
5 6 Pre-project monitoring (two years previous to beach nourishment):
7 - Once within winter/spring
8 - Once within summer/fall
9 10 Pre-project baseline monitoring (one year previous to beach nourishment):
11 - within one month prior to completion
12 - 3 months prior to completion
13 - 6 months prior to completion
14 - 1 year prior to completion
15 16 Post-construction:
17 Year One
18 - within one month after completion
19 - 3 months after completion
20 - 6 months after completion
21 - 1 year after completion
22 Year Two
23 - Once within winter/spring
24 - Once within summer/fall
25 26 Biological resources within the project area identified as potentially being impacted include 27 surfgrass patches and rocky reef habitat at T-Street. Because a survey was not conducted to 28 delineate T-Street reef, the general area of the T-Street reef was based on the outer extent of 29 mapped surfgrass locations (approximately 5 acres). Actual delineation of the T-Street reef will 30 need to be identified during the pre-construction survey. Potential project impacts to these 31 resources were based on modeling that indicates sand movement may extend to the offshore edge 32 of the reef; however, sand at the offshore edge of the reef would be thin and not significant. 33 Potential burial of the inshore edge of T-Street reef is uncertain, but if it were to occur, it would 34 be expected to occur in the approximately 20 percent inshore edge of the general T-Street reef 35 area. If significant impacts to these biological resources are observed, renourishment events 36 would be modified to avoid or minimize impacts to the extent practicable. If impacts to 37 surfgrass and reef habitat still persist and are determined to be caused by the Project, 38 compensatory mitigation shall be implemented.
39 40 Pre- and Post-Construction Monitoring Costs
41 42 1. Pre-construction Monitoring
43 This cost assumes that permanent transects will be established. One day is allotted to install the 44 markers and two days to conduct the survey. This survey is assumed to occur within one year 45 prior to construction activities.
46 1083
B-3
1 a. Pre-construction Monitoring:
2 (two years prior to beach nourishment):
3 o Once within winter/spring; Once within summer/fall: $25,500 4 5 b. Pre-construction Baseline Monitoring:
6 (one year prior to beach nourishment):
7 o 4 events (one month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year) $60,000 8 9 c. Pre-construction Report (2 years prior and 1 years prior) $ 5,000 10 Subtotal $90,500
11 12 2. Post-Construction Monitoring
13 This cost assumes that permanent transects will be established. One day is allotted to install or 14 re-install the markers and two days to conduct the survey. 15 a. Year One
16 o 4 events (one month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year): $ 60,000 17 b. Year Two
18 o Once within winter/spring; Once within summer/fall: $ 30,000 19 c. Post-construction Report (Years One and Two) $ 5,000 20 Subtotal $ 95,000
21 22 Compensatory Mitigation
23 24 If compensatory mitigation were required based on results of the post-construction monitoring, it 25 would consist of construction of a shallow rocky reef in conjunction with surfgrass transplant, as 26 described below. Compensatory mitigation would be implemented in the Project area at a site to 27 be determined in coordination with NOAA Fisheries and CDFG. The rocky reef will be 28 functionally replaced with equivalent amounts of rocky reef habitat. 29 30 Although several studies currently are being conducted to successfully transplant surfgrass and 31 may show potential for success, to date success rates have not been consistent and studies are on32 going. Due to the absence of an established, successful method for mitigation of loss of 33 surfgrass itself, proposed mitigation currently is focused upon restoration of the rocky reef that 34 surfgrass currently uses as habitat. However, as previously described, if it is determined that 35 surfgrass has been affected by the Project and a change is shown not to be due to natural 36 variation, a one-time experimental surfgrass transplant shall be implemented in addition to the 37 construction of a shallow rocky reef. Currently, surfgrass transplant success is much higher for 38 subtidal than for intertidal conditions and, therefore, surfgrass mitigation efforts will focus on 39 subtidal transplants only. A portion of the mitigation reef would have to be built shallow enough 40 to accommodate surfgrass. Transplanting sprigs or plants require a donor bed for plant material. 41 Studies have shown that surfgrass is sensitive to losses from harvesting plants for transplant 42 purposes. To avoid harvesting effects to the subject surfgrass bed, donor material will be taken 43 from a larger area of surfgrass and harvests will be taken from the interior of the bed to avoid 44 edge effects.
45 1084
B-4
1 The information gathered from this one-time experimental surfgrass transplant will provide 2 information towards achieving successful surfgrass restoration. As stated previously, this 3 mitigation effort will be based on the results of monitoring conducted before and after sand 4 placement. The Corps will coordinate these efforts with the resource agencies. 5 6 Mitigation Installation/Implementation Costs
7 8 Implementation of a rocky reef currently is estimated at $1.8 million. 9 10 Mitigation Monitoring Program
11 12 Similar to the Post-Construction Monitoring Program, transects shall be established in the rocky 13 reef area containing the surfgrass bed on the mitigation reef and in a reference site (control area) 14 of similar depth upcoast near Mariposa Point. The transects may either be permanent transects, 15 random transects, or a combination of both. For random transects, a sufficient number should be 16 conducted to detect a statistically significant difference in the parameters being measured. 17 Transects should cover, at a minimum, the inshore portion, middle, and offshore portion of the 18 reef. The same number of transects should be established in the control area as in the T-street 19 reef area and transects should be at similar depths. On each transect, the following parameters 20 should be monitored at a minimum: 1) surfgrass density (i.e., number of shoots per square 21 meter), 2) percent cover of surfgrass, sand, and rock, 3) sand depth, and 4) identification and 22 quantity of flora and fauna. The line intercept method is recommended for measuring percent 23 cover and sand depth.
24 25 Transects should be monitored at the following intervals:
26 27 Post-mitigation implementation:
28 Year One
29 - within one month after completion
30 - 3 months after completion
31 - 6 months after completion
32 - 1 year after completion
33 Year Two
34 - Once within winter/spring
35 - Once within summer/fall
36 37 Success Criteria
38 39 Due to the inconsistent success rates of surfgrass restoration efforts, for the purposes of this 40 surfgrass mitigation effort, any survival of surfgrass transplanted onto the mitigation reef would 41 be considered successful. However, as indicated above, this surfgrass mitigation effort is a one42 time experimental surfgrass transplant only. Performance will be monitored based on the 43 parameters listed above and the data then will be used to identify where the transplant method 44 could be modified to improve success. No additional transplant efforts will be conducted. 45 1085
B-5
1 Success criteria for the mitigation reef itself would include no complete permanent burial of the 2 reef. Because of the predominantly sandy bottom environment in the project area, placement of 3 the rocky reef would be considered successful if a characteristic invertebrate and fish community 4 were to become established. Due to the nature of the mitigation proposed, no adaptive 5 management is required.
6 7 Mitigation Monitoring Costs
8 9 1. Mitigation Monitoring (Only if rocky reef is implemented) 10 a. Year One $60,000
11 o after implementation - 4 events (one month, 3
12 months, 6 months, 1 year)
13 b. Year Two $30,000
14 o 2 events (once within winter/spring; once within
15 summer/fall)
16 c. Annual Report Years One and Two $5,000
17 Subtotal $95,000
18 19 Total Pre- and Post-Construction, and Mitigation Monitoring Costs $280,500 20 1086
July 26, 2011, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (CAR) recommendations:

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 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 1087
-2-
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 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 renourishment will not occur until the resource agencies concur that mitigation for those impacts is successfully completed, or impacted surfgrass or reef has recovered. 1088
-3-
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. 1089
Grunion Condition, Permit Application No.: 6-11-018
SANDAG

8. Grunion. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a program of elements to be utilized in developing a revised, final construction schedule. The applicant shall adhere to the following provisions in order to avoid impacts to mature grunion and to grunion eggs during a spawning event to the extent feasible. The annually published California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) expected grunion runs shall be used to determine possible grunion spawning periods. At this time, the 2012 CDFG expected grunion run information is not available. The program and revised construction schedule shall incorporate the following:

a. During the grunion spawning period of March through August, all proposed receiver sites shall be monitored for grunion runs concurrently (excluding the Batiquitos receiver site), unless the beach consists of 100 % cobble (i.e. there is no sand on the beach). In addition, prior to issuance of the permit, the applicant shall develop additional criteria to determine the viability of a deposition site for a spawning event and if the deposition site can be eliminated from the monitoring requirement. The criteria shall include, but are not limited to, predicted monthly high tides, current beach profiles and historic grunion runs. The criteria shall be subject to approval of the Executive Director in consultation with CDFG, NMFS, USACE. Monitoring need not continue at a given site after sand replenishment has been completed at that site.

b. Grunion monitoring shall be conducted by qualified biologists for 30 minutes prior to and two hours following the predicted start of each spawning event. Sufficient personnel shall be utilized to insure that the entire receiver site is monitored during the specified period. For the purpose of determining the magnitude and extent of a grunion spawning event, the Walker Scale shall be applied to each 100 yard segment of the receiving beach.
c. If a grunion run consisting of 0 to 100 fish (Walker Scale of 0 or 1) is reported within two weeks prior to or during construction/beach replenishment, the applicant does not need to take any avoidance action for grunion eggs. No mature grunion shall be buried or harmed as a result of construction/beach replenishment. d. If a grunion run consisting of more than 100 fish (Walker Scale of 2, 3, 4, or 5) is reported within two weeks prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall avoid mobilization on those beach segments and no grunion eggs shall be buried or disturbed at the receiver site. The applicant shall alter the construction/beach replenishment schedule to replenish a beach segment that has not had such a grunion spawning event within two weeks prior to the start of construction. However, after June 15, the applicant may also place sand at sites if a grunion run of hundreds of fish spawning at different times or at once in several areas of beach (Walker Scale of 2 or 3) is reported within two weeks prior to construction, with the implementation of feasible avoidance and minimization 1090
measures pursuant to subsection (g) below. No mature grunion shall be buried or harmed as a result of construction/beach replenishment.
e. If construction/beach replenishment has already begun when a grunion run consisting of hundreds of fish spawning at different times or at once in several areas of beach (Walker Scale of 2 or 3) is reported, impacts to grunion eggs may occur if avoidance is not feasible. The applicant shall first attempt to minimize impacts to grunion eggs through measures pursuant to subsection (g) below. No mature grunion shall be buried or harmed as a result of construction/beach replenishment. f. If construction/beach replenishment has already begun when a grunion run consisting of thousands of fish together, with little sand visible between fish (Walker Scale 4 or 5) is reported, no impact to grunion eggs shall occur within that portion of the receiver site experiencing that density of fish. The applicant shall avoid impacts to grunion eggs in that portion of the receiver site through alteration of the discharge point, sand spreading and/or shifting receiver site boundaries. Ceasing of construction/beach replenishment activities at this location shall occur if avoidance measures are not feasible. No mature grunion shall be buried or harmed as a result of construction/beach replenishment.
g. The applicant shall develop a list of feasible measures for each deposition site, subject to approval of the Executive Director in consultation with CDFG, NMFS and ACOE, taking into consideration the size of the deposition site, stage of mobilization, construction constraints, etc., that may be utilized to allow work to continue but also minimize and/or avoid impacts to eggs and disruption within the two week spawning period.
1091
f'
l
I l -
San Clemente Opportunistic Beach Nourishment Program
Project Number One - North Beach
Monitoring Report - One Year Post-Construction

5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The North Beach Project was monitored for possible effects, both beneficial and adverse. This report presents the results of the project as measured one year after construction. Monitoring was performed for beach profiles and biology as required by permits. The following conclusions pertain:

1. The project served as a critical first attempt at performing opportunistic beach fill. As such, it is deemed a success because delivery of the material to the beach did not cause impacts of traffic congestion, to the safety of pedestrians, to sw-fing, or beach users.

2. The beach width measurements indicate that approximately two-thirds of the beach fill material niay have dispersed from the placement site to other areas of the beach and profile.

3. Observations of North Beach one year after construction indicates that more sand exists at the mean sea level elevation than existed in 2005, suggesting dispersion of the beach fill along the downcoast beach and tangible benefits. Cobble also existed both before and after the project and appears to reflect typical conditions for this beach.

4. The project resulted in no discernible adverse impacts to biology. The biological monitoring did not detect any changes in sensitive resources that are correlated with beach nourishment activities. Sand depths and cover did not increase in the project vicinity based on the total of two biological surveys done before and after the project.

5. Beach nourishment generally benefited North Beach but a fraction of coarse material (cobbles and rocks) caused some user discomfort. Improvement can be achieved by sieving the material for particles larger than those on the receiving beach during future projects for any material obtained from a river or upland deposit. The proportion of large particles delivered in the beach till should be no more than that at the receiving beach prior to construction.

6. Coordination with the volleyball club user-group should be improved for future efforts that affect the volleyball courts through written notification.

Due to the presence of cobbles and rock in the fill, future· beach nourishment projects at San Clemente using upland material should be screened to reduce the number of larger particles.

Screening should target materials larger than that e,cisting at the receiver beach prior to construction. If pebbles and small cobbles exist on the beach prior to construction, they should be able to pass through and be included. in the beach nourishment material if their proportion is no greater than the proportion of pebbles/cobbles at the existing beach. Only sandy material should be used to fill the volleyball courts.
38 ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 104
The contractors’ dredge and vessels will require off-site mooring and berthing space. There is no mooring area available within the City of San Clemente. The nearest suitable mooring area is Dana Point Harbor, a small craft harbor approximately 8 km (5 mi) north.

6.5 Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the tentatively recommended plan are expected to consist primarily with routine grooming, shaping, and cleaning of the beach. The tentatively recommended plan does not include any utilities or typical structural improvements associated with beaches such as public access walkways or other such walkover structures.

Typical O&M activities are expected to consist of grooming and shaping the beach after storms to smooth out localized sediment accumulations/depletions, and debris cleanup along the beach and at storm drain outlets. These O&M activities are considered non-Federal responsibilities.

However, these activities are usual and customary for beaches, and the tentatively recommended plan is not expected to cause an increase in these efforts.

6.6 Monitoring Plan
Continuing construction monitoring will be required in support of the continuing construction (nourishment) of the project. The purpose of this monitoring is to allow the timing and the detailed design of the periodic nourishment to be optimized.

Continuing construction monitoring efforts are expected to consist of direct surveys of the beach and seabed morphology. Surveying of the beach and seabed morphology is paramount to the monitoring efforts. Changes in beach and seabed morphology will define the sediment transport patterns at the shoreline and ultimately the short term and long term beach erosion processes.

Alongshore transects will be crucial to determine the effects, if any, the proposed project has on updrift and/or downdrift shorelines.

Survey methods will consist of topographic measurements, bathymetric measurements, surf quality observations, and video stereo photogrammetric methods. The monitoring period will begin one year before construction (for the surf quality observations) and continue for the 50- year period of Federal involvement. However, not all aspects of the monitoring plan will be conducted each year. A description of the monitoring features is described below and a summary of the monitoring costs is shown in Table 6-3.
1093
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 105
Table 6-3 Monitoring Costs
Year Fill Profiles Install Maint Report Width Surfing Sum -1 $6,000 $6,000
0 $6,000 $6,000
1 * $30,000 $40,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $151,000 2 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
3 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
4 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
5 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
6 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
7 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
8 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
9 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
10 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
11 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
12 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
13 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
14 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
15 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
16 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
17 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
18 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
19 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
20 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
21 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
22 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
23 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
24 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
25 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
26 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
27 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
28 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
29 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
30 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
31 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
32 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
33 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
34 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
35 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
36 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
37 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
38 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
39 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
40 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
41 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
42 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
1094
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 106
43 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
44 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
45 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
46 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
47 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
48 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
49 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
50 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000

6.6.1 Beach Width
Beach width measurements shall be obtained of the sub-aerial portion of the beach. The beach width is a simple linear measurement from a fixed point on the backshore to the foreshore berm crest. This method provides a systematic record of shoreline response and can be used to yield a good approximation of long-term gains or losses of sediment from a given reach of shoreline.

These measurements will yield a highly useful time series of shoreline change. Experience has shown that monthly measurements are the optimal frequency to demonstrate long-term shoreline change. This type of measurement system has been successfully employed by the Los Angeles District for several decades and has repeatedly demonstrated its utility and value.

Measurements shall be taken monthly at 9 locations corresponding to historical locations.

Measurements shall be taken by the City of San Clemente.

This method requires a very low level effort with an attendant low cost. Each monthly survey can be accomplished in 2-3 hours. The annual cost of monthly beach width measurements is $8,000, based on recent similar costs provided by the City of San Clemente.

6.6.2 Topography / Bathymetry
Conventional topographic measurements will be obtained of the sub-aerial portion of the beach and bathymetric measurements of the surf zone and seabed morphology will be obtained using conventional acoustic sonar methods. Measurements will be obtained along pre-determined transects that coincide with historical transect locations, and mass points to develop a welldefined terrain model of the littoral system. These measurements are planned for twice annually, typically in early spring after the winter erosion season, and in late fall after the summer accretion season.

The cost of each conventional transect survey is $15,000, based on recent similar surveys conducted for the City of San Clemente.

6.6.3 Surf Quality (Surfability)
Surfing and high quality surfable waves are an increasingly valuable resource. An innovative method pioneered by the Los Angeles District has been developed to quantify surf quality (surfability). A trained observer visually estimates the breaking wave climate at the shoreline twice daily, typically at first light and at 1300; the times are approximate. Wave characteristics measured included height, period, and direction. Wave heights from the crest to the trough are visually estimated to the nearest 1 foot. Waves are observed for a period of 5-10 minutes and the minimum, average, and maximum wave heights are estimated. Wave period is based on an 1095
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 107
average of 30 waves over the 5-10 minute observation period and is reported to the nearest 1 second. Wave directions are reported relative to the beach normal and estimated to the nearest 5 degrees. Wave directions are recorded as normal (0-10 degrees); slightly from the left (or right) (10-25 degrees); significantly from the left (or right) (greater than 25 degrees). Surf quality is also expressed in common surf language by the observer. Visual observations are supplemented with video recordings.

This method requires a very low level effort with an attendant low cost. The annual cost of twice daily observations is $6,000, based on recent similar efforts conducted in the City of Imperial Beach. The cost of video recording is captured within the video based photogrammetry discussed hereinafter.

6.6.4 Video Based Photogrammetry
Argus Beach Monitoring System is a state-of-the-art video-based stereo photogrammetric method which utilizes multiple video cameras and the principles of stereo photogrammetry to obtain topographic measurements. Multiple video cameras are typically mounted viewing the longshore area of interest and the video cameras obtain continuous imagery of the beach. Data analysis software provides detailed topographic mapping data of the sub-aerial portion of the beach. The beach topography can be sampled such that a nearly continuous time series of the beach can be obtained. It is assumed that this system will be installed initially and maintained annually.

The purchase and install cost of the Argus Beach Monitoring System is $40,000. The annual operating cost is $35,000; this cost includes all routine maintenance and as well as replacement of the system components as they become obsolete. Analysis and reporting equals $32,000 annually. There is a large suite of available analysis products; this value represents a moderate number of analysis products. These costs are based on discussions with Northwest Research Associates, vendors of the Argus system (Northwest Research Associates, 2007). 1096
1097
Tb~Q:doreA.;Brown,P..E.
:efiie~: Pl~iiJling a,il'ci.•P9H¢y-'I)t:visi9.J1
Directotate,ofCivil W:01:ks. ..

Ul$, Anny Corps of Ei)giheers ·
CECW~P. (SA)
71()1 Telegraph ~qad:

Alexat1dria, \iirgrriia:223:1($ .. ~;SgO:
.LINITE!D .STATES CE:~ARTMEllilT CF Cr:tMl'i/lERCf1!>
·N.-~ii:in4J'ti.c .. -ntc ~tt.#:l A~ry,i:,\apl{~i'lq' A,drnJi:'>l~ii'~tilciif :PRQGRAM:·PLANNIN$·:AN.Ci.;.ll'-JTE:GRATION• ~Sl"Mn", 1.,;,ii6,,.,j,c,¢Qe!lo . . . . . . ~i~:~i:~i!ii!ESS:::,
·Th~i-S.a.n Clemente· Shoreline Rh>JecLsets acprecedentd:ot:'.hbwi®otps.Ci~vil Works::tri.ay•phttj,an~ •itnpfo1nehtsimilar.Jjroj~¢.~;fqt; wJ,if¢lV~¢nsitiyene.~mihore•,b~bitatirmaY b:e".impacted. 'NfvrFs discµsse·stheir concem:s':'ih,,gteater~detai:i•i'rnthe=::ertclo~ed co.mitrents••~iJtl p:rov14~$ te<;61tim~ndatioris'that:~hpui,d.':b~•a,q,qress.edipri9r:t_o=a.,1~c◊.rd\:o'f;deeis1on~ · TlJatik,Yi;>uforcon.sitl'erati9l1.:Q£N.lyi'ES co1n1J1enJs:and. recommendatio11si If.you. havt:Fan:y· ,questions_;,.please co11ta.ctBi;y~iit~µ~s11¢y:;'.'NM:P'$'S~µtij~fti'~UlifqrnJ~:fJijqit§t.'.OPo.riHnato:r:,,at; {$·µ2}98·0.40.37 • or. Bryant.Ch~sner@}noaa;~ov.

Si11ce11e(Y:; .. ... ;,·,;
. . Pau!N. Boi::Ph,&, ~Q:A:/\ NEPA= Qpo,rd111at<>.r:

EnclCJs.ure
cc;: ·cglo.n~l·Jt MarkTQy
@rnntcd llfl Rc.cycl.:,r Paper , '
Exhibit 16 - CD-029-11
I
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS). NMFS offers the following comments pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA).

