Agenda packet, regular meeting, first session — San Clemente City Council, July 18, 2023 (part 8 of 11)

2.13 2.74

3.66 4.27

5.18 5.94

6.1 Same as .91-2.13 m.

Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained; scattered shell
fragments; med gray color; mod. dense.

Poorly graded sand; as above w/mod. <6.4 cm. rounded black pebbles; mod. dense
Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained
Poorly graded sand w/gravel; fine to coarse sand; scattered <2.5 cm. pebbles; abundant shell frags.

Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained; homogeneous; mod. dense
Same as 4.27-5.18 m.

Poorly graded gravel w/sand; dense-packed +/- 2.5 cm.
pebbles in med. sand.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
GP
100.0

88.0 100.0

77.0 98.0

23.0 3.0

1.0 2.0

2.0 2.0

0.0 232.94
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-18
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,452 EASTING (m): 1,890,800 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.1296´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.2752´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/25/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0803 COMPLETED: 0809 SOUNDING (m): 16.61 TIDE (m): 0.58 ELEVATION (m): -16 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.1 RECOVERY (m): 6.1 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 1, 7, and 8 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160
Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 740
......
.... .. : ::::;
......
.....
. ... . . . ·~: ~ ... ; . :: : : . .. : ~: ... .... .. . .... . ... . . ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ...... : : : : ... :·:;: :· . ...... .....
. ... . . .. ~: ~ .. . . ... . ......
1 -------if~?f~= u_JJ:::r:: ::::::: ::::! ::: ::!:::::
,--------------~~~i'~:;::~~...,_==r==jc==t=~-J f r ! ••••• I
:::::· " ~( :""":"" " ; ..... ; .. .. .
;_.:;:=: .. ··\: · .... _; ..... ; ...... :_ .... . ...... .... ..... , . . . ....... . ....
......
.....
. ... . . .. ~: ~ ...
. ... . . .. :: : .. . . ... . ...... .....
. ... . . .... .. . .... • . ~=:: • ..... . ... . . . • ~: ~ ... . .... .. . .. . ... . . ... . ...... .....
. ... . . .. :: : .. . . ... . ......
.....
. ... . .
::::: :: :: ::L::::: ::: .. i .. -- · . . ' . . . . .
. . ... ...... .. .. . ... .. ......
·····:·····;·····:·····:
-10.7
-11.16
-11.77
-12.53
-13.44
-13.75
-14.36
0 .46

1.07 1.83

2.74 3.05

3.66 Poorly graded gravel w/sand;<7.6 cm. cobbles/pebbles in fine sand; upper 9 cm. is shell hash and fine sand.

Poorly graded sand w/silt; med-fine sand; mod.shells; light gray.

Poorly graded sand w/gravel; med-fine sand with scattered <2.5 cm. rounded pebbles; light gray
Same as 1.07-1.83 m.

Poorly graded gravel w/sand; clast-supported <=7.6 cm.
rounded cobbles/pebbles.

Poorly graded sand w/gravel; clast-supported <=7.6 cm.
rounded cobbles/pebbles; increase in cobbles from above unit.
1 2
3 4
5 6
GP
SP-SM
SP
GP
SP

20.0 100.0

82.0 32.0

61.0 1.0

5.0 4.0

1.0 2.0
278.871
515.092
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-19
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 617,210 EASTING (m): 1,891,155 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.0828´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.0594´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/22/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1010 COMPLETED: 1040 SOUNDING (m): 12.19 TIDE (m): 1.49 ELEVATION (m): -10.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.66 RECOVERY (m): 5.18 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Met surface refusal on first 2 attempts. Upper .61 m penetrated twice. Sample 4 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 741
J J J 1 1 J l
-10.6
-10.91
-11.83
-12.74
-13.51
-13.81
-14.27
-14.95
0 .3

1.22 2.13

2.90 3.20

3.66 4.34
Silty sand and gravel?; near-refusal in cobbles (not
recovered)
Poorly graded sand; micaceous; fine grained;abundant
shells; med gray.

Same as .3-1.22 m.