Consultation History
NMFS has provided informal technical input via a number of interagency meetings and email correspondence dating back to 2007. NMFS formally provided comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (DEIS) pursuant to MSA, NEPA, FWCA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act on September 20, 2010. Within these comments, NMFS provided essential fish habitat (EFH) Conservation Recommendations pursuant to our MSA responsibilities and FWCA recommendations.

Proposed Project
The following project description is found on page ES-2 of the FEIS.

Two scales of the Beach Fill Alternative were analyzed; they both consist of dredging material from offshore Oceanside, then hauling and placing it at San Clemente Beach.

The proposed Project is a 50 foot (15 m) resultant beach width. Beach fill would be 3,412 ft (1,040 m) long with a +17 ft (+5.2 m) crest elevation. The dredge volume is estimated to be approximately 251,130 cubic yards (192,000 m324 ). Dredge material gradation is 6 to 12 percent of fines, 5 to 8 percent of gravel/cobbles, and the rest is sand. Material classification assumed is 10 percent fines, 83 percent sand and 7 percent gravel.

Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012 but may begin as soon as 2010.

Summary of Concerns on the FEIS
The San Clemente Shoreline Project sets a precedent for how Corps Civil Works may plan and implement similar projects for which sensitive nearshore habitats may be impacted. NMFS has a number of concerns regarding the proposed project and the FEIS. They are summarized in bullet form below. These concerns are described in greater detail in the text that follows. • The FEIS and Final Feasibility Report do not explicitly address comments provided by an Independent External Peer Review.
• The Corps’ response is inconsistent with key aspects of our EFH Conservation Recommendations. In some cases, justification for the inconsistent responses is absent, unclear, and/or not supported by adequate scientific justification. • The Corps incorrectly states that NMFS has no authority to provide comments pursuant to the FWCA.
• The FEIS contains various mischaracterizations of NMFS involvement and opinions expressed during the agency coordination process.
1098
2 Precedent of Corps Civil Works Beach Nourishment Projects Near Sensitive Resources NMFS believes this project sets a precedent for how Corps Civil Works intends to approach beach nourishment projects for which sensitive habitats exist immediately offshore. The Corps is also in the planning stages of a similar project at Encinitas -Solana Beach. This area is within San Diego County and very similar to San Clemente with high coastal bluffs, little or no sandy beach, and a rock platform. This project is substantially larger – over 1,200,000 cubic yards of sediment over approximately 2.9 miles of shoreline with extensive reef habitat immediately offshore.

Based upon comments given during the agency coordination process, our response to the DEIS, and our current response to the FEIS, NMFS does not believe the Corps has fully addressed NMFS’ concerns regarding monitoring, impact determination, and mitigation for sensitive nearshore resources. Thus, NMFS hopes that resolution of concerns expressed for the San Clemente Shoreline Project will facilitate a more efficient and environmentally benign project in Encinitas-Solana Beach.

Disclosure of Pertinent NEPA Information
NMFS recently became aware of a document titled ‘A Final Independent External Peer Review Report: San Clemente Storm Damage and Shoreline Protection Feasibility Study’ and was dated July 23, 2010. NMFS obtained the document from the following Corps website:
http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/PlanningCOP/Documents/peer/san_clemente.pdf. The NMFS notes the absence of this review in Section 12.0 References of the FEIS. Given the findings of the independent review, NMFS finds it highly problematic that this review was not discussed in the DEIS or the FEIS.

Below is the summary of the panelist comments:

Plan Formulation: Several aspects of the plan formulation component of the San Clemente Feasibility Study lack the details necessary to fully understand the decision-making process. In particular, more details are needed on the following: the screening process for management measures, the population and properties potentially impacted by the project, and the public involvement process.

Economics: Overall, the economics portions of the report are well written, and do not include any serious issues. However, one minor concern is the lack of documentation supporting the use of an uncertified beach damage model. In addition, while the economics appendix demonstrates a clear understanding that recreational benefits are treated as incidental, the Feasibility Report’s Sections 4.5 and 4.6 suggest, in contrast, that recreation was a primary planning objective.

Engineering: There are several significant engineering assumptions and analyses that affect plan formulation results which are not substantiated or well justified. There also are several parameters included in the integrated engineering-economic model that are not well supported by data, assumptions, and analyses. Further, these parameters inherently have a high degree of uncertainty that is not quantified and included in plan formulation. Additional data and analyses 1099
3 to substantiate the assumptions, and consideration of the uncertainties must be incorporated into the plan formulation analyses.

Environmental: The environmental review of the project was generally clear and thorough; however, the discussion on the significance of impacts on two habitats (surfgrass and kelp beds) that are of primary concern when selecting beach width alternatives were inconsistent and not substantiated. While uncertainties exist as to the likely impact on these communities due to sand burial, the document does not provide an adequate approach to determining the significance on these communities and the species they support nor a clear adaptive management program to deal with the uncertainty.

Below is a table that lists the 24 Final Panel Comment statements by level of significance. 1100
Table 3. Overview of 24 Final Panel Comments Identified by San Clemente Feasibility Study IEPR Panel
Significance - High
1 The assumption that the existing bea,ch is erosional is not supported by the data and analyses used to develop representative Future without Projeet conditions 2 The sediment budget discussion needs to be updated and refined to include reach-specific information.
3 Railroad Reach Conversion Criterion assumptions and values are not substantiated or consistent.

There are significant uncertainties associated with the seleeted value of the Minimum Beach 4 Criterion that a.re not con,;idered in the project alt.emati, es evalu.. tion and plan formulation analy es.
5 The use of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) project to predict the performance of the San Clemente project has not been justified 6 The values used to represent expected storm-induced cross-shore sand transport and beach change have not been verifiecl to site- pecific conditions.
7 Details on sediment compatibility and relationship of depth to closure need to be adchl to the equilibrium beach profile, toe of fill, and rock coverage analyses.

The volume-to-are.a relation,;hip used to derive beach fill volume and expected fill performance is 8 not supported and additional detail,; are need.eel on specific beach profile charncte-ristics and beach fill design parameters.

Significance - Medium
9 The significance of the loss of surfgrass and kelp bed communities shmild be defined.

The description of each planning reach should include information on the reacl1's economic, 10 environmental, soci o-demognphic, and engineering characteristics, and the rationale for the elinunation of specific re.ache needs to be better described 11 Based on the information provided, it was not evident that a sufficient level of public involvement took place.
4 Given that the Feasibility Study provides the foundation for the Corps’ NEPA documentation, NMFS recommends that the Corps explain how they addressed the comments provided by this independent review.

It is possible that the Corps made reference to this document on page 5-55.

No ATR or IEPR comments raised this [mitigation approach] as a concern, and uncertainty persists as to whether there will be any impacts at all to rocky reef and surfgrass vegetation from the recommended alternative.

The meaning of the IEPR acronym was not listed in Section 11.0 Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations. NMFS used the Acrobat ‘Find’ tool in Volumes I and II of the FEIS, the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study Final Report, and the Technical Appendices to the Final Report, but was unable to locate another instance of its use. Thus, NMFS was not able to determine the exact meaning of the acronym, but, superficially, the acronym matches Independent External Peer Review. If the use of the acronym ‘IEPR’ was referring to the peer review, then this statement is misleading. As summarized above, the panelists found that ‘while uncertainties exist as to the likely impact on these communities [surfgrass and kelp beds] due to sand burial, the document does not provide an adequate approach to determining the significance on these communities and the species they support nor a clear adaptive management program to deal with the uncertainty.’
1101
12 Cost effectiveness and not cost should be used for screening the measu:res. 13 More thorough documentation and analysis is needed on management measures to justify the selection of the alternative.
14 More detailed e~mina-tion of the impacts of future sea level rise on tl1e proj ect is warracnt.ed 15 Impacts of the proj ect to the local community are not described in detail ufficient to prov1.de a clear and accurate representation of the current conditions in the tucly area.

The cost analysis assumptions are reasonable; however, the mobilization/demobilization costs and 16 the estimate of contingencies should be revised to reflect equipment availability, travel times, and production capacity.
17 It is not clear \-'ihether Borrow Area 2A can satisfy the proj ect's SO-year needs.

Since the coastal tonn damage model does not appear to have been certified, then the model its elf 18 and particularly the key random variables need to be describe(! in considerably more detail, and evide.noe of model certification hould be provided
19 It is not cle.q;r how the effects of loose rock and cobble in the an Clemente be.1.d1 profile affect beach dyn amics and expected project performance.
20 Some elements of project monitoring are missing and an adaptive management pfan need,; to be developed.
21 The effects of borrow area ediment. quality variation on water quality, project constructability, and project performance could be different than those discussed in the report. - Significance - Low 22 The calibration of railroad damage functions i.:; not clear .

The.re are omissions in the Environmental Impact Staten1ent's section on Biological Resources 23 (including unclear figJ1res, missing information on surfgrass fauna and incomplete discussions on shorebirds and sea turtles) that nee(! to be acklresse(I. 24 Recreational benefits mu.st be treated as incidental benefits of the proj ect. 5 Statutory Response to EFH Conservation Recommendations The Corps’ response to our EFH Conservation Recommendations reads as follows:

The monitoring and mitigation plan in Appendix B has been revised to include mitigation for loss of surfgrass and reef habitat. If surfgrass mitigation fails, a contingency plan has been developed to plant kelp on an offshore reef.

The Corps’ final response must include a description of measures to be required to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse impacts of the activity. If the Corps’ response is inconsistent with our EFH conservation recommendations, the Corps must provide an explanation of the reasons for not implementing those recommendations. The reasons must include the scientific justification for any disagreements over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects.

The Corps response to the EFH Conservation Recommendations pointed to Appendix B.

However, Appendix B did not provide an adequate response to all of our EFH Conservation Recommendations. Below NMFS identifies those EFH Conservation Recommendations that were not adequately addressed.

Conservation Recommendation 1: Given the high ecological values associated with surfgrass and rocky reef habitat, NMFS believes unavoidable reductions in quantity and/or quality of these habitats should be addressed via compensatory mitigation. The Corps and project sponsor should develop a contingency mitigation plan in consultation with NMFS and other interested agencies prior to the record of decision for the proposed project.

The contingency mitigation plan should be based upon a reasonable estimate of potential impacts to rocky reef and surfgrass habitat. This estimate should be developed and agreed upon by Corps, NMFS, and other interested agencies prior to the record of decision for the proposed project. This estimate may then be used as the basis for determining the approximate cost of implementing a mitigation project and should be incorporated into the benefit to cost ratio of the proposed project. In addition, the estimated cost can serve as the basis for providing financial assurances that will ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be completed if impacts are observed.

The Corps developed a contingency mitigation plan, which is described in Appendix B.

However, the estimate of potential impacts to rocky reef and surfgrass habitat was not agreed upon by NMFS and other interested agencies. NMFS believes the Corps estimate is not well supported and outlines some of the problematic issues below.

Impact Uncertainty
The basis for the Corps estimate of impacts is uncertain. Appendix B states the following regarding estimated impacts:
1102
6 Impacts to rocky reef and surfgrass are expected to be none to very minor, but currently are unknown.

Potential project impacts to these resources were based on modeling that indicates that 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 1 acre) may be buried.

On page 5-57, the following is stated:

The estimate that approximately 20 percent of the reef or 1 acre would experience significant burial was determined by superimposing the sand distribution cross section predicted by Corps coastal engineers on the offshore bathymetry and by delineating the reef as well as the surfgrass locations measured in the field by Chambers Group.

The FEIS acknowledges the uncertainty of their impact predictions and the associated modeling.

On page 93 of the Coastal Engineering Appendix (Appendix), the following is stated:

Conclusions drawn from the SANDAG Oceanside Beach monitoring suggests that the San Clemente fill will have burial impacts in the cross-shore direction, but there are no known cross-shore sediment transport models which have been demonstrated to accurately predict the distribution of material across the existing profile.

Further, on page 94 of the Appendix, the following is stated:

The depth of burial is greatest at the shoreline, and is expected to range up to 6m (19ft) thick. The depth of burial at the seaward toe of the fill footprint is expected to range between 0.3-1.0m (1-3ft)…
…The tentatively recommended plan is expected to create burial impacts to rocky bottom habitats.

Thus, according to the Appendix, burial at the outer edge will range between 0.3-1.0 meter (m) (1-3 feet (ft)). Whereas, in Appendix B, it is stated that burial on the outer edges would be thin and insignificant. NMFS does not believe 1-3ft burial is insignificant. NMFS notes that short term burial at depths of 0.8 feet exhibited a statistically significant decline in shoot count within a laboratory setting (Craig et al, 2008). Furthermore, the FEIS indicates that some portions of surfgrass habitat within the equilibrium footprint already exhibit some burial. Thus, the additive impact associated with this beach fill project may exacerbate existing conditions for surfgrass habitat.

Limited Characterization of Nearshore Habitats for Impact Assessment Purposes 1103
7 In addition to the uncertainty of potential impacts, NMFS does not believe the sensitive resources within the impact area have been adequately characterized for impact assessment purposes. NMFS indicated in our comments to the DEIS that the survey information that was provided does not delineate areal extent of rocky reef and surfgrass within the impact area. No quantification of area and/or coverage was provided for the scattered boulders and surfgrass habitat. In response to NMFS comments regarding the action area, the Corps states the following:

The Corps’ marine ecology contractor conducted several dives along 25 transects, as noted in the FEIS/R. These field data were more than reconnaissance level field investigations. The data clearly and unequivocally captures the distribution extent of rocky reef, single boulders, and the extent of surfgrass distribution.

Further, on page 5-51, the following is stated:

Above all, the surveys provided the information needed to assess potential impacts, and the basis needed for discussion and evaluation of project alternatives, along with potential monitoring and mitigation.

NMFS does not believe the information provided justifies this assertion. First, the above statements are inconsistent with the following statement made in their comment response:

There currently is no available data that depicts or illustrates the rocky reef or surfgrass of the entire locale.

Second, a detailed description of the surveys was not provided. Thus, there is little to judge the confidence of the surveys that were conducted. Third, the only spatially explicit information obtained from these surveys is depicted in Figure 4-10. For example, the T-street reef is delineated on Figure 4-10. However, the Corps later states on page B-4 that a survey was not conducted to delineate the T-street reef. Instead, only the general area of T-street reef was mapped. Furthermore, single boulders were not identified and surfgrass is represented by individual points on Figure 4-10. Fourth, the dive transect surveys are inadequate to fully characterize the offshore habitat within the impact area. Although 25 dive transects were surveyed in total, only 21 transects were surveyed in the impact area. The 21 transects are immediately offshore of the approximately 3,412 foot long project area. Ideal visibility conditions may reach 30 feet in the impact area, though NMFS expects that typical visibility in this area is likely much less. Regardless, assuming optimal conditions, a diver could cover 37% of the project area. A more likely estimate of visibility in the project area would be 10 ft, which would allow 12% of the impact area to be visually estimated. At equilibrium, the Corps indicates that the fill footprint is approximately 132.0 acres. Thus, under optimum conditions 84 acres of the impact site was not characterized by diver transects. Under the more likely visibility scenario, 116 acres was not characterized by diver transects.

Thus, NMFS maintains our assertion that the survey information provided by their marine ecology contractor does not delineate areal extent of rocky reef and surfgrass within the impact 1104
8 area. Hence, the information provided does not provide an accurate characterization of offshore habitats for impact assessment purposes.

Upon closer inspection of the Coastal Engineering Appendix, NMFS notes Figure 2-6 in the Appendix, which depicts the surficial geologic features in the project vicinity. Although the survey coverage is not entirely comprehensive, there appears to be a considerable amount of area where rock outcroppings cover more than 50 percent of the seabed within the impact footprint.

Unfortunately, this geophysical survey is not overlaid with other mapped features in Figure 4-10 of the FEIS.

Additional information relevant to the characterization of nearshore habitat may be found on page 35 of the Coastal Engineering Appendix. Geologic mapping indicated that the areas from San Juan Creek to San Mateo creek are essentially hard exposed bedrock throughout the regime.

Mapping indicated the offshore regime is primarily hard bottom covered in some places by shallow pockets or a thin veneer of sediment. The sediment sources described in Section 2.5.2 are indicative of a region that does not naturally have an abundance of sediment supplied to the beaches.

Corps Ability to Predict and Effectively Compensate for Impacts to Seagrass The Corps has not demonstrated strong predictive abilities for impacts to seagrass for recent Corps projects. In addition, the Corps has not consistently provided adequate seagrass surveys in a timely manner and has not consistently met its environmental commitments for seagrass mitigation. The following are examples.

For the Morro Bay Harbor Six-Year Maintenance Dredging Program, the Corps concluded that the proposed dredging would not have a significant impact on eelgrass. In response to NMFS’ EFH Conservation Recommendations, the Corps committed to pre-construction and postconstruction surveys for dredging activities within the Morro and Navy Federal channels. In addition, they indicated that the surveys and any necessary mitigation would be conducted in accordance with the Southern California Mitigation Policy (SCEMP). The Corps conducted maintenance dredging in Morro Bay during 2009 and 2010. However, the original preconstruction eelgrass survey for the 2009/2010 dredging cycle was inadequate and significantly underestimated the distribution of eelgrass in the dredge footprint. In particular, the survey failed to capture an approximately 1 acre eelgrass bed that was directly in the dredge footprint.

Unfortunately, due to contractual limitations, the Corps indicated they could not implement another pre-construction survey without significant delays that would significantly increase dredging costs. Given that the project was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, NMFS compromised with the Corps and agreed upon an assumed impact of 1 acre based upon expected impacts within the dredge footprint, for which the Corps agreed to provide compensation. The dredging ultimately resulted in additional impacts beyond the dredge footprint - likely due to slope failures. However, the extent of the additional impacts is difficult to predict because 1) the original pre-construction survey was inadequate and 2) the Corps did not provide a timely post-construction survey of the affected areas. In fact, NMFS has yet to receive a post-construction survey from this dredging cycle that shows the affected eelgrass areas in the vicinity of the Morro Channel.
1105
9 There were also issues associated with the Corps’ San Diego River Mission Bay Jetty and Revetment Repair and Maintenance Dredging Project in San Diego County. NMFS expressed the importance of protecting eelgrass habitat within the project site in accordance with the SCEMP in our EFH letter dated July 29, 2009, and throughout the project planning process in general. The Corps also recognized the importance of this valuable resource and committed to protecting it while implementing the project. For instance, in section 3.2.2 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (FSEA), the NEPA document for this project, the Corps specified the measures that would be taken to avoid impacting eelgrass and then stated, “If necessary, mitigation will be coordinated with the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and carried out in accordance with NMFS’s Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy”. Under section 4.1.7 of the FSEA, the Corps also noted that any impacts to eelgrass would be mitigated “...in accordance with current policies and practices”. In addition, the cover letter accompanying the “Pre-Dredge Eelgrass and Caulerpa Surveys for the 2010 Mission Bay Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project” appropriately reiterated the Corps’ obligation to mitigate for eelgrass impacts in accordance with SCEMP. Thus the need to protect, and mitigate for any impacts to, eelgrass habitat during construction activities was adequately addressed by both the Corps and NMFS prior to project initiation. However, the Corps has yet to fully comply with these obligations. Implementation of the project resulted in the loss of approximately 0.8 acres of eelgrass habitat, as documented in the “Post-Dredge Eelgrass Survey for the 2010 Mission Bay Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project”. According to SCEMP, the mitigation for these impacts should have begun within 135 days of initiating in-water construction, which occurred in October, 2010. Therefore, even if the mitigation was postponed until the next active growth phase to increase the likelihood of success, this mitigation project should have been started on or around March 1, 2011. Unfortunately, the mitigation transplant has not yet begun, nor has a mitigation plan been released by the Corps. Under section 8 of SCEMP, for projects that do not begin within the 135 day time frame, an additional seven percent for each month of delay shall be applied to the original mitigation area. This is consistent with a widely held concept that temporal losses should result in additional mitigation. However, when we reminded the Corps of this obligation, their response was that they would be unable to comply with the mitigation delay provision of SCEMP. Because NMFS does not believe an effective NEPA process and/or EFH consultation can be conducted if the Corps can not be relied upon to meet their environmental obligations, we relayed these concerns in a letter on July 22, 2011. The Corps has yet to respond to this letter.

In addition, a Corps maintenance dredging project in Lower Newport Bay also impacted eelgrass habitat. Specifically, a 2003 dredging event impacted shallow water and eelgrass habitat in Lower Newport Bay offshore of the east end of Balboa Island. Approximately 0.88 acres of eelgrass habitat was impacted with a mitigation requirement of 1.06 acres. However, mitigation measures to offset these losses have not been successfully implemented.

Summary and Recommendation for Estimated Impacts
Given the uncertainty of the modeling used to predict impacts, the limited characterization of existing offshore habitats, and the Corps’ recent history in predicting and mitigating impacts to seagrass habitat, NMFS does not believe the Corps’ proposed impact estimate is appropriate. 1106
10 Instead, NMFS believes a more conservative estimate is appropriate. NMFS is using the following factors in determining a more conservative estimate: 1) a comprehensive survey has yet to be conducted, 2) the T-street reef structure is roughly estimated at 5 acres, 3) the scattered reefs and boulders have not been well characterized with no reliable acreage estimate, 4) the Tstreet reef structure is within the equilibrium footprint in which cross-shore sand movement is expected to occur, 5) the DEIS indicates that some portions of surfgrass habitat within the equilibrium footprint already exhibit some burial. Without additional information and justification, NMFS recommends that the Corps assume at least 5 acres of surfgrass/reef impacts to help ensure that adequate funds are budgeted for potential mitigation costs. This recommendation is also consistent with a recommendation provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in their Final Coordination Act Report. This estimate should be adopted within the record of decision.

Conservation Recommendation 1c: The Corps and/or the project partner should coordinate with NMFS and other interested agencies to determine an appropriate mitigation ratio for impacts to surfgrass and rocky reef habitat.

Appendix B does not specifically respond to this recommendation, but indicates that reef habitat mitigation shall be constructed at an equivalent functional value of shallow and deep water reef proportional to the area of impacted surfgrass and reef.

Section 5.4.5.2 discusses the Corps’ mitigation approach in greater detail.

The Corps does not use ratios, but instead a scientific-based approach through the use of functional habitat evaluation assessment. A basic FA was used in the BPJ approach and a more robust FA will be accomplished in PED during the monitoring of the project site and the reference site.

In contrast to this statement, Corps Regulatory routinely uses ratios for mitigation purposes. The use of mitigation ratios is discussed in the 2008 Final Rule for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (Final Rule). However, at an interagency meeting on January 31, 2011, the Corps Civil Works indicated that the Final Rule does not apply to their projects. In response, NMFS specifically requested that Corps Civil Works share their policy. The Corps was unable to respond to this request at the meeting, but did cite Engineering Regulation 1105-2- 100 in the FEIS.

Also, in contrast to this statement, is a 2007 memorandum from the Corps regarding the Encinitas and Solana Beach Shoreline Protection project – a project similar in nature to the San Clemente Shoreline Protection project. This memorandum specifically indicates that mitigation for impacts to reef shall be in the form of artificial reefs constructed within the reach suffering losses on a 1:1 ratio.

Moreover, the Corps implies the use of a 1:1 ratio on page 5-58:
1107
11 The Project has a mitigation budget that accommodates 1 acre of impacts to surfgrass plus 1 acre of impacts to reef, for a total potential impact to 2 acres of resources as a worst-case scenario.

NMFS also notes that the best professional judgment (BPJ) referenced above from the FEIS did not incorporate opinions expressed by NMFS, USFWS, California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Protection Agency, and California Coastal Commission. Instead it relied upon the Corps’ contractors.

Regardless, NMFS agrees with the Corps that the use of ratios should be based upon sound science and, to the extent possible, a functional based approach. In response to Corps concerns that there was no scientifically-based approach to developing ratios, NMFS recommended that the Corps consider the use of a mitigation ratio calculator as a defensible means of identifying an appropriate ratio (King and Price 2004). In addition, we shared scientific rationale for why a 1:1 approach is not defensible. In summary, NMFS believes a 1:1 ratio is inappropriate because: 1) surfgrass is a difficult to replace resource, 2) uncertainty of success, and 3) temporal lag in mitigation. NMFS notes that our rationale is consistent with the Final Rule. Specifically, the Final Rule suggests that higher mitigation ratios should be required where necessary to account for the method of compensatory mitigation, the likelihood of success, differences between the functions lost at the impact site and the functions expected to be produced by the compensatory mitigation project, temporal losses of aquatic resource functions, the difficulty of restoring or establishing the desired aquatic resource type and functions, and/or the distance between the affected aquatic resource and the compensation site. The best available science suggests surfgrass exhibits late successional traits, recovers very slowly from disturbance, and requires facilitation from algae before settling - all factors suggesting that this is a difficult to replace resource. Furthermore, if impacts are identified, a significant time lag will occur between the impact and mitigation. This will result in a temporal loss of function beyond that which would be expected from a difficult to replace species.

Summary and Recommendation for Mitigation Approach
In light of the Corps assertion that they do not use mitigation ratios, NMFS has revised our recommendation. The Corps and/or the project partner should coordinate with NMFS and other interested agencies to develop an appropriate functional assessment for impacts to surfgrass and rocky reef habitat. The final functional assessment used for determining appropriate mitigation to biological resources should receive written concurrence from NMFS prior to project implementation. This recommendation should be included as a mitigation measure in the record of decision.

Conservation Recommendation 2: A scientifically defensible monitoring plan should be developed prior to a record of decision on the proposed project.

The purpose of the monitoring plan is to detect environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and serve as the basis for determining whether compensatory mitigation is appropriate. Results from the monitoring plan will inform the development of a final mitigation plan, which will be based upon the approach described in the contingency 1108
12 mitigation plan. The monitoring plan should be described in greater detail than the program currently described in Appendix B. The sampling design and statistical analyses should be clearly described and should be based upon fundamental principles of statistical inference. This monitoring plan should be reviewed and approved by the Corps, NMFS, and other interested resource agencies prior to a record of decision. In addition, to ensure adequate scientific rigor, consideration should be given to involving an independent review by recognized, biostatistical experts.

A general approach to the monitoring plan is outlined in Appendix B. The Corps indicates that the final monitoring plan will be prepared during the pre-construction engineering design (PED) phase. NMFS had recommended that this plan be developed prior to the record of decision.

Given the limited characterization of nearshore resources for impact assessment purposes, NMFS is amenable to the finalization of the monitoring plan during the PED phase.

NMFS previously expressed concern that the presumption that nourishment projects are ecologically benign may be based upon an incomplete and flawed body of science (Peterson and Bishop, 2005). NMFS recommended that, if previous monitoring results in Southern California are to be used as support for conclusions that impacts to biological resources are minor and/or insignificant, a more rigorous examination of their sampling design, statistical analyses, and conclusions are necessary. The Corps did not adequately respond to this recommendation in light of the flawed science identified in Peterson and Bishop (2005). Instead, they summarized conclusions from previous monitoring events for other nourishment projects without conducting an adequate examination of their sampling design, statistical analyses, and conclusions. The Corps then concluded that the weight of evidence would suggest no impacts would occur at San Clemente.

Summary and Recommendation for Monitoring Plan
NMFS maintains that the sampling design and statistical analyses of the final monitoring plan be clearly described and should be based upon fundamental principles of statistical inference. In addition, the final monitoring plan should avoid the problems identified in Peterson and Bishop (2005). The final monitoring plan used for determining impacts to biological resources should receive written concurrence from NMFS prior to project implementation. This recommendation should be included as a mitigation measure in the record of decision.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Comments
16 U.S.C. 662 (a) states that whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized to be impounded, diverted, the channel deepened, or the stream or other body of water otherwise controlled or modified for any purpose whatever, including navigation and drainage, by any department or agency of the United States, or by any public or private agency under Federal permit or license, such department or agency first shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, and with the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the particular State wherein the impoundment, diversion, or other control facility is to be constructed, with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources by preventing loss of and damage to such resources as well as 1109
13 providing for the development and improvement thereof in connection with such water-resource development.

Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 transferred all functions vested by law in the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries of the Department of the Interior or in its head, together with all functions vested by law in the Secretary of the Interior or the Department of the Interior which are administered through that Bureau or are primarily related to the Bureau to the Secretary of Commerce. NOAA NMFS is the primary agency within the Department of Commerce responsible for FWCA coordination.

The Corps states that the FWCA is an action that is taken between the USFWS and the Corps, not NMFS. The Corps’ statement is inaccurate. As stated above, NMFS does have the authority to provide comments and recommendations through the FWCA. In fact, the Corps acknowledges NMFS’ FWCA role on one of their websites
(http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/emris/emrishelp5/fish_and_wildlife_coordination_act_legal _matters.htm). Below is an excerpt from the above referenced Corps website:
16 U.S.C. 662(a) provides that whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed to be impounded, diverted, the channel deepened or otherwise controlled or modified, the Corps shall consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as appropriate, and the agency administering the wildlife resources of the state. The consultation shall consider conservation of wildlife resources with the view of preventing loss of and damages to such resources as well as providing for development and improvement in connection with such water resources development.

Mischaracterization of NMFS Comments and Involvement in the Review Process A number of statements were made in the FEIS and in response to comments that mischaracterize NMFS comments and our involvement in the review process. Below, NMFS provides additional context and some examples of this mischaracterization.

In the Corps response to comments, they repeatedly emphasized their two year coordination with the resource agencies. NMFS notes that this coordination was not particularly effective or organized. Examples include the following: short notification for agency meetings, all interested agencies were not invited despite NMFS encouragement to do so, meeting times were delayed, meeting dates abruptly canceled, and clear and substantive information was often not provided at the meetings. Furthermore, much of the comments that were given to the Corps were superficially addressed. After submission of comments on the DEIS, an interagency meeting was held on January 31, 2011, to address the range of concerns expressed by various agencies.

Despite acknowledgment of the Corps internal deadlines and commitment to continue discussions regarding the monitoring, mitigation, and reporting plan, the Corps did not follow up with NMFS. NMFS reached out to the Corps via email on February 25, 2011, but received no reply. NMFS believes many of the problems identified in the FEIS are attributable to the Corps’ coordination approach.
1110
14 On page 5-58, the following is stated:

Because resource agency recommendations for mitigation were only clarified in their response to the DEIS, development and certification of a habitat model to assess surfgrass impacts was not previously contemplated.

This is an inaccurate statement. NMFS had provided a variety of input regarding surfgrass impact concerns during agency meetings, via email, and telephone discussions with Corps staff.

These discussions culminated in a detailed email that was provided on August 5, 2010, which outlined many of NMFS concerns regarding the Corps proposed mitigation approach. For reference, the email chain is attached to this letter. Comments provided on the DEIS were generally consistent with the email comments.

not specifically identify a 5:1 ratio. Rather, NMFS questioned the appropriateness of estimating a 2 acre impact when 1) a comprehensive survey has yet to be conducted, 2) the T-street reef structure is roughly estimated at 5 acres, 3) the scattered reefs and boulders have not been well characterized with no reliable acreage estimate, 4) the T-street reef structure is within the equilibrium footprint in which cross-shore sand movement is expected to occur, 5) the DEIS indicates that some portions of surfgrass habitat within the equilibrium footprint already exhibit some burial. Thus, without additional information and justification, NMFS believed a 5 acre impact was a more appropriate worst case scenario.

On page 5-50, the Corps implies that NMFS was not forthcoming during the two year coordination process when we recommended the use of the San Diego Nearshore Program data at the January 31, 2011, meeting. NMFS recommended its use to provide additional information for the Corps NEPA document, not as a means of serving as a baseline dataset for determining impacts. NMFS would like to remind the Corps that the Nearshore Program was a cooperative effort involving their agency.

Closing Summary and Recommendations
NMFS believes protection of existing infrastructure and maintaining recreational opportunities associated with beach usage are important ecosystem services. However, repeated beach fill projects may have an environmental cost to various natural resources. These costs should be incorporated into the analysis to ensure the benefit to cost ratio is not skewed. Unfortunately, the views expressed by NMFS regarding potential impacts, mitigation, and monitoring have not been fully considered in the FEIS. Therefore, NMFS is concerned that the Corps may have underestimated the potential environmental costs of the project. Based on January 2011 price levels, the estimated initial construction cost of the plan is $11,100,000, for which the Federal share is approximately $7,220,000 and the non-Federal share is approximately $3,890,000. Total periodic nourishment costs are estimated to be $84,900,000 (January 2011 price level) over the 50-year period following initiation of construction, for which the Federal share is approximately $42,450,000 and the non-Federal share is approximately $42,450,000. Given the concerns expressed on this project, NMFS believes the Corps should re-evaluate their cost estimates to 1111
15 ensure the project still achieves a positive benefit/cost ratio prior to further planning and implementation of a 50 year project costing $96,000,000.

Below is a summary of NMFS recommendations that should be addressed prior to a record of decision:
• The Corps should explicitly discuss how they addressed the comments provided by the Independent External Peer Review.
• The Corps should assume a minimum 5 acre impact to surfgrass/reef to help ensure that adequate funds are budgeted for potential mitigation costs. This recommendation is also consistent with a recommendation provided by the USFWS in their Final Coordination Act Report. This estimate should be adopted within the record of decision. • The sampling design and statistical analyses of the final monitoring plan should be clearly described and should be based upon fundamental principles of statistical inference. In addition, the final monitoring plan should avoid the problems identified in Peterson and Bishop (2005). The final monitoring plan used for determining impacts to biological resources should receive written concurrence from NMFS prior to project implementation. This recommendation should be included as a mitigation measure in the record of decision.
• The Corps should coordinate with NMFS and other interested agencies to develop an appropriate functional assessment for impacts to surfgrass and rocky reef habitat. The final functional assessment used for determining appropriate mitigation to biological resources should receive written concurrence from NMFS prior to project implementation. This recommendation should be included as a mitigation measure in the record of decision.
• The Corps should include a monitoring and enforcement program for each mitigation measure identified in the record of decision. NMFS also recommends that the Corps inform commenting agencies on the progress of mitigation measures they have proposed and make the monitoring results available to the public.

Enclosure(s):

Literature Cited
NMFS August 05, 2010, email discussing surfgrass mitigation with additional literature cited
1112
16 Literature Cited
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.

King, D.M. and E.W. Price. 2004. Developing Defensible Wetland Mitigation Ratios: A Companion to “The Five-Step Wetland Mitigation Ratio Calculator”. Final Report prepared for Kathi Rodrigues, NOAA, Office of Habitat Conservation, Habitat Protection Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910.

Peterson, C.H. and M.J. Bishop. 2005. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Beach Nourishment. Bioscience 55: 887-896.
1113
17 NMFS August 05, 2010, email discussing surfgrass mitigation with additional literature cited
From: Bryant Chesney [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 3:44 PM
To: 'Smith, Lawrence J SPL'; 'Bob Hoffman'; 'Clifford, Jodi L SPL'; 'Keeney, Thomas W SPL' Cc: 'Lawrence Honma'
Subject: RE: Surf Grass Mitigation
NMFS appreciates Corps collaboration on this important topic and believe we are coming closer to agreement on how to address surfgrass impacts. However, there are various aspects of your proposal for which NMFS has concerns. We summarize them below.

According to Subpart E Section 230.43 of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (404(b)(1) Guidelines), vegetated shallows are considered special aquatic sites (SAS). SAS are geographic areas, large or small, possessing special ecological characteristics of productivity, habitat, wildlife protection, or other important and easily disrupted ecological values. These areas are generally recognized as significantly influencing or positively contributing to the general overall environmental health or vitality of the entire ecosystem of a region.

This status provides special consideration when evaluating actions involving dredged or fill material pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Vegetated shallows are defined as permanently inundated areas that under normal circumstances support communities of rooted aquatic vegetation.

NMFS believes surfgrass should be considered a SAS and receive special consideration when evaluating actions involving discharge of dredged or fill material.

Moreover, surfgrass is designated as a habitat area of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species under the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plans, as well as essential fish habitat (EFH) for various species within the Coastal Pelagics and Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plans. Surfgrasses (Phyllospadix spp.) are considered to be among the most productive seagrass systems on the planet (Ramírez-García et al. 1998). Galst and Anderson (2008) indicate that surfgrass beds serve as an important habitat for nearshore fishes, and the loss of surfgrass from disturbance has negative consequences for recruitment success. Surfgrass also serves as an important nursery habitat for a variety of invertebrates, such as California spiny lobster (Engle 1979, as cited in MPLA Initiative 2009), and as habitat for algae (Stewart and Myers 1980, as cited in MLPA Initiative 2009). Shaw (1986) suggests that the importance of surfgrass as a nursery for juvenile lobsters in southern California is clearly apparent and the disturbance or destruction of this habitat could seriously decrease lobster abundance. Surfgrass is also important foraging habitat for the endangered green turtle, Chelonia mydas on the Pacific side of the Baja Peninsula (Lopez-Mendilaharsu et al 2005).

Although utilization of nearshore habitats in southern California is less understood, sub-populations of the endangered green turtle are known to utilize San Diego Bay and the Long Beach area for foraging. If surfgrass serves a similar function in southern California, then adverse effects to surfgrass habitat may have a negative impact on habitat used by this listed species.

Surfgrasses are likely to be impacted by beach nourishment and shoreline protection projects that place sand either directly or indirectly onto surf grass beds (Craig et al 2008). The Corps has acknowledged this in meetings, email correspondence, and draft environmental planning documents. As described in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the discharge of dredged or fill material may reduce the value of vegetated shallows as nesting, spawning, nursery, cover, and forage areas, as well as their value in protecting shorelines from erosion and wave actions. In addition, the primary productivity of the system would be reduced if impacts were to occur. Surfgrasses exhibit late successional traits, recover very slowly from disturbance, require facilitation from algae before settling, and are strong competitors (Turner 1985).

Removal of surfgrass from a rocky reef community has profound impacts to community structure (Turner 1985). Thus, surfgrass habitat is largely determined by patterns of disturbance. Repeated beach nourishment efforts likely will increase this rate of disturbance to these systems. Slow recovery times suggest that disturbances to these communities may be ecologically significant. 1114
18 Given the high ecological values associated with surfgrass, NMFS believes unavoidable impacts to surfgrass should be addressed via compensatory mitigation and should comply with the 2008 mitigation rule. According to the rule, compensatory mitigation is defined as the restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation), establishment (creation), enhancement, and/or in certain circumstances 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. The rule suggests that compensation for unavoidable impacts to difficult to replace (DTR) resources (e.g. bogs, fens, springs, streams, etc.) should be provided through in-kind rehabilitation, enhancement or preservation. Given the slow recovery time and the difficulties associated with restoring this habitat, NMFS believes that surfgrass should be considered a DTR resource. Therefore, NMFS believes the Corps and/or the project partner should include in-kind surfgrass restoration or establishment as part of the mitigation plan. Therefore, NMFS does not concur with the Corps assertion that it not be considered "mitigation" in the technical sense of the term, nor do we concur that the NEPA/CEQA documents should refer to this as an unavoidable, unmitigable loss.

Although NMFS recognizes that surfgrass restoration techniques are not well established, recent successes have emerged. For example, Bull et al (2004) have demonstrated that surfgrass transplants that used sprigs survived and grew reasonably well, and regrowth of rhizomes that were cut to obtain sprigs for transplanting was rapid. They argued that the patterns of growth and survival of transplants and of recovery of donor plots, combined with the amount of effort involved, revealed that the largest gain in rhizome coverage per unit of effort occurred when sprigs were used. Moreover sprigs suitable for transplanting required relatively little effort to prepare and were abundant at study sites (Bull 2002), suggesting that collection of sprigs for transplanting would not have a large impact on existing surfgrass beds. Based upon this, Bull et al (2004) concluded that sprigs may be the most acceptable form for use in restoration.

Alternatively, MMS (1999) found that restoration of surfgrass beds using seeds and seedlings may be feasible. Sufficient numbers of seeds can easily be collected from most populations during most years to supply most restoration needs. Seeds readily germinate in the laboratory, or can be stored for several months and germinated when needed. Laboratory cultivation of large numbers of small seedlings for use in restoration is relatively simple and does not require any sophisticated equipment or facilities. Mortality rates are relatively high, though, so future efforts should reduce the likely sources of mortality to increase the efficacy of this technique. Holbrook et al. (2002) tested the use of seedlings in the field and attached seedlings to nylon rope to mimic natural conditions and achieved a survival comparable to that of control groups. The use of either sprigs or seedling transplants would minimize impacts to donor beds.

NMFS recognizes that transplant success is much higher for subtidal then for intertidal conditions.

However, NMFS does not believe restoration efforts in the intertidal should be summarily dismissed within the mitigation plan, as implied in the Corps proposal. NMFS would be amenable to a smaller percentage of the mitigation addressing intertidal surfgrass habitat, but believes some good-faith effort should be applied to restore similar resources that may be lost due to the proposed projects.

The Corps has proposed a 1:1 ratio for surfgrass transplants and rocky reef impacts. The final mitigation rule suggests that higher mitigation ratios should be required where necessary to account for the method of compensatory mitigation, the likelihood of success, differences between the functions lost at the impact site and the functions expected to be produced by the compensatory mitigation project, temporal losses of aquatic resource functions, the difficulty of restoring or establishing the desired aquatic resource type and functions, and/or the distance between the affected aquatic resource and the compensation site.

Given the difficulties associated with mitigating for surfgrass and the time lag in recovery, a higher ratio is likely appropriate. NMFS recommends that the Corps consider the guidance provided by the final rule and provide a more detailed rationale for determination of the mitigation ratio. NMFS also offers to provide technical assistance to the Corps in developing an appropriate mitigation ratio.

The mitigation plan should also contain performance standards that will be used to assess whether the project is achieving its objectives. These performance standards should be based on attributes that are objective, verifiable, and can be measured with a reasonable amount of effort. Thus, we do not believe it 1115
19 appropriate to not include success criteria, as the Corps has proposed. NMFS recommends that the Corps work with NMFS and other appropriate agencies to develop appropriate performance standards.

That said, NMFS recognizes the potential for in-kind mitigation failure. The potential for failure, however, does not justify a mitigation plan with no success criteria. Instead, NMFS believes a contingency out-ofkind mitigation approach should be developed as a back-up in case surfgrass mitigation techniques prove unsuccessful. Out-of-kind mitigation should strive to offset similar ecological functions and values that may be lost due to surfgrass impacts. Functions of high importance to NMFS include: primary productivity, fishery and invertebrate habitat, and wave energy reduction. NMFS believes eelgrass and/or kelp may be appropriate surrogates for out-of-kind mitigation.