Poorly graded sand as above
Poorly graded sand w/silt; dark gray; micaceous
Silty sand; micaceous; dark gray
Silty sand; micaceous; dark gray; somewhat stiff
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 SP
SP
SP-SM
100.0

94.0 100.0

3.0 4.0

7.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-20
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 617,819 EASTING (m): 1,890,758 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.4101´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.3191´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/22/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1200 COMPLETED: 1220 SOUNDING (m): 12.19 TIDE (m): 1.58 ELEVATION (m): -10.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.34 RECOVERY (m): 6.1 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Penetrated .3 m., then pulled up, then down .76 m., then up, then down to TD. Samples 1,3,6, and 7 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 742
'1"'11 ' . .. . m':Ji!M ' .... : ..... : ..... : ..... : .... . 1----------------fl""'·=--=-= '1-----+---+----+----i •' ···: ..... ; ..... ; .... . ; .. .. . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
.... .. . ....
.1 .... ; ..... ; ..... ; .... . ; . ... .
s..,_j ..... ; ..... ; ..... ; .... . ......... . . . . .......... . . . ·····:·····~·.:..:~ ····:····· ·····:···;:;.:~·:·····:····· . .... '../' ... ' ..... ' ..... ' .. .. . ,,,,,,r • • • ---------------------+ .............. ---.----------. !"'. .; ..... : ..... ; .... . ; .... . :·::: :· • I . . . . :·:·; ~ ·:·: : :~:: ! : : : : : ! : : : : : ! :: : : : ! : : :: :
; . :: : : .. . . ·~· : .... . : ..... : ... .. : ..... : ::::. ···T ·····:·····:·····:·····
-------------: :--:::-----····l ····:·····:·····:····· .. :: : : . . ... r .... . : ..... : ... .. : ..... ~···~i·····i·····i·····i····· ......
.... .. . .... .....
......
.... .. ····r·····,·····,·····,·····
····~···--:·····i·····i·····
1------------------------------1;.._, .... ;""1 .... r .... r..a-----1---1------1----1 ...... \ ... ·: ..... : ..... : .... . • ,~1:tr1 ..... ; ~ .. ; ..... ; ..... ; .... . ·.-~-~•-i : ::::: :: ::7~>~;:::: :: : ..... : ..... : ..... : ./ ... : ..... "/ ..... , . . ... , ... f ..... , .. .. . . . .. . : .. .. . ; . . /.. ; ... .. : .. .. .
. . . . . ; ..... ; .6( ... ; .... . ; .. .. . . .... ; ..... ; . . \ .. ; ... .. ; .. .. . -----------------------......... -~-~---------· .... , ... .. , . -~-: .. ... , .. .. . ..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:· ····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-10.4
-10.88
-11.64
-12.55
-13.47
-14.38
-15.08
-15.6
0 .46

1.22 2.13

3.05 3.96

4.66 5.18
Silty sand and gravel;<7.6 cm. gravel; shell hash; dark gray Silty sand; dark gray; widely- scattered shell frags.

Silty sand; dark gray; widely- scattered shell frags.

Silty sand; dark gray; siltier than above; minor shell frags.

Silt and sandy silt; dark gray; very stiff; strong sulfidic odor Silty sand; dark gray
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 449.475
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-21
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 618,073 EASTING (m): 1,890,589 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.5460´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.4301´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/22/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1315 COMPLETED: 1345 SOUNDING (m): 11.73 TIDE (m): 1.31 ELEVATION (m): -10.4 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.18 RECOVERY (m): 6.1 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Penetrated .76 m., then pulled up, then back down to TD. No gradation analysis of samples. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 743
. . . . ' .... : .... ·: ..... : ..... : .... .
~ i 1---------------------------FF~
. \ .... i ..... i ..... i .... . i .. .. . . \.. .; ..... ; ..... ; .... . ; .... . ~- .. . . ·.(""'."""; ..... ; ..... . ' . . . . . . . . ' ... ""'-:, ..... ' ... .. ' ..... . . :::,g, . . ·~~-~,..,.·~·····:·····:····· .... ~ ..... ...... . .. ...... .. . . ....... . . . -----------------------------+----+----..... ; .. --~ ..... ; .... . ; ..... . ~ . . :::::!:::::!:l :!::::: !::::: ·····:·····:··"··:·····:····· ..... , . . ... :·j"' ' "'" ' ""' 1-----------------------------· .... : .. ···:,·· ·: ..... : ..... '"":"'"'/'"'':"·":""' ~-···i····~- ·-··i·····i····· ·····:"""\· "··:···":"""
.... . !·····~···!·····i·····
·····:·····:··\·:·····:·····
::::: ::::: \>~::::: :::::: . .... : .. -~· ... ·: ... ··: .. ... ·····:····1:·····:·····:····· ~--··!-;,ft i••·••i••·••i•• ··· ·····)(·····:···:·····:····· 1---------------------+'i+.....~-+---+-----+----I .. 'if.; ..... ; ..... ; .... . ; .... . . .. \.; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; .. .. . ... ;.; .... . ; .... . ; ..... ; .. .. . / : : . : ··~·:·····:·····:·····:····· 1----------------------------tt:+.'l~i':-t----+----+--+-----I :::: · > ~::::::::::::::; ..... ~-... I ... ~-~+:-C-.~--- 1----------------------------................. __________ ---1 · .... ; ..... ; ..... '.13" .. ; ... .... . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-15.5
-16.15
-16.61
-17.22
-17.67
-18.59
-19.5
-20.42
-21.03
-21.64
0 .61