The rule further states that there should be sufficient financial assurances to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be completed in accordance with its performance standards. The Corps indicates they would like to place a cap on surf grass mitigation costs. NMFS is unsure how placing a cap on the mitigation costs would provide sufficient financial assurances. Perhaps a more appropriate alternative approach is to place a cap on surfgrass transplant techniques based upon cost estimates provided by both typical mitigation practitioners, such as Corps has preliminarily done via inquiries with SAIC and Merkel, and other researchers with more experience with surfgrass restoration. If success criteria are not met, the Corps and/or project partner would then move to the contingency plan for which reasonable cost estimates could also be provided. Assuming the total cost estimates of surfgrass mitigation and the out-of-kind contingency plan have appropriate justification and provide sufficient financial assurances, then NMFS would believe this total estimate could be used as an appropriate dollar amount in the Corps cost-benefit analysis. Placing a funding cap that is not well justified could skew the cost-benefit analysis and should be avoided.

References
Bull, J. S. 2002. An experimental evaluation of different methods of restoring surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi). Master’s thesis. University of California, Santa Barbara.

Bull, J.S., Reed, D.C., Holbrook, S.J., 2004. An experimental evaluation of different methods of restoring Phyllospadix torreyi (Surfgrass). Restoration Ecology 12(1): 70-79.

California Marine Life Protection Initiative. 2009. Regional Profile of the MLPA South Coast Study Region (Point Conception to the California-Mexico Border).

Castañeda-Fernández de Lara, V., M. J. Butler, S. Hernández-Vázquez, S. Guzmán del Próo, and E.

Serviere-Zaragoza. 2005a. Determination of preferred habitats of early benthic juvenile California spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus, on the Pacific coast of Baja California Sur, Mexico. Marine and Freshwater Research 56: 1037-1045.

Castañeda-Fernández de Lara, V., E. Serviere-Zaragoza, S. Hernández-Vázquez, and M. J. Butler. 2005b. Feeding ecology of juvenile spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus, on the Pacific coast of Baja California Sur, Mexico. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 39: 425-435.

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

Engle JM (1979) Ecology and growth of juvenile California spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus (Randall).

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.

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.
1116
20 Holbrook, S.J., Reed, D.C., Bull, J.S., 2002. Survival experiments with outplanted seedlings of surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi) to enhance establishment on artificial structures. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59:S350-S355.

Lopez-Mendilaharsu, M., S. C. Gardner, J. A. Seminoff, and R. Riosmena-Rodriguez. 2005. Identifying critical foraging habitats of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) along the Pacific coast of the Baja California peninsula, Mexico. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 259-269.

Minerals Management Service. 1999. Development of Methods for Surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) Restoration Using Early Life History Stages. OCS Study MMS 99-0019.

Ramírez-García, P., Lot, A., Duarte, C.M., Terrados, J., Agawin, N.S.R., 1998. Bathymetric distribution, biomass and growth dynamics of intertidal Phyllospadix scouleri and Phyllospadix torreyi in Baja California (Mexico). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 173: 13-23.

Reed, D. C., S. J. Holbrook, E. Solomon, and M. Anghera. 1998. Studies on germination and root development in the surfgrass Phyllospadix torreyi: implications for habitat restoration. Aquatic Botany 62:71-80.

Shaw, W. N. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates ( Pacific Southwest)—spiny lobster. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 82(11.47).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 10 pp.

Stewart JG and Myers B (1980). Assemblages of algae and invertebrates in Southern California Phyllospadix-dominated intertidal habitats. Aquatic Botany 9:73-94.

Turner, T., 1985. Stability of rocky intertidal surfgrass beds: Persistence, preemption and recovery.

Ecology, 66(1): 83-92.

From: Smith, Lawrence J SPL [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 3:10 PM
To: Bob Hoffman; Bryant Chesney; Clifford, Jodi L SPL; Keeney, Thomas W SPL Cc: Lawrence Honma
Subject: Surf Grass Mitigation
Recent discussion have taken place between the Corps and NMFS on the issue of surf grass losses and mitigation in southern California. I'd like to take this opportunity to present our understanding of the resolution reached during recent conversations. The point is to avoid any confusion and to ensure that we are in agreement on the details prior to moving forward, first with San Clemente and then with Encinitas/Solana Beach.

The first step, as with other impact categories, is to avoid surf grass impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The second step is to minimize unavoidable impacts. The third step is to mitigate remaining impacts. The concept of mitigation, as it applies to surf grass, follows. There are currently no proven methods of transplanting surf grass. However, there are some experimental methods that show promise.

Our approach is to develop the experimental methods building towards a proven transplant method.

There are several key assumptions in moving in this direction. First, transplant success is much higher for subtidal then for intertidal conditions. Initial projects therefore will focus on subtidal transplants only.

This is particularly true for the first two projects where we anticipate creating artificial, subtidal reef habitat as mitigation for lost reef habitat thus creating new subtidal surf grass habitat. A portion of the reef would have to be built shallow enough to accommodate surf grass. Subtidal transplants are also safer then intertidal. Transplant area will be determined by actual impact as determined by monitoring. Postconstruction monitoring of the surf grass in and adjacent to project sites will determine the actual area of surf grass lost as a result of each project. Transplant area will be on a 1:1 ratio, reef transplant ratio is 1117
21 also on a 1:1 ratio for monitored reef losses. Post mitigation monitoring will be performed to track performance and to identify areas where the transplant method could be modified to improve success.

We are proposing two years of post-mitigation monitoring. We are not including any success criteria nor are we including any additional transplant efforts at a given site. This is a one and done proposal for each project. Follow-on projects will incorporate lessons learned incorporating method modifications as we move towards an improved methodology.

Transplanting sprigs or plants require a donor bed for plant material. Studies have shown that surf grass is sensitive to losses from harvesting plants for transplant purposes. I'm not sure how to incorporate this concern. We could harvest plant material from that portion of the bed where potential impacts are expected. However, this would require maintaining that material alive ex-situ for one to two years post construction when mitigation would be constructed. Additionally, it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy where we weaken a bed that is then impacted partially as a result of the project and partially as a result of harvesting effects. An alternative approach would be to spread these impacts over a very large area focusing on harvesting plants from the interior of the bed and avoiding harvesting from edges. It appears that edge harvesting has more of an impact on the existing bed then does interior harvesting. A recommendation on this issue would be appreciated.

One additional measure that the Corps would like to propose is a cap on surf grass mitigation costs. This would be done separately for each project and would be based on predicted impacts. This would enable the Corps to incorporate a not to exceed cost into its calculations of total project costs for comparison to project benefits. This would greatly assist us in our planning and project authorization efforts. Initially the cap would be estimated based on known costs for eelgrass restoration multiplied by a factor of three to account for the more difficult conditions expected from open coastal restoration for surf grass as opposed to in-bay restoration encountered for eelgrass restoration. After conferring with both SAIC and Merkel & Associates, we propose that an initial cost of $180K per acre be used for a surf grass restoration cap.

This is based on a cost of $60K per acre for recent eelgrass restoration efforts. Our methods for surf grass impact assessment tend to err on the conservative side and to overestimate impacts. This cap should then allow for mitigation at a 1:1 ratio should actual costs exceed the $180K per acre figure. This cap cost does not include the cost of monitoring.

This is a proposal for experimental transplants. As such, we have included no success criteria. This is not "mitigation" in the technical sense of the term. We cannot guarantee that impacts to surf grass will be "mitigated". Therefore, NEPA/CEQA documents will continue to refer to this as an unavoidable, unmitigable loss. We anticipate some success, so it will not be a total loss.

Please let me know if you have any questions with the above. We would also appreciate written concurrence from the NMFS.

Larry Smith
(213) 452-3846
1118
Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project
NMFS Consultation Number: WCRO-2022-02052
Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Affected Species and NMFS’ Determinations:

ESA-Listed Species Status
Is Action
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Species?
Is Action
Likely to
Jeopardize
the Species?
Is Action
Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Critical
Habitat?
Is Action Likely
to Destroy or
Adversely
Modify Critical
Habitat?
Green sea turtle;
East Pacific Distinct
Population Segment
(Chelonia mydas)
Threatened Yes No N/A N/A
Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region Issued By: Chris Yates
Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources West Coast Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
Date: May 8, 2023
ATTACHMENT 8
1119
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2

1. Background 2

2. Consultation History 2

3. Proposed Federal Action 5

2. Endangered Species Act: Biological Opinion And Incidental Take Statement 11

1. Analytical Approach 12

2. Rangewide Status of the Species 13

3. Action Area 18

4. Environmental Baseline 18

5. Effects of the Action 22

6. Cumulative Effects 31

7. Integration and Synthesis 31

8. Conclusion 32

9. Incidental Take Statement 33

1. Amount or Extent of Take 33

2. Effect of the Take 34

3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures 34

4. Terms and Conditions 35

10. Conservation Recommendations 40

11. Reinitiation of Consultation 41

3. Data Quality Act Documentation and Pre-Dissemination Review 42

1. Utility 42

2. Integrity 42

3. Objectivity 42

4. References 43
1120
2 1. INTRODUCTION
This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3, below.

1. Background
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological opinion (opinion) and incidental take statement (ITS) portions of this document in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended, and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 402.

We previously completed an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation on the proposed action in September 2010, in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 600.

We completed pre-dissemination review of this document using standards for utility, integrity, and objectivity in compliance with applicable guidelines issued under the Data Quality Act (DQA) (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-554). The document will be available within 2 weeks at the NOAA Library Institutional Repository [https://repository.library.noaa.gov/welcome]. A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Long Beach, California office.

2. Consultation History
NMFS previously reviewed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project (Project), and provided comments to the USACE on September 20, 2010, pursuant to our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. In addition, NMFS Headquarters responded to the USACE’s Final EIS/EIR via letter dated September 30, 2011, which summarized a number of concerns regarding the Project. In particular, NMFS noted that the USACE’s response was inconsistent with key aspects of the essential fish habitat (EFH) recommendations we had provided in September 2010.

The USACE responded to our September 2011 letter on March 23, 2012 and addressed some of our concerns regarding the rocky reef monitoring and mitigation approach. The USACE indicated that a reasonable worst-case scenario of one acre of reef burial was used to estimate their contingency costs for mitigation. The USACE committed to implementing the rocky reef/surfgrass monitoring, mitigation, and reporting plan described in Appendix B of the 1121
3 EIS/EIR, and indicated that it may be revised during the Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PED) Phase. The USACE confirmed that the monitoring and analytical methods used would be adequate to identify and accurately measure impacts from the beach nourishment effort. If a more comprehensive biological survey of the project area would be required to accomplish the above, it would be accomplished during the PED phase. The final monitoring and mitigation reporting plan would ensure that appropriate mitigation sites are available to address potential impacts, and that the success criteria and analytical methods used are adequate to demonstrate a difference between impact/mitigation sites and control sites. To continue to work cooperatively throughout the final project planning and construction phases, the USACE indicated they would provide a copy of the final PED phase surveys and the monitoring plans to NMFS and other agencies for review.

USACE staff provided an electronic mail update on April 27, 2020, indicating they were in the PED phase, and shared a preliminary nearshore bottom habitat and submerged aquatic vegetation assessment (Nearshore Wetland Surveys 2018) and a monitoring report for the first year of preconstruction surfgrass monitoring (Ecomarine Consulting LLC and Anghera Environmental, 2019). NMFS staff noted during an interagency teleconference in June 2020 that the preconstruction surfgrass monitoring that had been conducted had not been coordinated for agency review as the USACE had committed to. In addition, we noted that Nearshore Wetland Surveys (2018) observed more rocky reef habitat within the project impact footprint than the estimate provided in the Final EIS/EIR. Moreover, we indicated that the surfgrass transects were not representative of the project impact site. Two of the three transects were not in the anticipated project impact footprint, and one transect was placed in the outermost portion of the anticipated project impact footprint. USACE staff followed up on June 4, 2020, indicating that the USACE would be revising the monitoring, mitigation, and reporting plan (MMRP), and would provide NMFS and other agencies an opportunity to review. On October 28, 2021, USACE staff provided the monitoring report for the two-year pre-construction surfgrass monitoring (Ecomarine Consulting LLC and Anghera Environmental, 2020).

NMFS received a letter on August 16, 2022, from the USACE requesting initiation of informal consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA regarding the effects of the Project on the federally ESA threatened East Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas). The letter requested concurrence that the Project is not likely to adversely affect the federally threatened East Pacific DPS of green sea turtles under the ESA.

In response to the USACE’s August 2022 letter, NMFS staff requested additional information on August 30, 2022, to support the consultation request, and USACE staff responded on September 15 and 25, 2022. These responses clarified the avoidance and minimization measures proposed in the August 2022 letter, and status of the rocky reef monitoring and mitigation approach. To supplement the pre-construction monitoring dataset generated in 2018 to 2020, the USACE proposed to conduct additional monitoring in the pre-construction phase, but did not provide an updated MMRP. Based upon the information provided and available at the time, NMFS staff responded on September 30, 2022, indicating that adverse effects to nearshore rocky reef 1122
4 resources may make it difficult to conclude that effects to ESA-listed green sea turtles would be insignificant and/or discountable. In order to better understand the extent of green sea turtle foraging habitat that may be exposed to Project effects, NMFS staff requested that the USACE quantify the amount of rocky reef habitat in the sediment equilibrium footprint, which is the predicted area of potential sedimentation effects. Specifically, we requested quantification of the rocky reef area as observed in a 2018 memorandum regarding pre-construction monitoring for rocky reef and surfgrass habitat (Nearshore and Wetland Surveys, 2018). We also posed additional questions to help inform our effects analysis. USACE staff responded by email on November 3, 2022, with the rocky reef spatial data associated with the 2018 survey.

After considering the information in the August 16, 2022, letter, and additional information exchanges that had occurred through the interagency coordination process, we responded to the USACE in a January 6, 2023, letter that we were not able to concur with the USACE’s effect determination for green sea turtles, and that we would prepare a biological opinion on the Project, in accordance with the standards and procedures for formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA as described in 50 CFR §402 et seq. For the purposes of initiating and completing formal ESA consultation on the Project, we evaluated the information provided by USACE through informal consultation and indicated that USACE had satisfied the requirements for initiating formal consultation under 50 CFR §402.14(c), and we considered formal consultation to have been initiated as an outcome of the conference call between NMFS and USACE staff on December 9, 2022.

On April 5, 2023, the USACE provided new information that indicated several artificial reef structures occur within the borrow site offshore Oceanside. After interagency staff discussion and additional email correspondence, the USACE indicated on April 18, 2023, that the USACE would establish a 300 foot operational buffer between the artificial reef modules and along the reef depth contour.

On July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order vacating the 2019 regulations that were revised or added to 50 CFR part 402 in 2019 (“2019 Regulations,” see 84 FR 44976, August 27, 2019) without making a finding on the merits. On September 21, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary stay of the district court’s July 5 order. On November 14, 2022, the Northern District of California issued an order granting the government’s request for voluntary remand without vacating the 2019 regulations. The District Court issued a slightly amended order two days later on November 16, 2022. As a result, the 2019 regulations remain in effect, and we are applying the 2019 regulations here. For purposes of this consultation and in an abundance of caution, we considered whether the substantive analysis and conclusions articulated in the biological opinion and incidental take statement would be any different under the pre-2019 regulations. We have determined that our analysis and conclusions would not be any different. 1123
5 3. Proposed Federal Action
Under the ESA, “action” means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies (see 50 CFR 402.02). Under the MSA, “Federal action” means any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken by a Federal agency (see 50 CFR 600.910).] The Project purpose is to provide shoreline protection through nourishment of the beach near the San Clemente Pier. The USACE has determined that developing and maintaining the beach is needed to prevent beach erosion that results from winter storms and prevent damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the City of San Clemente (City). In addition to the above, the USACE has determined that the loss of sand at the beach would have an impact on beach recreation, which contributes to the local economy, and would reduce the ecological functioning of the sand beach/littoral zone.

The Project involves dredging sediment from a borrow site offshore Oceanside Harbor, transporting the dredged material by barge offshore the nourishment site, and placing it at San Clemente Beach. Estimates based on regional monitoring suggest the beach nourishment fill will last about 6 years on average. Therefore, additional maintenance nourishment efforts will occur approximately every 6 years when the shoreline reaches the base beach width over the 50 year project life. Figure 1 shows the general location of the sediment placement in San Clemente and borrow site offshore of Oceanside. Figure 2 shows a map of the borrow site offshore Oceanside Harbor. The borrow site (Borrow Area 2) is approximately 940 acres, with a 128 acre area inside the borrow site (Borrow Area 2A) that contains the more desirable material. The USACE proposes to use Area 2A as the sediment source for the first nourishment event. Figure 3 indicates the proposed dredging offset used by the USACE to avoid the artificial reefs that occur within the borrow area.
1124
6 Figure 1. Project location map illustrating sediment placement location in San Clemente and borrow site offshore of Oceanside.
1125
y
San Juan
pistrano
,P•n Clemente
San ClementJ !
Pier Location ~ '> O.· c mp Pendl on Mame Co,ps Base
'8lb ,('~
1200,000
0 2 4
Miles
Approximate ,7
Borrow Site
Location
Oceanside
0 7
Figure 2. Oceanside Borrow Site. Dredging will be conducted in Area 2A. 1126

OCEANSIDE HARBOR RESTRICTED &

OFFSHORE BORROW AREAS
Restricted Area 334.900 (U.S. Coast Pilot
Restri cted Area 334.910 (U.S. Coast Pilot
8 Figure 3: Oceanside Borrow Area 2A – Artificial Reef Dredging Project.

The Project will nourish approximately 3,412 feet (1,040m) of shoreline within the City. The nourishment area is approximately centered about the San Clemente Pier and extends from TStreet to Linda Lane. The design beach berm elevation is +17 feet mean lower low water (MLLW), and the design beach width is 50 ft (15m). The first dredge and beach placement event will involve 250,000 cubic yards (cy) of beach compatible sand, with re-nourishment intervals projected every 5 to 6 years at approximately the same volumes. The ensuing intervals and quantities will largely be dependent on rate of beach erosion and funding availability. Beach design would be optimized based on lessons learned and resulting beach morphology following post-placement of the initial fill stage. As a result, future sediment volumes may change.

The Project will be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. The hopper dredge will be filled at the designated borrow site approximately one mile offshore of Oceanside and hauled approximately 21 miles (35 km) to San Clemente. The specific hopper dredge vessel and its hold capacity is unknown at this time. Based upon a project clarification provided by email, the USACE anticipates that the hopper dredge will take 75-80 round trips between the sediment borrow site offshore Carlsbad and placement site in San Clemente. Anticipated vessel speed of the unloaded hopper transiting to the Oceanside borrow area would be approximately 11-13 knots, and 8-10 knots when loaded 1127
9 with sediment and transiting to San Clemente. No support vessels are anticipated to be needed during transit. 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. During construction, onshore sediment placement will utilize berms to minimize nearshore impacts and retain sediments on the beach.

The hopper dredge requires a monobuoy to discharge its sand onto the beach. A monobuoy is a floating pipeline connection platform that is moored to the seafloor and interconnects with a steel sinker pipeline that carries the slurry along the seafloor to the beach. For this Project, the monobuoy 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, in the appropriate location in relation to sensitive resources and engineering considerations. From one monobuoy location, sand can be pumped directly onshore and up to approximately 2,000 ft (610 m) alongshore in either direction. One to two support tugs will be utilized to assist the hopper dredge hook up to the monobuoy. One to three derrick barges will be used at the beginning and end of construction to install and remove the pipeline. These support vessels will limit their speed to inside wake zone speeds.

Dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Project duration is estimated at 46 working days over the course of 4 months. The first dredging and fill event is scheduled to occur in late Fall/Winter 2023, with subsequent fill events planned to occur at intervals dictated by funding availability and need over a 50-year time horizon. Prior to each subsequent dredge and fill event, the USACE will evaluate whether any changed conditions have occurred to the environmental baseline or project effects that would trigger the need for a new consultation.

The following measures will be implemented by USACE to avoid or minimize impacts to the federally threatened East Pacific DPS of green sea turtles.

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 green sea turtles will be onboard the hopper dredge to monitor for the presence of green sea turtles. The green sea turtle monitor will identify and communicate if there is a need to cease or alter operations to avoid impacts to green sea turtles.

2. During dredging, the biological monitor will periodically check in the hopper for the presence of green sea turtles. The biological monitor will also be equipped with a VHF radio to communicate with bridge officers, whose elevated vantage point is the best place on the hopper dredge to observe the hopper. If any evidence of turtles is detected, the bridge crew will immediately communicate with the biological monitor. 1128
10 3. Nighttime lighting will illuminate an approximately 50 to 100 foot perimeter during dredging and placement operations. During nighttime operations, the biological monitor will visually observe the lighted perimeter for turtle presence.

4. The biologist or monitor will clear the dredging area and confirm no green sea turtles are present 30 minutes prior to the startup of dredging operations.

5. If a green sea turtle 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 green sea turtle; • Operations may not resume until the green sea turtle 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 green sea turtles observed during transit.

6. Biological monitors will maintain a written log of all green sea turtle 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 green sea turtle 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 green sea turtle in relation to the monitor, and estimated distance (in meters) of green sea turtle to the monitor; and
• Nature and duration of equipment shutdown.

7. Any observations involving the potential “take” of green sea turtles 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 green sea turtle Monitoring and Avoidance Plan and an employee training program on green sea turtle 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.
1129
11 The USACE would also implement the rocky reef/surfgrass monitoring, mitigation, and reporting plan (MMRP) described in Appendix B of the EIS/EIR. The USACE confirmed that the monitoring and analytical methods used would be adequate to identify and accurately measure impacts from the beach nourishment effort. The final MMRP would ensure that appropriate mitigation sites are available to address potential impacts and that the success criteria and analytical methods used are adequate to demonstrate a difference between impact/mitigation sites and control sites. In order to supplement the pre-construction survey and monitoring efforts conducted between 2018 and 2020, the USACE has proposed to conduct additional monitoring in the pre-construction phase to address identified nearshore data gaps. However, the USACE has not provided any written details regarding the proposed additional monitoring.