1.07 1.68

2.13 3.05

3.96 4.88

5.49 6.10
Silty sand; med.gray;dense; mod-abundant shell frags.

Same as 0-.61 m.

Silty sand; med. gray; mod. dense
Poorly graded gravel w/silt and sand; <5.1 cm. pebbles; very dense; mod-abundant shells
Same as 3.05-3.96 m.

Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained;micaceous;lt. gray;tr. pebbles; mod < 2.5 cm. shell frags.

Same as 4.88-5.49 m.

Poorly graded sand; as above
Poorly graded sand; as above; lower .3 m w/abundant shells 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 SM
SM
GP-GM
SP
SP
100.0

98.0 48.0
100.0
100.0

34.0 27.0

11.0 3.0

4.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-22
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 617,073 EASTING (m): 1,889,986 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.0013´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.8106´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic Services EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0930 COMPLETED: 0939 SOUNDING (m): 16.15 TIDE (m): .61 ELEVATION (m): -15.5 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.1 RECOVERY (m): 6.1 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Bent drill rod when pulling out of hole. Samples 2,5,7, and 9 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 744
........ ..............
-15.1
-15.45
-15.76
-16.67
-17.28
-18.2
-19.11
0 .3
.61

1.52 2.13

3.05 3.96
Poorly graded sand w/silt; lt. gray color; lower .3 m. w/shells, minor pebbles
Poorly graded sand w/silt; lt. gray color; w/shell hash, minor pebbles
Gravel w/sand; pebbles, cobbles
Gravel w/sand; densely packed pebbles and cobbles w/
interstitial sand
Poorly graded sand w/gravel; med-fine sand w/pebbles from

2.6-2.9 m.; lt.gray
Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained; light gray
1 2
3 4
5 SP-SM
SP
SP

90.0 84.0
100.0

12.0 4.0

4.0 206.693
278.871
252.625
278.871
229.659
508.53
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-24
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 616,561 EASTING (m): 1,890,337 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.7268´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.5812´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1120 COMPLETED: 1140 SOUNDING (m): 16.0 TIDE (m): .85 ELEVATION (m): -15.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.96 RECOVERY (m): 5.49 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Upper .91 m. drilled 3X (surge knocked over drill), therefore extra sample. Samples 2 and 3 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 745
......
.... .. . .... .: ..... . ~=::. . . . .: : : : :- : .. ... : ... .. : ..... :18· ... : .. ..... 1 ------------ti::..tli;\ii_= ..... -J-_L_LJ;::::_:: :: ::l: :::::~::::l:::~ • •••• ·····:·····:···••i••· ••i• •··· ·····:·····l·····l·~--- i---·~ ·····:·····:·····:·····i····· ···········:·····:·····:····· ..... : ..... : ..... : ..... ~ ..... ·····:·····:·····i····•:····· ·····: ·····:·····:··········· ·····:·····:· ····i····•i •• ·· · ·····!···•• :••···!·····;····· ·····!·····!·····!·····i·····
···••1••· ··:·····:·····:····· .. ... .. .... . ·····:·····:····· ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . ·····:·····:················· ~····i·····i·····i···••:••···
·····!···••:• •···!·····;·····
·····!·····!·····i·····i·····
·····:·····:·····:·····:·····
·····'.·····:·····:·····i·····
···········:·····:·····:····· _ ..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... ·····:···•• ;••···i·····i
-14.0
-14.85
-15.16
-15.61
-16.52
-17.44
-18.05
0 .76

1.07 1.52

2.43 3.35

3.96 Silty sand; micaceous;dense, compact; very minor shell frags; med-gray.

Poorly graded gravel w/sand; med-fine sand w/close-packed

2.5-5.1 cm. pebbles
Poorly graded sand; med-grained; a few pebbles; trace shell frags; light gray.

Poorly graded sand; mod-dense; med-grained; light gray
Same as 1.52-2.43 m.

Poorly graded sand w/gravel; same as above w/<7.6 cm.
cobbles and pebbles; dense
1 2
3 4
5 6
SM
GP
SP
SP
SP
100.0

32.0 100.0
100.0

72.0 15.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 4.0
439.633
501.969
206.693
226.378
236.22
249.344
314.961
291.995
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-26
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,606 EASTING (m): 1,891,443 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.2171´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.2625´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/25/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1400 COMPLETED: 1415 SOUNDING (m): 14.94 TIDE (m): .85 ELEVATION (m): -14.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.96 RECOVERY (m): 5.18 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Twice met refusal @ .91 m. Third try made it thru to TD. (extra recovery) Sample 5 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 746
... ... .... ·········:·
..... .... .. :·····'.··········
···••i••·••i••···!·····!····· - ····:·. ····:····· ······:····· =· ····:·····:·····=·····
... .. : ..... :···········
-15.3
-15.97
-16.88
-17.79
-18.71
-19.32
-19.93
-20.54
-21.46
0 .61

1.52 2.43

3.35 3.96

4.57 5.18

6.1 No Sample
Same as 1.52-2.43 m.

Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained; minor shell frags; light gray; mod. loose
Same as 1.52-2.43 m.

Poorly graded sand; med. grained; dispersed rounded <2.5 cm. pebbles; mod-loose.

Same as 3.35-3.96 m.

Poorly graded sand; shell-rich;med.grained;mod. loose
Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained; lt. gray; mod. loose NS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 SP
SP
SP
SP
100.0

94.0 95.0

96.0 2.0

2.0 2.0

3.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-27
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,884 EASTING (m): 1,890,792 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.3635´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.2833´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1333 COMPLETED: 1342 SOUNDING (m): 16.46 TIDE (m): 1.1 ELEVATION (m): -15.4 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.1 RECOVERY (m): 5.49 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 1,3, and 5 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 747
.. . . . . . .
. . . .
: :
...... .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
..... . ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . .....
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . . ... . . .... .. : ::::
......
.....
. ... . . . · ~: ~ .· : .....
......
.....
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . : : : : : : .....
r-------~~·;;aj~~-=_____i___i__l_J~~:: : ::: :::: ::: :,_: :::: :!:: :: : ..... . ... . . ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ...... .....
. ... . . .... .. : ::::
. . . .
.. . . . .
: : : ' ... r-----------+;~w·· --+_j_J_J \ t f
J r 1
-10.5
-10.88
-11.04
-11.8
-12.71
-13.63
-14.54
-15.46
-16.37
0 .3
.46

1.22 2.13

3.05 3.96

4.88 5.79
Gravel w/sand; rounded <5.1 cm. pebbles; shell hash; loose Silt; stiff; dark green-gray
Poorly graded sand w/silt; sand is fine grained; med. green gray;no shells or pebbles
Same as .46-1.22 m.

Same as .46-1.22 m.

Poorly graded sand; fine grained; light gray; no pebbles or shells
Same as 3.05-3.96 m.

Same as 3.05-3.96 m.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
ML
SP-SM
SP
100.0
100
100.0