Based upon the monitoring and mitigation plan described in the EIS/EIR, shallow subtidal surfgrass beds and rocky reefs in the vicinity of San Clemente Beach sediment placement site shall be monitored to determine whether the Project 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. 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 NMFS 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.

We considered, under the ESA, whether or not the proposed action would cause any other activities and determined that it would not.

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:

BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
The ESA establishes a national program for conserving threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, plants, and the habitat upon which they depend. As required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, each Federal agency must ensure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or to adversely modify or destroy their designated critical habitat. Per the requirements of the ESA, Federal action agencies consult with NMFS, and section 7(b)(3) requires that, at the conclusion of consultation, NMFS provide an 1130
12 opinion stating how the agency’s actions would affect listed species and their critical habitats. If incidental take is reasonably certain to occur, section 7(b)(4) requires NMFS to provide an ITS that specifies the impact of any incidental taking and includes reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) and terms and conditions to minimize such impacts.

1. Analytical Approach
This biological opinion includes a jeopardy analysis, but no adverse modification analysis. The jeopardy analysis relies upon the regulatory definition of “jeopardize the continued existence of” a listed species, which is “to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species” (50 CFR 402.02). Therefore, the jeopardy analysis considers both survival and recovery of the species. No critical habitat has been designated for Eastern Pacific DPS green sea turtles, therefore critical habitat and the “adverse modification” standard are not considered in this biological opinion
The ESA Section 7 implementing regulations define effects of the action using the term “consequences” (50 CFR 402.02). As explained in the preamble to the final rule revising the definition and adding this term (84 FR 44976, 44977; August 27, 2019), that revision does not change the scope of our analysis, and in this opinion we use the terms “effects” and “consequences” interchangeably.

We use the following approach to determine whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize listed species:
 Evaluate the range wide status of the species expected to be adversely affected by the proposed action.
 Evaluate the environmental baseline of the species.
 Evaluate the effects of the proposed action on species using an exposure–response approach.
 Evaluate cumulative effects.
 In the integration and synthesis, add the effects of the action and cumulative effects to the environmental baseline, and, in light of the status of the species, analyze whether the proposed action is likely to directly or indirectly reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.  If necessary, suggest a reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed action.

In this biological opinion, we specifically evaluate the risks of direct contact injuries for ESAlisted green sea turtles, as well as potential impacts of disturbance, associated with the proposed action. In addition, we consider the adverse effects of harassment of ESA-listed green sea turtles as a result of the proposed action. Consistent with the "Interim Guidance on the Endangered 1131
13 Species Act Term 'Harass’” (NMFS 2016a), we interpret harass in a manner similar to the USFWS regulatory definition for non-captive wildlife:
"Create the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering."
Under this “Interim Guidance” we interpret the phrase "significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns" to mean a change in the animal's behavior (breeding, feeding, sheltering, resting, migrating, etc.) that could reasonably be expected, alone or in concert with other factors, to create or increase the risk of injury to an ESA-listed animal when added to the condition of the exposed animal before the disruption occurred. An injury in the context of analyzing behavioral responses could be a physical injury or a physiological or other impact that would reasonably be expected to negatively affect the animal's growth, health, reproductive success, and/or ability to survive (i.e., an effect that results from a more than inconsequential behavioral response).

Harassment does not require that an injury actually result or is proven; only that the behavioral response creates or increases the likelihood of injury.

2. Rangewide Status of the Species
This biological opinion examines the status of the East Pacific Distinct Population Segment of green sea turtle that is likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action. The status is determined by the level of extinction risk that the listed species face, based on parameters considered in documents such as recovery plans, status reviews, and listing decisions. This informs the description of the species’ likelihood of both survival and recovery. The species status section also helps to inform the description of the species’ “reproduction, numbers, or distribution” for the jeopardy analysis.

In 2016, NMFS finalized new listings for 11 green sea turtle DPSs, including listing the East Pacific DPS as threatened (81 FR 20057). The East Pacific DPS includes turtles that nest on the coast of Mexico which were historically listed under the ESA as endangered. All of the green turtles DPSs were listed as threatened, with the exception of the Central South Pacific DPS, Central West Pacific DPS, and the Mediterranean DPS which were listed as endangered Seminoff et al. 2015).1 Recently the IUCN assessed the East Pacific “regional management unit of green sea turtles as “vulnerable,” which was downlisted from a previous “endangered” status (IUCN 2021). Currently, NMFS and USWFS are considering designating critical habitat for the East Pacific green sea turtle DPS as well as several other (five) DPSs within U.S. jurisdiction.

Based on a settlement agreement with several non-profit organizations, the agencies shall propose a determination concerning the designation of critical habitat on or before June 30, 2023.

1 The 2015 biological status report that was used to support the recent listing activities (Seminoff et al. 2015) can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/Status%20Reviews/green_turtle_sr_2015.pdf 1132
14 Green turtles are found throughout the world, occurring primarily in tropical, and to a lesser extent, subtropical and temperate waters. The species occurs in five major regions: the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Mediterranean Sea. Molecular genetic techniques have helped researchers gain insight into the distribution and ecology of migrating and nesting green turtles. Throughout the Pacific, nesting assemblages group into two distinct regional areas: 1) western Pacific and South Pacific islands, and 2) eastern Pacific and central Pacific, including the rookery at French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii. In the eastern Pacific, greens forage coastally from the U.S. West Coast (42°N) in the north, offshore in waters up to 1,000 miles from the coast and south to central Chile (40°S). The northern and southern boundaries of this DPS extend from the aforementioned locations in the U.S. and Chile to 143°W and 96°W, respectively (Seminoff et al. 2015). Green turtles found in the Gulf of California originate primarily from the Michoacán nesting stock. Green turtles foraging in southern California and along the Pacific coast of Baja California originate primarily from rookeries of the Islas Revillagigedos (Dutton 2003) and within the state of Michoacán (Dutton et al. 2019). Green sea turtles in the east Pacific are migratory as adults, conducting reproductive migrations every three years on average between their natal nesting sites and foraging areas. Individuals show fidelity to foraging areas, often returning to the same areas after successive nesting seasons. In neritic foraging areas, green turtles in the eastern Pacific are omnivorous, consuming marine algae, seagrass, mangrove parts and invertebrates. Green turtles in the wild are estimated to attain maturity at 15-50 years (Avens and Snover 2013), with East Pacific green turtles averaging 30 years to maturity.

Population Status and Trends: NMFS and USFWS (2007) provided population estimates and trend status for 46 green turtle nesting beaches around the world. Of these, twelve sites had increasing populations (based upon an increase in the number of nests over 20 or more years ago), four sites had decreasing populations, and ten sites were considered stable. For twenty sites there are insufficient data to make a trend determination or the most recently available information is too old (15 years or older). A complete review of the most current information on green sea turtles is available in the 2015 Status Review (Seminoff et al. 2015). The most recent IUCN assessment of the east Pacific population of green turtles was conducted in 2021 (Seminoff and Glass 2020).

Green turtles that may be found within the action area likely originate from the eastern Pacific Ocean area, and based on genetic analyses and satellite tracking of sea turtles foraging in San Diego Bay, likely originate from nesting sites in the Revillagigedo Archipelago and the coast of Michoacán, Mexico (Dutton et al. 2019). Green turtles in the eastern Pacific were historically considered one of the most depleted populations of green turtles in the world. The primary green turtle nesting grounds in the eastern Pacific are located in Michoacán, Mexico (Colola Beach (~74.4 percent of nesting in the state) and Maruata (24.1 percent of nesting in the state), and the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (NMFS and USFWS 1998) which comprise approximately 71 percent of all nesting females, and linkages between these nesting sites and foraging areas from northwestern Mexico to Peru have been established via flipper tag recoveries and satellite 1133
15 telemetry (Seminoff and Glass 2020). Here, green turtles were widespread and abundant prior to commercial exploitation and uncontrolled subsistence harvest of nesters and eggs. Sporadic nesting occurs on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. While shallow genetic substructure has been observed in East Pacific green turtles, manifesting as slight morphological differences, Dutton et al. (2014) suggest that green turtles from the Revillagigedos Archipelago are rooted in the broad eastern Pacific genetic clade.

Information has been suggesting steady increasing in nesting at the primary nesting sites in Michoacan, Mexico (Colola Beach), and in the Galapagos Islands since the 1990s (Delgado and Nichols 2005; Senko et al. 2011), although at some of these sites, they are still lower than past annual number of deposited clutches. Colola Beach is the most important green turtle nesting area in the eastern Pacific; it accounts for 75 percent of total nesting in Michoacán and has the longest time series of monitoring data since 1981. Nesting trends at Colola (25,008 clutches/year based on data from 2015-2018) is 52 percent less than the past three generations ago (early 1980s; 51,781 clutches per year), while at Galapagos, albeit a smaller population, the mean annual number of deposited clutches increased by 70 percent (from 3,082 to 5,233 clutches per year) since the late 1970s to early 1980s (Seminoff and Glass 2020).

As mentioned above, most green turtles found off the U.S. West Coast and in the action area likely originate from the Revillagigedos Archipelago and the coast of Michoacán, Mexico. The most recent survey (2008) from Revillagigedos estimated that as many as 500 nests were laid over a 4-week period, which the most recent status review (Seminoff et al. 2015) used to estimate nester abundance at 500 females.

Green sea turtle nesting in the eastern Pacific has increased steadily since the early 1980s, which is likely due to increased protection at nesting beaches, minimized threats to sea turtles in foraging areas, and advances in sea turtle fisheries bycatch reduction throughout the region.

Seminoff et al. (2015) estimated the total abundance of mature females in the East Pacific DPS to be at least 20,062 females.

Three resident foraging populations of green turtles have been observed in nearshore waters adjacent to the proposed action area. South San Diego Bay serves as important habitat for a resident population of approximately 60 juvenile and adult green turtles (Eguchi et al. 2010).

There is also an aggregation of green sea turtles that is persistent in the San Gabriel River and surrounding coastal areas in the vicinity of Long Beach, California as well as in Seal Beach, California (Lawson et al. 2011; Crear et al.2016; Crear et al. 2017). Seasonal shifts in movement and distribution of green turtles in the Long Beach/Seal Beach area show that green turtles in the San Gabriel River use warm effluent from two power plants as a thermal refuge, although the river sustains juveniles and adults year-round (Crear et al. 2016). More recently, Hanna et al. (2021) have documented a small resident foraging population at La Jolla Shores.

A stable isotope study on 718 green turtles foraging at 16 areas (including off the coast of California) indicate that turtles of this DPS are omnivorous (Seminoff et al. 2021). Another 1134
16 stable isotope study indicates that East Pacific green turtles in San Diego Bay forage on invertebrates (50 percent), seagrass (26 percent), and to a lesser extent red and green algae (Lemons et al. 2011). These data are consistent with studies of East Pacific green turtles outside of U.S. jurisdiction (e.g., waters of Mexico, Colombia, and Galapagos Islands) that also demonstrate omnivorous diets (Seminoff et al. 2002; López-Mendilaharsu et al. 2005; Amorocho and Reina 2007; Carrión-Cortez et al. 2010). A study of green sea turtle diet to the south along the Pacific Coast of Baja California, Mexico, indicate that surfgrass was the most prevalent source of forage for green sea turtles in those coastal waters (Lopez-Mendilaharsu et al. 2005). Green turtles in the San Gabriel River forage on algae and invertebrates that attach to rocky bottoms and hard man-made structures (Crear et al. 2017). The main prey item consumed by turtles at the La Jolla Shores location was a filamentous species of Rhodophyta, red algae (Hanna et al. 2021).

Threats: A thorough discussion of threats to green turtles worldwide can be found in the most recent status review (Seminoff et al. 2015). Major threats include: coastal development and loss of nesting and foraging habitat; incidental capture by fisheries; and the harvest of eggs, subadults and adults. Climate change is also emerging as a critical issue. Destruction, alteration, and/or degradation of nesting and near shore foraging habitat is occurring throughout the range of green turtles. These problems are particularly acute in areas with substantial or growing coastal development, beach armoring, beachfront lighting, and recreational use of beaches. In addition to damage to the nesting beaches, pollution and impacts to foraging habitat is a concern.

Pollution run-off can degrade sea grass beds that are the primary forage of green turtles. The majority of turtles in coastal areas spend their time at depths less than 5 m below the surface (Schofield et al. 2007; Hazel et al. 2009), and hence are vulnerable to being struck by vessels.

Collisions with boats are known to cause significant numbers of mortality every year (NMFS and USFWS 2007; Seminoff et al. 2015). Marine debris is also a source of concern for green sea turtles especially given their presence in nearshore coastal and estuarine habitats. In southern California, green turtles forage in urbanized environments and therefore are more exposed to anthropogenic contaminants and pollutants. Sea turtles captured in Seal Beach and San Diego Bay in southern California were found to have higher trace metal concentrations (e.g., selenium and cadmium) than green turtles that inhabit non-urbanized areas (Barraza et al. 2019). A related study found that green sea turtles foraging in San Diego Bay had significantly higher total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) than turtles in Seal Beach, and that these non-dioxin-like PCB congeners may be associated with neurotoxicity (Barraza et al. 2020).

The bycatch of green sea turtles, especially in coastal fisheries, is a serious problem in the Pacific because many of the small-scale artisanal gillnet, setnet, and longline coastal fisheries throughout the Pacific are not well regulated. These are the fisheries that are active in areas with the highest densities of green turtles (NMFS and USFWS 2007). In the northern portions of the East Pacific DPS, bycatch in fisheries has been less well-documented. However, along the Baja California Peninsula (Mexico), hundreds of green turtles were reported stranded (suspected bycatch) in Bahia Magdalena (Koch et al. 2006). In Baja California Sur, Mexico, from 2006-2009, smallscale gillnet fisheries caused massive green sea turtle mortality at Laguna San Ignacio, where an 1135
17 estimated 1,000 turtle were captured each year in a fishery targeting guitar fish (Mancini et al. 2012). Bycatch of green turtles has also been reported in Peru and Chile. While the problem persists, innovated bycatch reduction techniques and monitoring approaches have likely reduced bycatch of all sea turtle species. The meat and eggs of green turtles has long been favored throughout much of the world that has interacted with this species. As late as the mid-1970s, upwards of 80,000 eggs were harvested every night during nesting season in Michoacán (Clifton et al. 1982). Even though Mexico has implemented bans on the harvest of all turtle species in its waters and on the beaches, poaching of eggs, females on the beach, and animals in coastal water continues to happen. In some places throughout Mexico and the whole of the eastern Pacific, consumption of green sea turtles remain a part of the cultural fabric and tradition (NMFS and USFWS 2007; Seminoff and Glass 2020).

Like other sea turtle species, increasing temperatures have the potential to skew sex ratios of hatchling and many rookeries are already showing a strong female bias as warmer temperatures in the nest chamber leads to more female hatchlings (Kaska et al. 2006; Chan and Liew 1995).

Increased temperatures also lead to higher levels of embryonic mortality (Matsuzawa et al. 2002). An increase in typhoon frequency and severity, a predicted consequence of climate change (Webster el al. 2005), can cause erosion which leads to high nest failure (Van Houtan and Bass 2007). Rising sea levels can cause repeated inundation of nests and abrupt disruption of ocean currents used for natural dispersion during the green turtle life cycle. Green sea turtles feeding may also be affected by climate change. Seagrasses are a major food source for green sea turtles and may be affected by changing water temperature and salinity (Short and Neckles 1999; Duarte 2002).

Conservation: There have been important conservation initiatives and advances that have benefited East Pacific DPS green turtles. There are indications that wildlife enforcement branches of local and national governments are stepping up their efforts to enforce existing laws, although successes in stemming sea turtle exploitation through legal channels are infrequent. In addition, there are a multitude of non-profit organizations and conservation networks whose efforts are raising awareness about sea turtle conservation. When assessing conservation efforts, we assumed that all conservation efforts would remain in place at their current levels or improve.

Among the notable regional and/or multinational conservation groups and initiatives are the Central American Regional Network for the Conservation of Sea Turtles, Grupo Tortuguero de las Californias (GTC), Permanent Commission of the South Pacific (CPPS), and the InterAmerican Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC). The Central American Regional Network resulted in the creation of a national sea turtle network in each country of the Central American region, as well as the development of firsthand tools, such as a regional diagnosis, a 10-year strategic plan, a manual of best practices, and regional training and information workshops for people in the region (e.g., Chacon and Arauz 2001). The GTC is a regional network in Mexico that brings together scientists, conservation practitioners, fishers, and local peoples to address sea turtle conservation issues. Perhaps the greatest achievement of this group was the large decrease in green turtle hunting and local consumption throughout 1136
18 northwestern Mexico. The IAC is the world’s only binding international treaty on sea turtle conservation. Signatory nations in the Eastern Pacific include Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States. This treaty endeavors to reduce fisheries bycatch and habitat destruction through a series of binding conservation agreements across these nations. All three of these initiatives work under the principle that benefits and achievements from working in alliance are much higher than those from working alone.

In southern California, NMFS has increased its outreach and education efforts to improve public awareness of the presence of green turtles and to reduce threats to foraging populations, particularly in San Diego Bay, the San Gabriel River and adjacent watershed, as well as estuaries such as Agua Hedionda and Mission Bay. Local threats to green turtles primarily include recreational fishing and vessel strikes, and NMFS has worked with partners to develop educational materials and signs to specifically address those threats.

NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) developed a recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the East Pacific Green Sea Turtle that describes reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species (NMFS and USFWS 1998). One of the six major actions described in the Recovery Plan is to identify and protect primary foraging areas in U.S. jurisdiction. In addition, the Recovery Plan specifically recommends the prevention of degradation or destruction of marine habitats caused by dredging or disposal activities.

Dredging causes mechanical destruction of benthic habitats, increases sedimentation that may damage algae and seagrasses, and disposal of dredged materials smothers existing flora and fauna. Some types of dredging also directly kills turtles.

3. Action Area
“Action area” means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area for this project includes Oceanside Harbor, the sediment borrow site offshore Oceanside Harbor, the sediment placement and associated equilibrium footprint at the San Clemente disposal site, and the vessel route between the Oceanside Harbor, sediment borrow and disposal sites. Figures 1-3 above illustrate the action area. Figure 4, below also helps illustrate the potential extent of project effects. The sediment equilibrium footprint is where sand that has been placed onto the beach is predicted to ultimately end up and result in some degree of rocky reef sedimentation and/or burial.

4. Environmental Baseline
The “environmental baseline” refers to the condition of the listed species or its designated critical habitat in the action area, without the consequences to the listed species or designated critical habitat caused by the proposed action. The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the 1137
19 anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultations, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. The consequences to listed species or designated critical habitat from ongoing agency activities or existing agency facilities that are not within the agency’s discretion to modify are part of the environmental baseline (50 CFR 402.02).

Status in the Action Area
As described in the Rangewide Status section, there are at least three known resident green sea turtle populations in Southern California. Foraging resident populations are found in San Diego Bay, La Jolla Cove, and the San Gabriel River/Anaheim Bay wetland complex. The proposed project lies geographically between these three areas of known green sea turtle residence. Green sea turtle adults and benthic-foraging juveniles generally occupy small home ranges that include foraging resources and underwater refugia. However, some individuals move long distances between foraging areas, including one individual tracked from San Diego Bay to a foraging area near Long Beach, California (SWFSC unpublished data 2016). In 2006, a green sea turtle outfitted with a satellite transmitter was tracked and traveled from Long Beach to the San Onofre nuclear power plant. Hanna et al. (2020) documented two green sea turtles leaving the Anaheim Bay area into nearby offshore waters as far south as Dana Point, which is in relative close proximity to the San Clemente sediment placement location.

Green turtle strandings are documented each year along the U.S. West Coast, with most of these strandings occurring in Southern California. Numerous strandings have occurred along the northern San Diego County and Orange County coastlines in the project vicinity. Causes of green turtle strandings in Southern California include power plant entrainment, vessel collisions, fishing interactions, illness, gunshot wounds, and cold stunning. Because not all dead stranded sea turtles are necropsied and causes of death can be difficult to ascertain in many circumstances during the limited evaluations conducted, the causes of the majority of strandings are unspecified or unknown. In the general vicinity of the action area (i.e., Dana Point to Carlsbad), there were a total of 67 green sea turtle strandings (17 dead and 50 alive) reported to NMFS between 1975 and 2021 (NMFS, unpublished stranding data). The largest concentration of stranding observations occurred at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) where 43 green sea turtles were entrained over multiple years. Some of these other strandings are from unknown origins, although boat collisions and interactions with recreational fishermen are likely the cause of many of these strandings. Two live green sea turtles were incidentally caught by recreational fishermen off the San Clemente Pier recently; one in 2018, the other in 2020.

In addition to stranding data, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center developed a hotline email address in 2015 for the public to report opportunistic sightings of sea turtles along the West Coast. Forty five green sea turtle sightings have been reported within the general vicinity of the action area. A few sightings have occurred to the south at surfing beaches. In addition, multiple sightings have occurred just to the north at Doheny State Beach and Dana Point. Most 1138
20 of the strandings and sightings occurred during the relatively warm water months, but some also occurred during the winter and spring months. In addition, most occurrences appear to be juveniles or sub-adults.