86.0 8.0

4.0 239.501
246.063
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-28
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,635 EASTING (m): 1,892,100 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.2362´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.4397´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic Services EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0810 COMPLETED: 0818 SOUNDING (m): 11.28 TIDE (m): .70 ELEVATION (m): -10.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.79 RECOVERY (m): 6.10 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: First attempt refusal at .91 m. Samples 1,4,5,7, and 8 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 748
1 7~· \. ... 1 ..... 1 ..... 1 ..... 1 .... .
1-----------------~;1"""11~1 ;-H-i -+----+--+-------1 .'I\I ··: .. . . . ; . .... ; ... . . ; .... . 1----------------------1.~,.~.1.~t'="r---1---1----i----i.. .. . \ .. i ·· ... ;. ··· .; ··· .. ; ·· .. · )~{~ ~· . . . :i :1: t t I : : :L: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : .... . =1=1=n .. ~;...,, ... : ..... : ..... : .... . . 1:1: t ·1:J ..... ; .. ~ -~ ~ ..... ; .... . • ,~1a r , : : : ..._ :::qp j:l:t ti · .... : .. · " :_;>-'."'....-.. : ... .. :1:1:~11 ..... ,:.--.-. , . .... , ..... , .... . . i:1:tFJ ... ~ ..... ; ..... ; ..... ; .... . • ,:1: tr I : : : : ; t ~; t ➔; . ... ~ : . ... . : . .... : . .. . . : . . . . . '.I '.I: t l I ..... , ..... : . .... : ..... : .... .
t----------------------1: ..... ~: .... :::-~~~+I --+----+---+----1 · .... :, ···: · ... ·: ..... : .... . :1 :1: n I ..... : J .... : ..... : ..... : ... ..
. i:1:tFJ ~-···i,····i·····i·····i····· ., :1: t r 1 · .... = I" · .. : · · .. · : · .. .. = .... · ; t ~; t : ..... i+ .... i .... . i .. . . . i .. .. . :1:1:rt I :1 :1: ~ j ..... : \ .... : ..... : ..... : .... . ------------------· .... : +···:· ... ·: ..... : .... . ..... :·I· .. :· .. ··:· .... : .... . ·····:•···:·····:·····:····· ·····:·/····:·····:·····:····· ~ .... ;~ .... ; . ... . ; ..... ; .. .. . . .... ;.\ ... ; . .... ; ..... ; .. .. .
------------------.. ... : .. , . .: . .... ; ... .. ; .. .. . . :".: . .... ; ... \.. ; ..... ; ... .. ; .. .. .
•t----+------,t-------,t----1 ..... : ... ~ - ... : ..... : .... . . . ......... . . . . . - . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :~~: ~~~ .... .. . .. . ... .... . ..... . ..... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:ia····:···-.... . . . . ·····:·•· ··:· ····:·····:····· . . . . . ... . ; ... . . ; . .... ;18 .. . . ; . . . ..... . . . . . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... , ..... , .... . :: . . . . . . . .. ... .. .. . ... ..... ... .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . 1----------------------------------1· .... : ·····:· ... ·: ... ··: .. ... . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . . . . .. ... , ... . ... .... . ... .. , .... . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . .. ... ..... ... .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . .... .. . .. . ... ... ... . .. .... .. . . . . . . . . . ······. ······. ······. ······. ····· . . . . .. ... , ... . ... .... .. .. .. , .... . . . . . . . . . -12.6
-13.53
-14.45
-15.05
-15.97
-16.89
-17.5
-18.26
-18.56
-18.72
0 .91

1.83 2.43

3.35 4.27

4.88 5.64

5.94 6.1
Poorly graded sand w/silt; sand is fine to med grained; 5% <1.3 cm. pebbles; mod shell frags; loose; lt. brown-gray color Same as 0-.91 m.

Same as 0-.91 m.

Poorly graded sand w/gravel; med-fine sand w/<3.8 cm.
pebbles; med.gray color
Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained; homogeneous; trace shell frags; gray color
Same as 3.35-4.27 m.

Same as 3.35-4.27 m.

Silty sand; dark gray; very stiff
Sandy silt;extremely stiff; sulfidic odor; dark gray
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 SP-SM
SP
SP
100.0

73.0 100.0

5.0 2.0

3.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-29
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,440 EASTING (m): 1,891,816 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.1294´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.6215´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0920 COMPLETED: 0927 SOUNDING (m): 13.56 TIDE (m): .94 ELEVATION (m): -12.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.1 RECOVERY (m): 6.1 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 2,3,6,7,8, and 9 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 749
::i9.~0. s:xD:G
r----------------i'~~~i~~~t-LJ_J • ] If j ..... ·r-----t---+-...J__--1 :· : : : :· ; ......
.....
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . . ... . . .. :: : .. . . ... . ...... : : ; : : : .. :: : .. . . ... . =-::: =- . ......
.....
. ... . . :· : : : :· ; ......
..... . ... . . .. :: : ...
-13.2
-13.87
0 .61
Gravel (<7.6 cm.) in silty sand; somewhat stiff; abundant shell frags
NS 226.378
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-30
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,700 EASTING (m): 1,891,545 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.2684´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.7973´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1015 COMPLETED: 1035 SOUNDING (m): 14.17 TIDE (m): .91 ELEVATION (m): -13.3 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): .61 RECOVERY (m): 5.18 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Refusal @.61 m. in surface cobble layer. 3 attempts. Moved 15.24 m. to SO9-30A. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 750
... , .. ... , .. ... , .. ... , ..
···:· · ···:·····:·····:·· .
; ... . . : ..... : ... .. : :
··: ··=·····: . . ..... ; ..... ;_ ·····:_ ·····:····
.... ; ..
·::::···:: :···:: .. ... .
-12.9
-13.6
0 .61
Gravel (<7.6 cm.) in silty sand; somewhat stiff; abundant shell frags
NS
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-30A
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,695.5 EASTING (m): 1,891,518.6 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.2657´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.8145´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 14.33 TIDE (m): 1.34 ELEVATION (m): -13 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): .61 RECOVERY (m): 5.18 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Retry of SO9-30. Unsuccessful. Refusal in surface cobble layer. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 751
.... " .... ·: ..... : ..... : .... . ..... ;.)9 .. ; ..... ; .... . ; .... . ;/ 1------------------------------~;:ii' .,._,..,=t,.""•+---4---1---1-----1 :~~ :: ::: : : : ::: : : :::: ::: ::::
. .... ; ... . . ; ..... ; ... .. ; .....
-
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ... . . : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· -........ .. ..... ... ... . .. ...... .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:·····:····•: •···· . . . . . .... , ... . ... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : ..... . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:· ····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-12.9
-13.6
-14.51
-15.42
-16.04
-16.95
-17.87
-18.48
-19.09
0 .61