The action area has not been a subject of directed green sea turtle study as have some other estuarine/nearshore areas in southern California. Given the relatively high number of strandings and sightings in the action area, green sea turtles are, at a minimum, occasionally using the action area to support seasonal foraging forays and resting behavior. It is also possible that a small resident populations may be present in the general vicinity similar to the recently described La Jolla Cove resident population (Hanna et al. 2021). For example, the high number of live strandings at SONGS suggests that green sea turtles were consistently using the area for foraging and/or resting. As observed in San Diego Bay and the San Gabriel River, it is possible the warm water discharge from the power plant previously provided thermal refuge. In addition, there are a variety of rocky reef habitats that support productive algal, seagrass, and invertebrate communities that may serve as high quality foraging resources. Rocky reefs with crevices and/or overhangs may also support resting behavior.

The nearshore marine habitat in the sediment equilibrium footprint at the San Clemente disposal site contains a number of features that may support green sea turtle foraging and/or resting behaviors. The action area contains a variety of rocky habitats that support foraging resources, such as surfgrass, turf algae, macroalgae, and invertebrate communities, and may provide crevices and hard substrate to support resting behavior. Figure 4 is a summary figure provided by the USACE that demonstrates the extent of natural rocky reef habitat in the project vicinity. The light brown areas comprise rocky reef areas within the sediment equilibrium footprint, and the light blue areas are outside the estimated impact footprint. Of the bedrock and cobble substrates,

57.78 acres of those bottom types are within the sediment equilibrium footprint (Howo, personal communication).

The borrow site offshore Oceanside is predominantly soft bottom habitat with limited utility for foraging and resting purposes. However, a relatively small portion of the borrow pit also contains habitat features that may support green sea turtle foraging and/or resting behaviors. Specifically, the borrow site contains artificial reef modules that are part of a larger artificial reef complex established offshore Oceanside. Each reef module was constructed of 10,000 tons of quarry rock arranged over 128 acres in twenty four-modules. Four pairs of modules were constructed along each of three depth contours: shallow (42 ft), mid-depth (57 ft), and deep (72 ft) (Bedford 1993).

The borrow site contains two and a half module pairs along the reef complex’s shallow contour.

A variety of fish, invertebrates, turf algae, and macroalgae were observed on these reef modules.

The relatively high productivity of these reef features and the crevices provided by the threedimensional structure may attract green sea turtles to use this area for foraging and/or resting.

Adjacent to the borrow site is Oceanside Harbor and the Del Mar Boat Basin, which also contains potential foraging and resting habitat. Eelgrass habitat occurs in both of these harbors (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2023). In addition, the artificial reef structure provided by the jetties 1139
21 and breakwater may support algae and invertebrate foraging resources, and underwater refugia for resting. For example, elsewhere in the U.S., Renaud et al. (1994) found that juvenile green turtles were closely associated with jetty habitat in south Texas and were likely to forage along extensive algal mats that occur there.

Figure 4: Rocky reef and hard bottom benthic habitat offshore San Clemente.

The small foraging population of green sea turtles at La Jolla Cove have been observed foraging and resting in habitat similar to that provided at the San Clemente site. The main prey item consumed by the small resident foraging population at La Jolla Shores was a filamentous species of Rhodophyta, red algae (Hanna et al. 2021), which is also found at the San Clemente site. The action area contains a variety of habitat features that support the foraging resources described above. We would expect that any green sea turtle found in the vicinity of rocky reef habitat supporting surfgrass, algae, and invertebrates would likely take advantage of the foraging opportunity, if available, and it is possible that these habitat features along the stretch of coastline where the Project is proposed to occur may attract green sea turtles to the area or increase the likelihood that turtles remain in the area longer than if simply transiting through.

After consideration of the available stranding and sighting data, as well as the high quality habitat features at the San Clemente site, NMFS believes the likelihood of frequent occurrence by a number of sea turtles in the action area during significant portions of every year throughout the duration of the project is moderately high.

Coastal Development
1140
22 In addition to the threats described above associated with turtle strandings, the following additional threats to green sea turtles and their foraging and resting habitat are known to occur in the action area. The USACE conducts maintenance dredging in Oceanside Harbor to support safe commercial, recreational, and military navigation operations. Construction occurs annually each spring, and involves dredging up to approximately 500,000 cubic yards. Dredging and disposal operations have the potential to result in direct interactions with turtles and/or modify green sea turtle foraging and/or resting behavior. City of San Clemente was previously issued a regional general permit for opportunistic beach nourishment activities at the Project sediment disposal location, but it was used only twice. In June 2005, approximately 5,000 cy of sediment was placed in the Project vicinity; and in November 2016, approximately 12,000 cy of sediment was placed in the Project vicinity. Sedimentation associated with beach nourishment has the potential to modify green sea turtle foraging and/or resting behaviors associated with adjacent rocky reef habitat. Military operations in the offshore environment between Oceanside and San Clemente have the potential to result in direct turtle interactions due to the various vessel operations associated with military exercises. In addition, immediately adjacent to Oceanside Harbor, various marina and dock related projects have occurred at the Del Mar Boat Basin. Some projects have resulted in adverse impacts to eelgrass habitat necessitating eelgrass mitigation in the area. These activities have the potential to modify green sea turtle foraging and/or resting behaviors. In addition, a significant artificial reef associated with SONGS’s mitigation obligations occurs immediately offshore the action area. Phase 3 of the SONGS project was completed in 2020, which increased the artificial reef to 373 acres of low relief reef with ~45% cover of rock (UCSB 2023). The SONGS artificial reef contains moderately high quality foraging and resting features similar to natural rocky reef habitat.

Climate Change
Increased storm intensity and frequency may increase the rate of disturbance to surfgrass, algae, and invertebrate communities that typically inhabit shallow nearshore rocky reef habitat, which may reduce the quality of foraging resources for green sea turtles throughout their range, including in and around the action area. In addition, increasing ocean temperatures may increase the frequency and duration of green sea turtles in the action area. Green sea turtles are dependent on the ambient ocean temperature to support physiological processes such as digestion and growth (Avery et al., 1993). As sea temperatures increase, we anticipate the thermal properties of the action area to allow for greater foraging access and use, and may allow for higher growth rates, as observed elsewhere in thermal refuges found in southern California (e.g., Eguchi et al., 2012). Increased use of the area may increase the risk of exposure to harmful interactions with dredging operations.

5. Effects of the Action
Under the ESA, “effects of the action” are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action (see 50 CFR 402.02). A consequence is caused by the proposed 1141
23 action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur.

Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action (see 50 CFR 402.17). In our analysis, which describes the effects of the proposed action, we considered the factors set forth in 50 CFR 402.17(a) and (b).

Approach to the Effects Analysis
NMFS determines the effects of the action using a sequence of steps. In this analysis, the first step identifies stressors (or benefits) associated with the proposed action with regard to listed species. The second step identities the magnitude of stressors (e.g., duration, extent, and frequency of the stressor and how many individuals of a listed species will be exposed to the stressors; exposure analysis). The third step describes how the exposed individuals are likely to respond to these stressors (e.g., behavioral changes or the injury or mortality rate of exposed individuals; response analysis). The final step in determining the effect of the action is establishing the risks those responses pose to listed species (risk analysis). In this step of our analysis, we will relate information on the number and age (or life stage), if applicable, of the individuals likely to be exposed to the proposed action's effects, along with the likely responses of those individuals to the proposed action, to an expected impact on the populations or subpopulations those individuals represent.

5.5.1. Exposure and Response
The information presented above in Section 2.4 Environmental Baseline: Status in the Action Area suggests that green sea turtle occurrence in the action area is likely. Given the limited amount of scientific study of green sea turtle abundance and distribution in the area, we do not have a specific estimate for the number of turtles that may reside within or occasionally visit the action area. Although occurrence may be relatively less likely or frequent during the early spring and winter months when water temperatures are coldest, NMFS has reasonable certainty that green sea turtles could occur within the action area at any time during the year, and the likelihood of frequent occurrence by a number of sea turtles in the action area during significant portions of every year throughout the duration of the project is moderately high. As a result, the effects analysis herein considers the significance of the action area for green sea turtles throughout the entire year, and assumes that presence will occur in varying degrees throughout the year, and during all of the proposed project activities.

Potential effects to green sea turtles from the proposed project would include: (1) direct contact injury associated with dredging, in-water construction, and vessel support operations; (2) general construction disturbance; and (3) impacts to foraging and resting habitat resulting from alteration or disturbance of benthic habitats from sediment disposal activities. Below we describe the exposure of green sea turtles to general construction activity disturbances, direct contact with construction activities, and changes to foraging habitats and the resulting responses of exposed sea turtles to those consequences of the proposed action. 1142
24 Direct Contact Injury
Dredges, particularly hopper dredges, have the potential to exert significant injuries to sea turtles if they interact during dredging operations. Green sea turtles can become entrained in hopper dredges as the draghead moves along the bottom. Entrainment occurs when turtles cannot escape from the suction of the dredge and they are sucked into the dredge draghead, pumped through the intake pipe, and then killed as they cycle through the centrifugal pump and into the hopper (NMFS 2020). Because entrainment is believed to occur primarily while the draghead is operating on the bottom, it is likely that only those species feeding or resting on or near the bottom would be vulnerable to entrainment. They can also be entrained if suction is created in the draghead by current flow while the device is being placed or removed, or if the dredge is operating on an uneven or rocky substrate and rises off the bottom. Hopper dredge encounters with sea turtles are known to occur in the Southeastern U.S. and have been formally consulted upon numerous times by USACE and NMFS (NMFS 2020). Trailing suction hopper dredge operations in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions have resulted in more than 112 green sea turtle incidental take occurrences between 1995 and 2017 (Ramirez et al. 2017). In 2012, a dead green sea turtle was found near Encinitas in northern San Diego County with injuries consistent with contact from a hopper dredge (Harris 2014). NMFS understands that dredging activities coincident with the Regional Beach Sand Project Phase 2 permitted by the USACE were occurring in the vicinity of Encinitas during that time period, although that project was much larger in geographic scope.

The borrow site offshore Oceanside is predominantly soft bottom habitat with limited habitat value to support foraging and resting behaviors. Thus, NMFS green sea turtle use of that area may not be as frequent as other more preferred habitats in this region. However, a relatively small portion of the borrow pit also contains a few small artificial reef mounds that may support green sea turtle foraging and/or resting behaviors. Although there has been no directed study of green sea turtle distribution and movements within the action area, NMFS believes it is unlikely that green sea turtles routinely utilize the artificial reef modules within the sediment borrow pit given that they are relatively isolated from other significant areas of rocky reef habitat that likely provide more attractive and higher quality foraging and resting support. However, it is possible that occasional visits associated with coastal foraging and/or migratory turtles could occur. If turtles were to utilize the artificial reef modules for occasional foraging and/or resting purposes, the USACE’s proposed avoidance of the immediate area by establishing an operational 300 foot buffer zone should help minimize the risk of entrainment or direct contact injury.

The Project includes monitoring and avoidance measures, which should reduce the likelihood of a harmful dredging interaction. However, visual monitoring methods may be limited during nighttime operations and/or heightened sea state. Green turtle dive duration may exceed 60 minutes, and green turtles only require two to three seconds to empty and refill their lungs.

During winter months and/or cold water periods, the dive duration typically increases (Madrak et al. 2022). Given the potential brief time period at the surface, prolonged submergence time underwater, and the relatively small visual target provided by a surfacing turtle head, visual 1143
25 monitoring methods may fail to detect green sea turtles in the action area during dredging operations.

Although we do not have an extensive record of mortality and/or injury associated with hopper dredges in southern California, we cannot discount the possibility of such an occurrence given the known presence of turtles in the action area, a previously documented stranding described as consistent with a harmful dredging interaction that was coincident with a similar project in northern San Diego County, and the 50 year time horizon of the Project. Each nourishment event involves dredging approximately 250,000 cy of sediment with 42 days of construction. Thus, green sea turtles in the action area would only be exposed to the risks of dredging interaction during a relatively brief period of time within the year. Therefore, NMFS does not believe the Project would necessarily result in multiple mortalities or injuries associated with the dredging operations. Based upon green sea turtle incidental take information associated with hopper dredging in the Southeast from 2014 through 2018, approximately one turtle was entrained for approximately every 2.7 million cys of dredged sediment (NMFS 2020). The Project anticipates dredging approximately 2.75 million cys over the course of 50 years. Although the data from the Southeast is not directly applicable to southern California given significantly more turtles in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region, it provides some context to estimate entrainment risk to green sea turtles during dredging over the entire 50-year life of this proposed action. Given the available information, we conclude that one harmful green sea turtle interaction that could lead to a significant injury or mortality may occur during the course of this proposed action.

The Project also has the potential to result in direct contact injuries associated with vessel collisions. As described in the Environmental Baseline (section 2.4), vessel collisions are one of the most common sources of injury to sea turtles in southern California. However, the risks of direct contact injury for green sea turtles as a result of Project vessel operations is low given that most project vessels will limit their speed to inside wake zone speeds. The hopper dredge will move at more moderate speeds, up to 13 knots when unloaded. Given the benthic behavioral tendency of green sea turtles and the relatively deep water over which the hopper dredge will be transiting, we do not anticipate a high risk of collision. In addition, a green sea turtle monitor will be onboard the hopper during transit to and from the Oceanside Borrow Site to communicate if there is a need to cease or alter operations to avoid a collision with an observed turtle. The only additional in-water construction equipment associated with beach nourishment is the monobuoy and associated floating section of pipeline extending 1,500 feet to the shoreline at the San Clemente sediment disposal location. As this equipment will be stationary and floating, it is extremely unlikely that any measurable direct contact injury could result from these Project components.

Lastly, the Project has the potential to result in direct contact injuries associated with creation of shallow rocky reef as compensatory mitigation for any burial and/or adverse sedimentation effects. Although no detailed information was provided regarding reef construction, we assume the USACE would utilize a barge capable of transporting and placing reef construction materials (e.g., quarry rock, reef modules) and any necessary support vessels. Such vessel operations 1144
26 typically operate as low enough speeds to avoid risk of direct contact injury. If green sea turtles were resting on the seafloor at the time of rock placement, turtles could be crushed or injured by the falling rock. However, NMFS believes such an occurrence to be extremely unlikely given the noise and disturbance associated with barge operations and anchoring. In addition, reef placement would occur in soft bottom areas that would be less likely to support resting turtles.

We anticipate that turtles would avoid the reef placement area once the construction disturbance commences.

General construction disturbance
In general, all in-water construction projects present some risk of disturbance to any green sea turtles that may be present in the action area. In particular, proposed project activities that may involve the generation of loud underwater sounds have the potential to create disturbance for any green sea turtles in the vicinity. We expect that any individual turtles in the action area will generally attempt to avoid the immediate area where in-water construction noise is occurring.

Avoidance of the immediate project area for relatively short periods of time during the 4 month construction window is not likely to be significant, given the relatively limited spatial scope of in-water construction work compared to available habitat elsewhere in the action area. Although renourishment events will introduce similar temporary disturbances in the future, they do not pose a cumulative effect of concern given the approximate 6 year time interval between events.

If reef placement were to occur as compensatory mitigation, we assume that construction window would be similar or less. Therefore, we expect avoidance of the project area due to reef placement is also not likely to be significant.

Impacts to foraging and resting habitat
Sediment from the beach fill project will be redistributed by wave and tidal energy onto nearshore areas, which may bury rocky reef habitat, surfgrass, algae, and benthic invertebrates that support green sea turtle foraging and resting behavior. Sediment is expected to persist within the equilibration footprint for 6 years. The burial impacts will decrease as the fill naturally erodes, which will begin after equilibration is reached. At the end of approximately 6 years, the beach and nearshore profiles are expected to return to existing conditions, which triggers a renourishment event that begins another cycle of burial and/or sedimentation impacts.

Based upon information provided by the USACE, anticipated impacts to nearshore rocky reef habitat cannot be quantified with high temporal or spatial certainty due to modeling constraints.

In their previous 2012 response, the USACE estimated one acre of reef burial as a reasonable worst-case scenario, and they used that impact estimate to calculate contingency costs for compensatory mitigation. However, this estimate was based on the assumption that there was only five acres of rocky reef in the sediment equilibrium footprint. Based upon acoustic surveys conducted in 2018, approximately 58 acres of rocky reef habitat (i.e., bedrock and cobble substrate) occurs within the sediment equilibrium footprint (Nearshore and Wetland Surveys 2018; Howo, personal communication). An updated quantitative impact assessment was not 1145
27 provided by the USACE and the previous environmental documentation did not clearly explain how the USACE determined one acre of reef burial was the worst case estimate. The USACE’s original worst case burial estimate is equivalent to 20% of the reef area previously assumed to occur within the sediment equilibrium footprint. In the absence of a more sophisticated sediment transport modeling analysis, NMFS assumes the worst case burial estimate is proportional to the area of reef subject to sedimentation within the equilibrium footprint. Thus, NMFS assumes that up to 11.6 acres (20% of 58 acres) of rocky reef may be adversely affected through sedimentation and burial effects. Sediment may eventually be redistributed by waves and currents outside the sediment equilibrium footprint allowing for some level of recovery, but the renourishment events may subsequently result in similar levels of burial resulting in a persistent cycle of habitat degradation over the course of the proposed action.

As mentioned above, green sea turtles are known to occur and transit within the action area, and may be found in the project area at any time during the year and take advantage of the available foraging and resting habitat in the project area, although NMFS anticipates reduced activity and/or presence during cold water periods. Rocky reef sedimentation and burial would likely reduce the quantity and quality of algae, invertebrates, and surfgrass, which would decrease the availability of foraging resources in the impact footprint. Sedimentation may also reduce the size and/or availability of reef crevices and overhangs that could support resting behavior. This reduction in the quantity and/or quality of rocky reef and associated biological communities would likely disrupt foraging and/or resting behaviors. Although the duration of sedimentation effects is uncertain, the project has a 50 year life span with multiple renourishment events. Based upon the above, NMFS concludes there will be persistent rocky reef habitat degradation and loss of potential green sea turtle foraging habitat as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, NMFS assumes the effects to foraging and resting behaviors would persist throughout the life of the project.

Although disruption of normal behaviors and movements for green turtles in and around the vicinity of the project area is relatively straightforward to anticipate based on the project description and our general understanding of green turtle behavior, it is very difficult to quantify the impacts of this disruption on the health of individual green turtles. A search of the scientific literature suggests that virtually no directed studies of sea turtle health effects resulting from behavior disruption have been conducted, so we do not have available scientific information to directly point to for this analysis. Instead, we must rely upon general biological and ecological principles to understand what the results of these impacts could be. Conceptually, we recognize that disruptions of important functions and behavior such as regular foraging and resting patterns can have adverse effects on the health of individual sea turtles. Possible adverse effects could include increased energy expenditures, reduced nutritional intake, temporary disorientation, or temporary abandonment of preferred habitat. It is possible that disruption could influence behavior patterns such that some individuals may discover or develop new areas of preferred habitat in other locations. Unfortunately, we also do not have any direct scientific information available to inform establishment of any thresholds for exactly how long or intense the disruptions have to be in order to produce some measurable reduction in overall health or fitness. 1146
28 Currently, general characterizations of the health of individual sea turtles are not understood beyond obvious physical appearance without sophisticated veterinary examinations or laboratory analysis, typically conducted only on deceased individuals. The scale of possible impacts occasional, sustained, or multiple disruptions of normal behavior and life functions over extensive periods could have on the near-term health or fitness of a green turtle is expected to be highly variable and unique to each individual. In other analyses of potential impacts from coastal development projects, disruptions of behavioral patterns in those instances generally would have occurred in areas away from where NMFS expects green turtles typically spend significant portions of their time. Therefore, potential disruptions of behaviors for any period of time in those areas was not likely to significantly impact or disrupt their regular foraging movement and behavior patterns. This expectation supported conclusions that any regular or sustained disruptions of behavior in those areas was unlikely to have any detectable effect on health.

However, for this proposed action we cannot reach the same conclusions. The proposed project occurs in an area where multiple individuals of the species are expected to spend time foraging, resting, and/or migrating. We expect potential sedimentation effects will result in persistent changes to important biological and physical features that support normal foraging and resting behaviors. Therefore, we conclude the project will likely result in adverse effects through a significant disruption of normal behavior patterns that creates the likelihood of injury to the exposed individuals.
2 The USACE has committed to implementing a rocky reef and surfgrass monitoring and mitigation plan to address sedimentation effects on nearshore reef communities. The USACE confirmed that the monitoring and analytical methods used would be adequate to identify and accurately measure impacts from the beach nourishment effort, and their final monitoring and mitigation reporting plan would ensure that appropriate mitigation sites are available to address potential impacts and that the success criteria and analytical methods used are adequate to demonstrate a difference between impact/mitigation sites and control sites. If adverse effects occur to rocky reef and/or surfgrass habitat, the USACE would create shallow rocky habitat 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 would be implemented. However, a final detailed mitigation plan and associated construction approach was not provided by the USACE. Therefore, it is uncertain to what extent the USACE’s compensatory mitigation approach would specifically benefit green sea turtles. Although the beneficial effects of the compensatory mitigation are difficult to describe given the limited information provided by the USACE, NMFS does not

2 In 2016, NMFS completed formal ESA consultation with the USACE that concluded disturbance from an eelgrass mitigation project that was proposed to be conducted in an area where high concentrations of green sea turtles were expected to occur in South San Diego Bay resulted in “take” in the form of harassment (NMFS 2016b). In 2019, NMFS completed formal ESA consultation with the U.S. Navy that concluded sustained disturbance and disruption of green sea turtle behaviors in and around Anaheim Bay could diminish the health and fitness of individuals for periods throughout the duration of a proposed action (NMFS 2019). 1147
29 anticipate that rocky reef creation and/or surfgrass transplants would likely have any long term adverse effects to green sea turtle foraging and/or resting habitat.

Risk
As described in Section 5.5.1 Exposure and Response, we conclude that direct injury and disruption of normal behaviors resulting from the Project is likely to occur and result in adverse health effects to any individual sea turtles that reside or visit the action area where the proposed dredging and beach nourishment will occur. In particular, exposure to hopper dredging operations during multiple nourishment events over a 50 year time horizon may injure or kill green sea turtles at the sediment borrow site location. In addition, potential disruption of foraging and resting from loss and/or avoidance of rocky reef habitat at the nourishment site is anticipated to occur. The effects to turtles associated with rocky reef sedimentation impacts are uncertain, but disruption of normal foraging and resting patterns can have adverse impacts on the relative health of individuals. The definition of “take” under the ESA includes the term “harass,” but that term is not further defined in the ESA. As described in Section 2.1. Analytical Approach in this biological opinion under our Interim Guidance (NMFS 2016a), we interpret harassment under the ESA to equate to significant disruption of normal behavior patterns (e.g., foraging) that could reasonably be expected, alone or in concert with other factors, to create or increase the risk of negatively affecting an ESA-listed animal's growth, health, reproductive success, and/or ability to survive (i.e., an effect that results from a more than inconsequential behavioral response). For the purposes of this analysis, we conclude that the proposed actions are expected to create or increase the risk of adversely affecting ESA-listed green sea turtles in the action area through significant disruption of normal behaviors patterns associated repeated sedimentation effects that will last throughout the duration of the Project.

In Section 2.4 Environmental Baseline: Status in the Action Area, we reviewed the available information regarding the abundance of green sea turtles in the area. Given the limited amount of scientific study in the area, we do not have a specific estimate for the number of turtles that may reside within or occasionally visit the action area. We assume that all individuals and demographic types that may occur in the action area are equally vulnerable to exposure to the effects of the Project. Although we do not have an extensive record of mortality and/or injury associated with hopper dredges in southern California, we cannot discount the possibility of such an occurrence. As a result, we concluded that up to one green sea turtle may be killed by the proposed action. Assuming a worst case scenario that the killed turtle is a reproductive female, such a loss would only result in a 0.005% reduction (one out of more than 20,000 nesting females) in the current estimated female green sea turtle nesting population of the East Pacific DPS, at most.

We also expect green sea turtles to be disrupted by project sedimentation effects, and/or be forced to move around or away from the project area. We acknowledge that the overall impact of these behavioral disruptions on the growth, health, fitness, or reproduction of an individual sea turtle is very uncertain, and likely to vary by individual. Ultimately, we conclude that the likely 1148
30 responses for at least some exposed individuals would be reflective of adverse effects to health and behavior as a result of harassment due to expected project activities and impacts.

The adverse effects identified are relevant to dredging operations at the sediment borrow site offshore Oceanside Harbor and the beach nourishment site at San Clemente, and may begin as early as fall 2023. Although there are risks of detectable impacts to individuals associated with nearshore rocky reef sedimentation, we do not expect any significant long-term impacts that would result in the actual death or injury of any individual green turtles. The area affected by project activities is relatively small compared to amount of rocky reef and associated biological communities elsewhere in the action area and general vicinity. Based on our general understanding of green sea turtle behavior, we expect turtles may avoid the sediment borrow site area during dredging operations and the affected nearshore reefs at San Clemente, and utilize other parts of the action area, as well as other locations closer to the known resident populations.

While physical or physiological impacts associated with increased stress levels or reduced nutritional intake as a result of disruption in normal behaviors are likely to occur to some degree, we expect these affects to be temporary. Given that the affected reef area is relatively small compared to reef available elsewhere in the general vicinity, we conclude that adequate habitat exists beyond the project area with sufficient carrying capacity to support green sea turtles without any risks of long-term reduction in their overall fitness.

Following the completion of the proposed project, we expect the green sea turtles will adjust and/or resume their normal and preferred behavior and movement patterns within the action area.

Although the short-and-long term impacts of disturbance to sea turtles are not well documented, the available evidence suggests that the anticipated level of disturbance would not trigger significant long-term changes in behavior patterns on a large scale. Regardless of the exact extent of disturbance, avoidance, disruption, or displacement that occurs for any individual turtle during the proposed project, we expect the adverse effects associated with disruptions of important foraging and resting behaviors to be confined within the relatively small action area and duration of project construction and repeated nourishment events. As a result, there should be no detectable long-term impact of the proposed project on green sea turtles beyond disruptions that may occur during the proposed action.

In this opinion, we acknowledged that climate change could influence green sea turtle occurrence and their movement patterns, and the distribution of important habitat features within the action area. NMFS believes the recovering east Pacific green turtle population will likely result in more turtles entering the action area in the future (e.g., Eguchi et al. 2020). In addition, NMFS anticipates that increasing sea surface temperature associated with climate change may increase the frequency and duration of green sea turtle use of nearshore marine areas in southern California. The increasing population and sea surface temperature trends may increase the number of green sea turtles exposed to Project impacts over the life of the proposed action. 1149
31 6. Cumulative Effects
“Cumulative effects” are those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation [50 CFR 402.02 and 402.17(a)]. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.

Most of the projects that are expected to continue over time require Federal permits (e.g., USACE) or are Federal actions which are expected to be subject to future consultation under the ESA and are therefore not Cumulative Effects. After considering the available information, we have determined that current and continuing non-Federal actions that may continue to occur in the action area and may be affecting green sea turtles in the action area are already addressed in the Environmental Baseline section.

Some continuing non-Federal activities are reasonably certain to contribute to climate effects within the action area. However, it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish between the action area’s future environmental conditions caused by global climate change that are properly part of the environmental baseline vs. cumulative effects. Therefore, all relevant future climate-related environmental conditions in the action area are described earlier in the discussion of environmental baseline (Section 2.4).

7. Integration and Synthesis
The Integration and Synthesis section is the final step in assessing the risk that the proposed action poses to species and critical habitat. In this section, we add the effects of the action (Section 2.5) to the environmental baseline (Section 2.4) and the cumulative effects (Section

2.6), taking into account the status of the species (Section 2.2), to formulate the agency’s biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely to: (1) reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing its numbers, reproduction, or distribution; or (2) appreciably diminish the value of designated or proposed critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of the species.

NMFS has determined green sea turtle occurrence in the action area is likely given the relatively high number of stranding and sighting observations, as well as the abundant nearshore rocky reef habitat which likely supports foraging and resting behaviors. However, we do not have a specific estimate for the number of turtles that may reside within or occasionally visit the action area given the lack of scientific study of green sea turtle distribution and abundance in the area. At a minimum, green sea turtles from adjacent resident populations are occasionally using the action area to support foraging forays and resting behavior. It is also possible that a small resident populations may be present in the general vicinity similar to the recently described La Jolla Cove resident population (Hanna et al. 2021).
1150
32 Based on the analysis of potential effects considered in this biological opinion, we determined the Project may result in direct contact injury or death associated with hopper dredging operations. NMFS believes the recovering east Pacific green turtle population will likely result in more turtles entering the action area in the future (e.g., Eguchi et al. 2020). In addition, NMFS anticipates that increasing sea surface temperature associated with climate change may increase the frequency and duration of green sea turtle use of nearshore marine areas in southern California. Given the current understanding of exposure risk and likely increased exposure into the future, we were unable to conclude such effects are discountable, but we do not anticipate multiple occurrences of injury or death. As a result, we assume that up to one green sea turtle mortality may occur, which would be a negligible reduction to the population of East Pacific DPS green sea turtles.

We have also determined that some green sea turtles that may occur in the action area would be incidentally harassed through significant disruption of normal behavior patterns over the duration of the proposed project due to burial and/or sedimentation effects on nearshore rocky reef habitat. We have determined that affected turtles could be of any age or sex in this population.

Although we conclude that some turtles will experience adverse effects from disruption of normal behavior and movement patterns, we have also concluded that there is adequate habitat in the vicinity outside of the impact footprint to support green sea turtles during this time, and that all individual green turtles affected by sedimentation related effects will ultimately survive the disturbance and resume normal behavior and movement patterns outside the localized impact footprint and/or after the project is complete. As a result, we have concluded the effects associated with nearshore reef sedimentation and/or burial are ultimately not likely to have a detectable impact on the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the foraging population of ESA-listed green sea turtles in the action area or Eastern Pacific DPS green turtle population structure and diversity. Given the expected lack of any significant long-term impacts on the population, we conclude that the proposed action is not likely to produce any detectable reduction in the ability of ESA-listed green sea turtles to adapt or be resilient to climate change in any way.

When considering the effects of the Project to the status, environmental baseline, and cumulative effects of other activities, and the anticipated effects of climate change over the foreseeable future, NMFS anticipates a negligible reduction in the numbers, reproduction, or distribution of green sea turtles and therefore no appreciable reduction in the likelihood of survival and recovery of the East Pacific DPS green sea turtles.

8. Conclusion
After reviewing and analyzing the current status of the listed species, the environmental baseline within the action area, the effects of the proposed action, the effects of other activities caused by the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is NMFS’ biological opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of East Pacific DPS green sea turtles. 1151
33 No critical habitat has been designated or proposed for this species; therefore, none was analyzed.

9. Incidental Take Statement
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special exemption. “Take” is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined by regulation to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 222.102). “Harass” is further defined by interim guidance as to “create the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” “Incidental take” is defined by regulation as takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR 402.02). Section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) provide that taking that is incidental to an otherwise lawful agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA if that action is performed in compliance with the terms and conditions of this ITS.

As described earlier, NMFS has interpreted “harass” to mean creating the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering."

1. Amount or Extent of Take
In the biological opinion, we described incidental take of green sea turtles residing and/or transiting through the action area through injury or death associated with hopper dredging operations. In addition, we described harassment as a result of disruption of normal foraging and behavior patterns due to the Project. Given the limited amount of scientific study of green sea turtle distribution and abundance in the area, we do not have a specific estimate for the number of turtles that may reside within or occasionally visit the action area. Therefore, it is difficult to quantify the number of turtles that would be exposed to Project effects. We expect that affected individuals comprise an unknown mix of male and female juveniles and adults.

Ultimately, because we were unable to discount the possibility of direct contact injury or death associated with hopper dredging operations based on the available information, we have determined that up to one green turtle is expected to be killed or injured through a harmful interaction with a hopper dredge over the course of the proposed action. If any green sea turtles are observed stranded within the vicinity of the action area at any time during the proposed construction activities, or within 60 days following conclusion of proposed construction, NMFS will evaluate the likely cause of the stranding and the overall health of the individual. Based on those results, we may determine if take will have occurred as a result of the proposed action. If 1152
34 Project monitoring and stranding observations indicate more than one green sea turtle is determined to have received an injury or be killed through direct contact with the proposed action, then take will have occurred in excess of what has been considered in this biological opinion.

Harassment as a result of disruption of normal foraging and behavior patterns may occur through changes in turtle movement, foraging, and resting behaviors due to avoidance of the project area, and reduction in habitat usage of affected nearshore rocky reefs and biological communities. We acknowledge that the overall impact of these behavioral disruptions on the growth, health, fitness, or reproduction of an individual sea turtle is uncertain, and likely to vary by individual.

We expect all of these individuals to survive, and to eventually resume normal patterns and health after the project is completed.

Given the combined uncertainty associated with the number of exposed turtles and the biological effect of the anticipated behavioral disruptions, and because this harassment is expected to occur through the pathways of disturbed and degraded habitats or avoidance of certain areas, we will quantify anticipated incidental take through the use of surrogate indicators of habitat disturbance or avoidance. NMFS expects that up to 11.6 acres of nearshore rocky reef and associated biological communities in the sediment equilibrium footprint, would be adversely affected by sedimentation and/or burial. If the Project results in greater impacts to nearshore rocky reef habitat in the action area, then anticipated incidental take may have been exceeded. NMFS will also evaluate the results of any research conducted on green sea turtles in the area before, during, and after the proposed project that may inform our understanding of effects associated with reduced foraging and/or resting habitat in the action area to determine if take has occurred in excess of what has been considered in this biological opinion.

2. Effect of the Take
In the biological opinion, NMFS determined that the amount or extent of anticipated take, coupled with other effects of the proposed action, is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species.

3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures
“Reasonable and prudent measures” are measures that are necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of the amount or extent of incidental take (50 CFR 402.02).

1. The USACE shall implement measures to monitor, document, and report all incidental take of green sea turtles resulting from the Project.

2. The USACE shall implement measures to minimize the risk of injury associated with dredging operations, and minimize the extent of disruption of normal foraging and behavior patterns of green sea turtles.
1153
35 4. Terms and Conditions
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the Federal action agency must comply with the following terms and conditions. The USACE has a continuing duty to monitor the impacts of incidental take and must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species as specified in this ITS (50 CFR 402.14). If the entity to whom a term and condition is directed does not comply with the following terms and conditions, protective coverage for the proposed action would likely lapse.

1. The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 1:
1A. Prior to initiating the proposed project, the USACE shall provide NMFS WCR an updated schedule for the anticipated start and completion of project activities of in-water work. The updated schedule shall be provided to Dan Lawson via electronic mail ([email protected]) or the following address:

Dan Lawson, Branch Chief
NMFS West Coast Region Protected Resources Division
7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bldg 1
Seattle WA 98115
1B. The USACE shall monitor the project area as described in section 1.3 and record the presence and behavior of green sea turtles that are observed by project monitors within and around the proposed project. In addition to a monitor onboard the hopper dredge, a qualified biologist or qualified monitor with experience monitoring green sea turtles will be onboard any construction barge used for creating rocky reefs as compensatory mitigation, and will monitor for the presence and behavior of green sea turtles. To the extent possible, biological monitors shall attempt to photograph surfacing sea turtles (typically head photographs) observed in the action area and provide the images to NMFS. The USACE should also summarize all pertinent details regarding the progress and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures used during the proposed project, along with an assessment of potential impacts that may have occurred as a result of project activities based on what was observed. This information shall be reported to NMFS as outlined in 1C.
1C. Upon completion of each nourishment event and any compensatory mitigation activities, the USACE shall complete a report summarizing all data recorded during all monitoring throughout all phases of the proposed project, including all documentation and summary analysis of the presence and behavior of green sea turtles, effectiveness of the monitoring and avoidance measures, and assessment of any potential impacts that may have occurred throughout the entire proposed action. The summary observation report shall include at least the following information: number(s), estimated size/age class (if applicable), date, locations (latitude and longitude), and behaviors associated with the observations of any ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction (e.g., sea turtles and ESA-listed marine mammals). The report shall be 1154
36 provided to NMFS WCR within 120 days following completion of all project activities by email to [email protected] or the address listed above.
1D. Prior to initiating the proposed project, the USACE shall provide NMFS WCR an updated monitoring plan for minimizing and avoiding the impacts of project activities on sea turtles. This plan should specify the project activity monitoring zone and the response of project activities if protected species are observed in this zone for each type of project activity. The plan should be provided to Dan Lawson at the same email address above. 1E. The USACE shall require project monitors, key contractor and USACE project personnel to attend a project briefing prior to starting work the proposed project. The project briefing shall review the protocols for minimization and avoidance of impacts to sea turtles as described in this biological opinion, as well as review the latest scientific information regarding green sea turtle ecology in the action area.
1F. Prior to initiating the proposed project and in coordination with NMFS WCR, the USACE shall develop and provide NMFS WCR a detailed final monitoring and mitigation reporting plan regarding Project effects on nearshore rocky reef habitat and associated biological communities.

The USACE shall coordinate with Bryant Chesney ([email protected]) prior to final submission. The final plan and any updates shall be provided to Dan Lawson at the email address identified above. The monitoring and mitigation plan shall be developed to address and evaluate:
 the accuracy of key assumptions and expectations regarding the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed action in comparison to any resulting impacts that do occur;
 the adequacy of the monitoring and analytical methods to identify and accurately measure impacts from the beach nourishment effort.
 physical and biological monitoring of key habitat features throughout the sediment equilibrium footprint, such as the area of bedrock, boulder, cobble, and sand bottom habitat, as well as indicators of habitat quality, such as surfgrass, algae, and invertebrate cover and abundance;
 appropriate mitigation sites for rocky reef creation and/or alternative mitigation activities that could enhance the quantity and/or quality of green sea turtle foraging and resting habitat; and
 reporting timeline and process for documenting the extent of incidental take of green sea turtles through nearshore reef burial and/or sedimentation. At a minimum, the monitoring plan should report the extent of reef habitat within the sediment equilibrium footprint and quantify any reduction in rocky reef area. In addition, the report shall document any reductions in cover of surfgrass, macroalgae, and sessile invertebrates within the sediment equilibrium footprint. A draft report for each monitoring event shall be provided to NMFS WCR within 60 days following completion of habitat monitoring activities by email to [email protected], with a final report provided within 90 days.
1155
37 1G. Prior to initiation of any future beach renourishment events, the USACE shall develop, in coordination with NMFS WCR, a standardized and consistent protocol for assessing impacts to nearshore rocky reef communities for future events based upon consideration of any deficiencies identified in development of the final monitoring and mitigation reporting plan described in 1F above, information collected from monitoring during the initial nourishment event, and other relevant impact assessment approaches used for similar types of projects. The protocol and any updates shall be provided to Dan Lawson at the same email address listed above. 1H. The USACE shall report any incidents or observations of injuries and/or mortalities of green sea turtles to the NMFS West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator, Justin Viezbicke, at 562-980- 3230 or [email protected], as soon as practicable. In the event an injury or mortality of a green sea turtle occurs at any time during the proposed project, the USACE shall cease any activities that may have resulted in the injury or mortality until such time as they evaluate the cause of the harm and consider application of additional protective measures to address those circumstances, in consultation with NMFS.

2. The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 2:
2A. Hopper dredge requirements
During all hopper dredging operations, a qualified biologist will monitor for the presence of ESA-listed green sea turtles. The dredge operator will maintain a safe working environment for the biological monitor to access and effectively monitor inflow screening, overflow screening, and dragheads for incidental take of ESA-listed green sea turtles after every load.

Draghead observation:

Upon completion of each load cycle, dragheads will be monitored as the draghead is lifted from the seafloor and placed on the saddle in order to ensure that any ESA-listed species that may be impinged within the draghead are observed and accounted for. The qualified biologist, or designated crew member under the guidance and supervision of the qualified biologist when safety is of concern, must physically inspect dragheads for evidence of any ESA-listed green sea turtle interaction after every load.

Inflow screening Observation:

Inflow screening must be designed to capture and retain material for the qualified biologist to monitor for the presence of ESA-listed species. The screened area must be accessible to the biological monitor to ensure 100% observer coverage. The biological monitor must inspect the contents of all inflow screening boxes after every load, including opening the box (where applicable and safely accessible) and looking inside at all contents for evidence of ESA-listed species entrainment. If the contents are not clearly visible and identifiable from a location 1156
38 outside of the box, then in limited instances, the biological monitor may be required to enter the inflow box to identify contents for evidence of ESA-listed species take.

All hopper dredges are required to have 100% inflow screening unless they must be removed for safety due to clogging as outlined below.
 Inflow screening size will start at 4-inch by 4-inch, but may be gradually adjusted to a larger screen size if clogging reduces the ability for the qualified biologist to monitor the inflow for the presence of ESA-listed species or if clogging reduces dredging production and thereby expands the time dredging is required. Scenarios that may result in the clogging of inflow and overflow screens are dredge and project specific.  All modifications will be made in close coordination with the dredging contractor, qualified biologist, appropriate USACE project managers, and NMFS. The USACE will provide NMFS with a notification when screen sizes are increased or inflow screens are removed that will include an explanation of what attempts were made to reduce the clogging problem, how long the problem may persist, and how effective overflow screening will be achieved.
 If inflow screens are increased to be larger than 4-inch by 4-inch or are removed due to clogging, the USACE will continue to re-evaluate the risk of clogging on a load by load basis and the inflow screens will be reinstated when clogging is no longer occurring. The USACE will track the number of loads that inflow screens were removed as part of the reporting requirements.
 Hopper dredge operators will not open the hydraulic doors on the inflow boxes prior to inspection by the qualified biologist for evidence of ESA-listed take.  If the inflow box cannot be observed due to clogging, the box contents cannot be dumped or flushed unless overflow screening that captures contents for observation by the qualified biologist is operational and monitored for evidence of take. Once overflow screening is operational, the qualified biologist shall also visually monitor box contents as they are dumped or flushed into the hopper.
1157
39 Overflow Screening Observations:
 All hopper dredges are recommended to have operational overflow screening and monitor for take after each load. Overflow screening is required to be installed and monitored after each load if the inflow screening is removed or bypassed due to clogging.  Overflow screening must be designed to capture and retain material larger than the screen size for the qualified biologist to monitor for the presence of ESA-listed species. The screened area must be accessible to the qualified biologist to inspect for evidence of ESA-listed species take.
 Screen size will start at 4-inch by 4-inch, but may be adjusted to a larger screen size if clogging reduces the ability for the qualified biologist to monitor the screen for the presence of ESA-listed species or if clogging reduces dredging production and thereby expands the time dredging is required. All modifications will be made in close coordination with the dredging contractor, qualified biologist, appropriate USACE project managers, and NMFS. If screen sizes are increased due to clogging, the risk of clogging will be re-evaluated weekly and the overflow screens will be reinstated using the smallest screen size that can be effectively used (preferably 4 inch by 4 inch) when clogging is no longer occurring.
2B. To prevent impingement or entrainment of ESA-listed species within the water column, dredging pumps will be disengaged by the operator when the dragheads are not actively dredging and therefore working to keep the draghead firmly on the bottom. Pumps will be disengaged when lowering dragheads to the bottom to start dredging, turning, or lifting dragheads off the bottom at the completion of dredging. Hopper dredges may utilize a bypass or other system that would allow pumps to remain engaged, but result in no suction passing through the draghead. 2C. Pumping water through the dragheads is not allowed while maneuvering or during travel to/from the disposal or pumpout area. The dredge operator will ensure the draghead is embedded in sediment when pumps are operational, to the maximum extent practicable. 2D. If green sea turtles are regularly seen by project monitors in the action area, especially within the vicinity of hopper dredging operations, the USACE shall contact NMFS to discuss implementation of any additional measures to reduce the risks of direct contact injuries or other adverse effects, along with potential modification of the green sea turtle monitoring plan to more specifically evaluate the impacts of the proposed project within this specific area. 1158
40 2E. If the USACE’s final monitoring and mitigation plan indicates that the currently available pre-construction survey information is inadequate to assess impacts to nearshore rocky reef and associated biological communities, and additional pre-construction physical and biological monitoring is not practicable to implement prior to the first nourishment event, then the USACE should utilize acoustic survey techniques similar to that already obtained for pre-construction purposes (i.e., Nearshore and Wetland Surveys 2018) to assess change in area of rocky reef substrate after completion of sediment placement. In this circumstance, any post-construction reductions in reef area that are measured which exceed a statistically reliable estimate of natural variability within the action area should be assumed to be due to the Project, and the USACE should implement rocky reef creation consistent with the associated environmental commitment in the EIS/EIR, or a functionally equivalent mitigation alternative. In addition, in this circumstance the USACE should assume some reduction in quantity and/or quality of surfgrass habitat, and should implement the test surfgrass transplant as planned for in the EIS/EIR. 2F. During any reef construction operations, a qualified biologist will monitor for the presence of ESA-listed green sea turtles. The barge operator will maintain a safe working environment for the qualified biologist. The green sea turtle monitor will identify and communicate if there is a need to cease or alter operations to avoid impacts to green sea turtles. The biologist or monitor will clear the construction area and confirm no green sea turtles are present 30 minutes prior to the startup of reef placement operations. If a green sea turtle 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 green sea turtle;  Operations may not resume until the green sea turtle has departed the monitoring zone by its own accord or has not been observed for a 15-minute period of time; and  Maneuver the barge to avoid any free-swimming green sea turtles observed during transit.