1.52 2.43

3.05 3.96

4.88 5.49

6.10 No Sample
Poorly graded sand w/silt; sand is fine-med grained; med. gray; dispersed shell frags
Poorly graded sand; fine-med grained; med.gray; dispersed shell frags, <=1.3 cm. black pebbles.

Poorly graded sand w/gravel; <6.4 cm. gravel w/shell frags in fine sand; lower .3 m. is close-packed.

Same as 3.96-4.88 m.

Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained; med.gray color; trace shell frags;
Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained; med.gray color; trace shell frags; homogeneous.

Same as 4.88-5.49 m.

NS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 SP-SM
SP
SP
SP
SP
100.0
98 51.0
100.0
100.0

6.0 3.0

2.0 3.0

2.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-31
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 616,011 EASTING (m): 1,891,266 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.4346´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.9795´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1250 COMPLETED: 1310 SOUNDING (m): 14.33 TIDE (m): 1.34 ELEVATION (m): -13 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.10 RECOVERY (m): 5.49 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 4 and 7 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 752
L _________________ tl~~rrl~l1-1-r11 _c} ! ! t t
:, :,: ~ l
j l I l l l l
I
-13.2
-13.75
-14.2
-15.12
-16.03
-16.95
-17.86
-18.78
-19.23
-19.39
0 .46
.91

1.83 2.74

3.66 4.57

5.49 5.94

6.1 Silty sand;upper 15.2 cm. is med-fine sand w/silt;lower 30 cm. is very dense, stiff, silty sand w/coarse shell frags; dark gray.

Poorly graded gravel w/sand; stiff; dark gray; <7.6 cm. closepacked black rounded cobbles; abundant shells; sharp lower contact.

Same as 2.74-3.66 m.

Poorly graded sand;med-fine grained;brown-gray color
homogeneous; very minor shells
Same as 2.74-3.66 m.

Same as 2.74-3.66 m.

Same sand with abundant shell frags; med-gray color.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
SM
GP
SP
100.0

25.0 100.0

40.0 4.0

3.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-32
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 616,356 EASTING (m): 1,890,982 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.6200´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.1648´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1355 COMPLETED: 1409 SOUNDING (m): 14.48 TIDE (m): 1.19 ELEVATION (m): -13.3 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.1 RECOVERY (m): 6.1 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 3,4,6,7, and 8 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 753
", : ... ": ......... . ..... ~ ....... .
i------------------------ia,,..,,.,.,:.r--;----;------i----;....., . / ..... .... . 1i.:ti'. ·1' .. I .... · .. .. ·
:.:.;_~.~ .I .... ; ......... .
r-------------~: :~. -~-·,-. -----t----t------t------1 ~ ... : ......... . :::::: \ :
·.::::.· ~::~: ::::: :::: : ......
. .... ..... ,:
:::: i ::::::::: ____________ ; : ........_ ____ i(''' : .... .. ... . .... .. ; . :: : : . . ... . . .... .. . .... . \ " : ......... . ···~:····· .... .
""'\:" " ' .... . .. ... ..:. .... ii, ........ .
: : ; : : : 'f' ::::." ..... , ......... .
-------------------.. ~ ... --. _____ .... ~ .... ... .. . :::::· """ \ "" .... . ~:f /:. .. ... ! ~ ... .... .
::::." ..... ; .. , ....... .
..... : .. , ...... .
• : ~: ~;: ..... : .. J .. .... .
------------:-:::-: .-----..... : .. + ...... . :·::: :· • . .... ; . . I. .. ... . ...... : ~ ..... ; .. -r- , .... . :· : : : :" ..... : .. I .. .. .. . ..... : .. + ...... . . ... . . t----------=-:::: :-: -+----+------+--------- ::::::: l: : : : : : :·:;: :" : \ /i/:": ~::::::::,¥. :::: : ..... : .. , ...... . . ... . . " "':"j " .... . :· : : : :· ; 1-------------_.,..,...,,,...,..._. :t------1-+----+------1 " ... : . !," .... . . .... ''''':/ ''' .... . :::::: ""'/""' .... .
.,,, T, "•f:""' ""'
l----------------------1•-=........1•:,;;z,,...~· ~'1-----1--+---+---I-'-' " '': ......... . -12.5
-13.17
-13.47
-14.39
-15.3
-16.22
-17.13
-17.74
-18.2
-18.66
0 .61
.91