10. Conservation Recommendations
Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of the threatened and endangered species. Specifically, “conservation recommendations” are suggestions regarding discretionary measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat or regarding the development of information (50 CFR 402.02).

1. Given the current information that suggests green sea turtle movements within and through the action area are more likely to occur during the summer and fall when coastal water temperatures are warmest, the USACE should consider incorporating the anticipated seasonality of green sea turtle presence in the final project execution whenever feasible. Specifically, conducting in-water project activities during the winter/early spring should help lower the risk and/or extent of adverse effects. We also suggest incorporating monitoring and research information gathered 1159
41 during the proposed project to help further inform how project activities could be scheduled and/or generally conducted to minimize the risk and/or extent of adverse effects.

2. The USACE should evaluate the feasibility of using a rigid sea turtle deflector draghead and/or similar turtle exclusion technology to further minimize the risk of hopper dredging entrainment during dredging activities on the U.S. West Coast. Such mitigation measures have been shown to effectively decrease incidental take for green sea turtles in other parts of the U.S.

The USACE should provide a summary of their evaluation and any recommendations to Dan Lawson at the email address listed above. If USACE and NMFS agree that utilizing turtle exclusion mitigation measures are feasible, then they should be implemented in future hopper dredging operations. If any injury or mortality is documented during the course of the proposed project, the USACE should consider implementing the most practicable exclusion technology available to avoid or minimize the risk of take exceedance.

3. During the proposed project and future nourishment events, the USACE should use the information gathered during the proposed project to facilitate outreach to the local community (e.g., fishing/boating communities) regarding the presence of green sea turtles and measures to help avoid harmful interactions with them. The USACE should also use outreach efforts to help enhance the available information during the proposed project by soliciting the City of San Clemente as the non-federal project sponsor to help collect information by reporting sightings of sea turtles to the USACE, NMFS, and/or available hotlines for live turtle observations (e.g., http://www.socalseaturtles.org/west-coast-sea-turtle-sightings.html#/).

4. Given the uncertainty associated with turtle abundance and use of the action area, the USACE should collaborate with NMFS to augment existing satellite tagging efforts of green sea turtles in southern California to improve our understanding of movement patterns in the action area and help understand the extent of impacts of the proposed project on green sea turtles and habitat utilization in the area. For example, the USACE should consider developing a funding transfer agreement to support NMFS’s involvement and expertise in the satellite tagging study of green sea turtles in the area.

11. Reinitiation of Consultation
This concludes formal consultation for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project.

Under 50 CFR 402.16(a): “Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the Service where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and: (1) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) If new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the 1160
42 biological opinion or written concurrence; or (4) If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action.”

3. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW The Data Quality Act (DQA) specifies three components contributing to the quality of a document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section of the opinion addresses these DQA components, documents compliance with the DQA, and certifies that this opinion has undergone pre-dissemination review.

1. Utility
Utility principally refers to ensuring that the information contained in this consultation is helpful, serviceable, and beneficial to the intended users. The intended users of this opinion are the USACE. Individual copies of this opinion were provided to the USACE. The document will be available within 2 weeks at the NOAA Library Institutional Repository [https://repository.library.noaa.gov/welcome]. The format and naming adhere to conventional standards for style.

2. Integrity
This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NMFS in accordance with relevant information technology security policies and standards set out in Appendix III, ‘Security of Automated Information Resources,’ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security Reform Act.

3. Objectivity
Information Product Category: Natural Resource Plan
Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and unbiased; and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They adhere to published standards including the NMFS ESA Consultation Handbook, ESA regulations, 50 CFR 402.01 et seq., and the MSA implementing regulations regarding EFH, 50 CFR part 600.

Best Available Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best available information, as referenced in the References section. The analyses in this opinion and EFH consultation contain more background on information sources and quality.

Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data and analyses are properly referenced, consistent with standard scientific referencing style.
1161
43 Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NMFS staff with training in ESA and MSA implementation, and reviewed in accordance with West Coast Region ESA quality control and assurance processes.

4. REFERENCES
Amorocho, D.F., Reina, R., 2007. Feeding ecology of the East Pacific green sea turtleChelonia mydas agassiziiat Gorgona National Park, Colombia. Endanger. Species Res. 3, 43–51.

Avens, L. and M.L. Snover. 2013. Age and age estimation in sea turtles. In Wyneken, J., K.J.

Lohmann and K.J. Musick (Eds.). The Biology of Sea Turtles Volume III. CRC Press Boca Raton, FL, pp. 97-133.

Avery, H.W., J.R. Spotila, J.D. Congdon, R.U. Fischer, E.A. Standora, and S.B. Avery. 1993.

Roles of diet protein and temperature in the growth and nutritional energetics of juvenile Slider Turtles, Trachemys scripta.Physiological Zoology 66:902–925.

Barraza, A.D., L.M. Komoroske, C. Allen, T. Eguchi, R. Gossett, E. Holland, D.D. Lawson, R.A. LeRoux, A. Long, J.A. Seminoff, & C.G. Lowe. 2019. Trace metals in green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) inhabiting two southern California coastal estuaries Chemosphere 223:342– 350.

Barraza, A., C. Allen, T. Eguchi, R. Gossett, E. Holland, L. Komoroske, D. Lawson, R. LeRoux, V. Lorenzi, J. Seminoff, & C. Lowe. 2020. Persistent organic pollutants in green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) inhabiting two urbanized Southern California habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin 153:110979.

Bedford, D.W. 1993. A Report of Biological Observations at Oceanside #1 and #2 Artificial Reefs, Carlsbad Artificial Reef, Pacific Beach Artificial Reef, and Mission Bay Park Artificial Reef. Prepared for the California Coastal Commission. California Department of Fish and Game Nearshore Sport Fish Habitat Enhancement Program.

Carrión-Cortez, J.A., Zárate, P., Seminoff, J.A., 2010. Feeding ecology of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) in the Galapagos Islands. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. United Kingdom 90, 1005– 1013.

Chacón, D., Arauz, R., 2001. Diagnostico regional y planificacion estrategica para la conservacion de las tortugas marinas en Centroamerica. Red Reg. para la Conserv. las tortugas Mar. Centroam. 134.

Chan, E.H. and H.C. Liew. 1995. Incubation temperatures and sex ratios in the Malaysian leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea. Biological Conservation 74:169-174. 1162
44 Clifton, K., D. Cornejo, and R. Felger. 1982. Sea turtles of the Pacific coast of Mexico. Pp: 199- 209 In: K. Bjorndal (Ed.), Biology and Conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press:

Washington, D.C.

Crear, D.P., D.D. Lawson, J.A. Seminoff, T. Eguchi, R.A. LeRoux, and C.G. Lowe. 2016.

Seasonal shifts in the movement and distribution of green sea turtles Chelonia mydas in response to anthropogenically altered water temperatures. Marine Ecology Progress Series 548:219-232.

Crear, Daniel P.; Lawson, Daniel D.; Seminoff, Jeffrey A.; Eguchi, Tomoharu; LeRoux, Robin A.; and Lowe, Christopher G. 2017. Habitat use and behavior of the east Pacific green turtle, Chelonia mydas in an urbanized system. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences: Vol. 116: Iss. 1.

Delgado S.G., and W.J. Nichols. 2005. Saving sea turtles from the ground up: awakening sea turtle conservation in northwestern Mexico. Maritime Studies 4:89-104.

Duarte, C.M. 2002. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation 29(2):192- 206.

Dutton, P. 2003. Molecular ecology of Chelonia mydas in the eastern Pacific Ocean. In:

Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, April 4-7, 2002, Miami, Florida.

Dutton, P.H., M.P. Jensen, A. Frey, E. LaCasella, G.H. Balazs, P. Zarate, O. Chassin-Noria, S.A.

Sarti-Martinez and E. Velez. 2014. Population structure and phylogeography reveal pathways of colonization by a migratory marine reptile (Chelonia mydas) in the central and eastern Pacific.

Ecology and Evolution. doi:10.1002/ece3.1269.

Dutton, P.H., R.A. LeRoux, EL. LaCasella, J.A. Seminoff, T. Eguchi and D.L. Dutton. 2019.

Genetic analysis and satellite tracking reveal origin of the green turtles in San Diego Bay. Marine Biology. 166:3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-018-3446-4 Ecomarine Consulting LLC and Anghera Environmental. 2019. San Clemente Flood Risk Management Project U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pre-Project Surfgrass Monitoring Report Year 1 Survey Results. Prepared for Chambers Group, Inc. and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.

Ecomarine Consulting LLC and Anghera Environmental. 2020. San Clemente Flood RiskManagement Project U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pre-Project Surfgrass Monitoring ReportYear 2 Survey Results. Prepared for Chambers Group, Inc. and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
1163
45 Eguchi, T., J.A. Seminoff, R.A. LeRoux, P.H. Dutton, D.L. Dutton. 2010. Abundance and survival rates of green turtles in an urban environment: coexistence of humans and an endangered species. Marine Biology 157:1869-1877.

Eguchi, T., Seminoff, J.A., LeRoux, R.A., Prosperi, D., Dutton, D.L., and Dutton, P.H. 2012.

Morphology and growth rates of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) in a northern-most temperate foraging ground. Herpetologica 68(1): 76-87.

Eguchi, T., Bredvik, J., Graham, S., LeRoux, R., Saunders, B., and J.A. Seminoff. 2020. Effects of a power plant closure on home ranges of green turtles in an urban foraging area. Endangered Species Research 41: 265-277.

Hanna, M.E., Bredvik J., Graham S.E., Saunders B., Seminoff J.A., Eguchi T., 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.

Hanna M.E., Chandler E.M., Semmens B.X., Eguchi T, Lemons G.E., and Seminoff J.A. 2021 Citizen-Sourced Sightings and Underwater Photography Reveal Novel Insights About Green Sea Turtle Distribution and Ecology in Southern California. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:671061. doi:

10.3389/fmars.2021.671061
Harris, H. 2014. Sea turtle necropsy report on SWFSC-MT-2012-10 recovered November 4, 2012 from Moonlight Beach near Encinitas, CA. Necropsy report completed by NOAA contract veterinarian Heather Harris on November 3, 2014.

Hazel, J., Lawler, I., Marsh, H., and Robson, S. 2007. Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research. 3. 105-113. 10.3354/esr003105.

Hazel, J., Lawler, I.R. and M. Hamann. 2009. Diving at the shallow end: green turtle behavior in near-shore foraging habitat. J.Expt. Mar.Biol.Ecol., 371: 84-92.

Howo, K. 2022. Email communication providing rocky reef burial estimate.

Howo, K. 2023. Email communication clarifying estimate of hopper dredge roundtrips.

Johnson, M.R., Williams, S.L., Lieberman, C.H., and A. Solbak. 2003. Changes in the abundance of the seagrasses Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) and Ruppia maritima (L.) widgeongrass) in San Diego, California, Following an El Nino Event. Estuaries 26: 106-115.

Kaska, Y., C. Ilgaz, A. Ozdemir, E. Baskale, O. Ttirkozan, I. Baran, and M. Stachowitsch. 2006.

Sex ratio estimations of loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings by histological examination and nest temperatures at Fethiye beach, Turkey. Naturwissenschaften 93:338-343. 1164
46 Lawson, D., C. Fahy, J. Seminoff, T. Eguchi, R LeRoux, P. Ryono, L. Adams, and M.

Henderson. 2011. A report on recent green sea turtle presence and activity in the San Gabriel River and vicinity of Long Beach, California. Poster presentation at the 31st Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation in San Diego, California.

Lemons, G., R. Lewison, L. Komoroske, A. Goas, C.T. Lai, P. Dutton, T. Eguchi, R. LeRoux, and J. Seminoff. 2011. Trophic ecology of green sea turtles in a highly urbanized bay: Insights from stable isotopes and mixing models. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 405:25-32.

LeRoux, R.A., E.L. LaCasella, T. Eguchi, C. Fahy, J. Schumacher, G. Lemons, J. Viezbicke, J.

Greenman, J. Cordaro, P.H. Dutton, J.A. Seminoff. Increasing trends in green turtle (Chelonia mydas) strandings in southern California, USA from 1980-2018: A cause for concern? Presentation at the 39th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation in Charleston, South Carolina.

Lopez-Mendilaharsu, M., S.C. Gardner, J.A. Seminoff, and R. Riosmena-Rodriguez. 2004.

Identifying critical foraging habitats of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) along the Pacific coast of the Baja California peninsula, Mexico.

MacDonald, B.D., S.V. Madrak, R.L. Lewison, J.A. Seminoff, and T. Eguchi. 2013. Fine scale diel movement of the east Pacific green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in a highly urbanized foraging environment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 443: 56-64.

Madrak, S.V., Lewison, R.L., Eguchi, T., Klimley, A.P., and J.A. Seminoff. Effects of ambient temperature on dive behavior of East Pacific green turtles before and after a power plant closure.

Marine Ecology Progress Series 683: 157-168.

Mancini, A., Koch, V., Seminoff, J., and Madon, B. 2012. Small-scale gill-net fisheries cause massive green turtle Chelonia mydas mortality in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Oryx 46(1), 69-

77. doi:10.1017/S0030605310001833
Matsuzawa, Y., K. Sato, W. Sakamoto, and K.A. Bjorndal. 2002. Seasonal fluctuations in sand temperature: effects of the incubation period and mortality of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caratta) pre-emergent hatchlings in Minabe, Japan. Marine Biology 140:629-646.

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2023. San Diego Regional Eelgrass Surveys. Prepared for San JoseState University Research Foundation and San Diego Water Quality Control Board.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the East Pacific Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
1165
47 NMFS. 2016a. Interim Guidance on the Endangered Species Act Term "Harass". National Marine Fisheries Service Procedural Instruction 02-110-19. December 21, 2016. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/64690357 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2020. South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion for Dredging and Material Placement Activities in the Southeast United States. Provided to U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

NMFS and USFWS. 2007. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 105 p.

Nearshore and Wetland Surveys. 2018. Preliminary Summary of Nearshore Bottom Habitat and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Assessment. Project memorandum re: Pre-construction Monitoring for Rocky Reef/Surfgrass Habitat in the San Clemente Pier Area. Dated April 11,2018.

Ramirez, A, Kot, CY, Piatkowski, D. 2017. Review of sea turtle entrainment risk by trailing suction hopper dredges in the US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and the development of the ASTER decision support tool. Sterling (VA): US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. OCS Study BOEM 2017-084. 275 pp.

Renaud ML, Carpenter JA, Williams JA (1994) Activities of juvenile green turtles, Chelonia mydas, at a jettied pass in South Texas. Fish Bull 93: 586−593.

Schofield. G., C.M Bishop, G. MacLean, P. Brown, M. Baker, K.A. Katselidis, P. Dimopoulos, J.D Pantis, and G.C. Hays. 2007. Novel GPS tracking of sea turtles as a tool for conservation management. J.Expt. Mar.Biol.Ecol. 347:58-68.

Seminoff, J.A., Resendiz, A., Nichols, W.J., 2002. Home range of green turtles Chelonia mydas at a coastal foraging area in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 242, 253– 265.

Seminoff, J.A., Resendiz, A., Nichols, W.J., 2002. Diet of East Pacific Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Central Gulf of California, México. J. Herpetol. 36, 447–453.

Seminoff, J.A., Resendiz, A., Nichols, W.J., Jones, T.T., 2002. Growth Rates of Wild Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) at a Temperate Foraging Area in the Gulf of California, México.

Copeia 610–617.

Seminoff, J.A., C.D. Allen, G.H. Balazs, P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, H.L. Haas, S.A. Hargrove,M.P.

Jensen, D.L. Klemm, A.M. Lauritsen, S.L. MacPherson, P. Opay, E.E. Possardt, S.L. Pultz, E.E.

Seney, K.S. Van Houtan, R.S. Waples. 2015. Status Review of the Green Turtle (Chelonia 1166
48 mydas) Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAANMFS-SWFSC-539. 571pp.

Seminoff J.A. and Glass M. 2020. Red List Assessment. Green turtle, Chelonia mydas, Eastern Pacific Region. IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group. 24 pp.

Seminoff, J. A., Komoroske, L. M., Amorocho, D., Arauz, R., Chacón-Chaverrí, D., de Paz, N., Dutton, P. H., Donoso, M., Heidemeyer, M., Hoeffer, G., Todd Jones, T., Kelez, S., Lemons, G.

E., Rguez-Baron, J. M., Sampson, L., Santos Baca, L., Steiner, T., Vejar Rubio, M., Zárate, P., Zavala-Norzagaray, A., and Popp, B. N.. 2021. Large-scale patterns of green turtle trophic ecology in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Ecosphere 12( 6):e03479. 10.1002/ecs2.3479 Senko, J, A.J. Schneller, J. Solis, F. Ollervides, W.J. Nichols. 2011. People helping turtles, turtles helping people: Understanding resident attitudes towards sea turtle conservation and opportunities for enhanced community participation in Bahia Magdalena, Mexico. Ocean and Coastal Management 54:148-157.

Short, F.T., and H.A. Neckles. 1999. The effects of climate change on seagrasses. Aquatic Botany 63:169-196.

University of California Santa Barbara. 2023. Annual Public Workshop San Onofre Generating Station (SONGS) Artificial Reef Mitigation Project, Wednesday, April 5, 2023. http://marinemitigation.msi.ucsb.edu/
Van Houtan K.S., and O.L. Bass. 2007. Stormy Oceans are associated with declines in sea turtle hatching. Current Biology Vol 17 No.15.

Wallace B.P., A.D. DiMatteo, B.J. Hurley, E.M. Finkbeiner, and A.B. Bolten. 2010. Regional Management Units for Marine Turtles: A Novel Framework for Prioritizing Conservation and Research across Multiple Scales. PLoS ONE 5(12): e15465.doi:10.13711joumal.pone.0015465.

Webster, P J., G.J. Holland, J.A. Curry, and H.-R. Chang. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309:1844-1846. 1167
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95816-7100
Telephone: (916) 445-7000 FAX: (916) 445-7053
[email protected] www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
Armando Quintero, Director
May 4, 2023 In reply refer to: COE_2022_1123_001

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jodi L. Clifford
Chief, Planning Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
Regulatory Division
915 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1109
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3409
RE: Section 106 consultation for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project, San Clemente, Orange County
Dear Jody Clifford,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is continuing consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and its implementing regulation at 36 CFR Part 800. By letter received on November 23, 2022, and April 13, 2023, the COE is seeking comments on their area of potential effects (APE), identification efforts, and finding of effect for the above- referenced undertaking.

The COE is proposing to perform dredging and beach renourishment located along the shoreline of San Clemente Beach, west of the Marine Safety Headquarters on the north end, to west of the T Street overpass at the south end in the City of San Clemente, Orange County. Proposed project activities include dredging material offshore of Oceanside, then hauling and depositing the materials offshore of San Clemente Beach via a 24-inch pipeline.

The COE requested a search of the Sacred Lands File from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a nearby undertaking which covered the area of the current undertaking, returning positive results on September 19, 2022. The COE contacted Native American entities listed by the NAHC as having cultural ties to the project area on November 23, 2022. The COE states that the COE will provide the SHPO with a summary of all tribal comments and concerns received. In future undertakings, please provide a copy ATTACHMENT 9
1168
Jodi Clifford OHP File No. COE_2022_1123_001
May 4, 2023