1.83 2.74

3.66 4.57

5.18 5.64

6.10 No Recovery; Sand? (from drill rate)
No Recovery; Gravel? (from drill rate)
Poorly graded sand;med-fine grained; micaceous; light gray color; only trace shell frags.

Poorly graded sand;med-fine grained; micaceous; light gray color; only trace shell frags.

Same as 1.83-2.74 m.

Poorly graded sand; same as above w/moderate amount of
<.64 cm. shell frags
Same as 3.66-4.57 m.

Poorly graded sand;med-fine grained w/abundant <3.8 cm. pebbles and shell hash; gradational contacts.

Gravel; <3.8 cm. rounded black pebbles w/abundant broken shells in upper 15 cm.

NS
NS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 SP
SP
SP
SP
100.0
100.0
100.0

96.0 4.0

3.0 3.0

3.0 613.517
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-33
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 617,478 EASTING (m): 1,890,466 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.2235´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.5050´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0800 COMPLETED: 0813 SOUNDING (m): 13.11 TIDE (m): .55 ELEVATION (m): -12.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.10 RECOVERY (m): 5.18 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Penetrated to .76 m.-refused. Back up, then back down all the way to TD. Samples 3,5, and 7 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 754
\ .... : .... ·: ..... : ..... : .... .
~:..:.i••·••i••·••i .... . ; .... .
1------------------------------tra:; ...... ':..:..:..'(-t-· ... ~ ... -:----t----t--------i : : : : : ( :~ r:~ ~r~: : : : : : :
:,lF-'i ..... ; ... .. ; ..... ; ... \.; ..... l--------------------------~ .......... "" ........ ,1----1----1----1-----1 . .... : . • . . . : . .... : . .. ~:-:-.-:-:-,. .. :: : .. : .. :: : : .. ......
. ... . . ... . .-·::: ·.:: .... ..
. .... .... . ... .... ...... . .... .
"'." .... : . ... .. : . . ..... :~ .... : . .... ~
. . . .
: ::::: . . ::::::: :f \ : ~~. ~
------------------.-.. -. -. -. -+---+----+---I::::: :: :::::::~~::: :::::::: . .... : :/ : : ·.·::: ·.·. . .... : .... ,,.. .... : ..... : .... . .. :: : .. • . .... : . ... ·1: . .... : ... . . : . . .. . :":::·.:: ~····i····•·····i·····i·····
:::::· ·····:""/ :·"··:··· .. , .... .
------------------.. ~ ... ---. -----·····I ·· -,l·I· ··· ·I ·····i ·· ·· · .. :: : .. • . .... ! ... \ . ! ..... ! ..... ! ..... ~--]!~:--. ·····:···, :·····:·····:····· .. : : : .. . . .... : .. ·/· . : .... . : ..... : ..... ·····:··~··:·····:·····:·····
.:~:~;: ·····:···\ ·:·····'.····=·····
-----------:-::-:: .-----..... : ... -,; .... . ; ..... ; .. .. . :·::: :· . . .... : ... /.. i ..... : ... .. : .. .. . •••••• . .L . . . . . .. . ; .. ., .. ; ..... ; .... . ; .... . :·:;: :· . . .... ; . / .. . ; ..... ; ... .. ; .. .. . ..... ;~ ... ; .... . ; ..... ; .. .. . . ... . . . . . . . . : \ : : : 1------------= ......... :: :_,...: ---+-----+---+------1 ..... : ··.1,,: ·:· ... ·: ..... : .... . ...... . .... : .. ~ .: ..... : .... . : .... . :·:;: :· • : I : : :
: ::::. ~::::::l :::::: :::::::::: :::
·. :~: .y. : : : : : :~~:: ::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :i:v. .~ ~ :'?: ?: ..... : .. ) . : ..... : ..... : .... . 1-----------------------------1'~-,:,•-,...,.,..._--1---1----1---r· .... : .,. .. : ..... : ..... : .... . ~·~v~ ..... :/. .... : ..... : ... .. : .. .. . ··~ Ji:~ ; : : : : ··"/·:·····:·····:·····:····· 1-----------------------1-""..,<.....>.ac-=->j--+---+--+---1-'G!!"..;···; ..... : ..... : ..... ; ..... . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... ...... , .... . . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........ ······. ······. ······. ······. ····· ..... , ... .. ...... ...... , .... . . . . . -15.1
-15.75
-16.66
-17.57
-18.49
-19.1
-19.71
-20.32
-20.63
-21.24

0.0 .61

1.52 2.43

3.35 3.96

4.57 5.18

5.49 6.10
Poorly graded sand w/silt; abundant <7.6 cm. pebbles/
cobbles; abundant coarse shell frags; med-gray.

Poorly sorted sand w/gravel; med-coarse grained; abundant coarse shell frags; med-gray.

Poorly graded sand; med-coarse grained;coarse sand sized shell frags
Same as 1.52-2.43 m.

Poorly graded sand; same as above w/<1.3 cm. rounded
black pebbles, shell hash
Same as 3.35-3.96 m.

Poorly graded sand; med. grained; abundant <2.5 cm.
pebbles, shell hash
Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained;minor shells; med gray color
No Recovery (pile driven?)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
NS
SP-SM
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
100.0

56.0 95.0

98.0 93.0
100.0

5.0 1.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 2.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-40
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,011 EASTING (m): 1,891,509 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.0350´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.9333´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1505 COMPLETED: 1510 SOUNDING (m): 16.15 TIDE (m): 1.01 ELEVATION (m): -15.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.10 RECOVERY (m): 5.49 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 4 and 6 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 755
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
..... . ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . .....
. ... . . :":;: :·: ......
.... .. = : : : = ......
.....
. ... . . . · ':.: ':. .· . . ....
......
.....
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... .
. ... . . . · ':.: ':. .· . . ....

I . . .
···········:·····:·····
~::::::: :: :: l:::::: :: : : : : : : :: :
-15.0
-15.94
-16.86
-17.32
-17.93
-18.99
-19.91
-21.13
0 .91

1.83 2.29

2.90 3.96

4.88 6.10
Poorly graded sand; med.gray med.grained;dispersed <.6 cm. rounded black pebbles; mod.dense; local shell
concentrations
Same as 0-.91 m.

Poorly graded sand; med. grained; <3.8 cm. pebbles; dense, compacted; abundant shell frags.

Poorly graded sand; med. grained; dispersed 3.8 cm. pebbles; mod. dense
Poorly graded sand; med. grained; very minor shells and pebbles; mod. dense
Same as 2.9-3.96 m.

No Recovery (pile driven?)
1 2
3 4
5 6
NS
SP
SP
SP
SP
100.0

64.0 85.0
100.0

1.0 2.0

2.0 2.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-41
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,011 EASTING (m): 1,891,509 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.8955´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.8158´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1615 COMPLETED: 1621 SOUNDING (m): 15.85 TIDE (m): .82 ELEVATION (m): -15 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.10 RECOVERY (m): 4.88 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 2 and 6 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 756
' . . \ .... : ..... : .... . . , ... ; ... .. ; .... . . 1 ... ; .•. .. ; .... .
-+- ··:·····:····· . I. .. ; ... . . ; . ... .
-----------:-.. -... ----·"···: ... . . : .... . : :: : : : \ : :
·.::::.- ~:l:: :: :: ::: ::: : ~ : . .... : .":'-.. .. : ..... :~ ..... ; . / .. ; ..... ......
. ... . . ... .
:/ :
r---------------------Jj~;ir;,----i----i--i------i . .. ¥1 .... . : ..... ~&.~ ··T: ··········· ~~ ··.r :·····:·····
l-----------------------li'·;:u.i:i::.i~-~•11-----1--+--+----I . .. , .: .. ···:· .... ... ... . .. . .. ~··;i·····i····· . . ·t . : . ... . : . ....
::~; ·;··i·····i-- ···
1----------------------+.,a,/'++o',O,l---+----+----+----I ,. ·/· .. : . .. .. : ..... : :: ·~···:·····:····· _::: .. \·. : .... ·: .... .
;_.:; :.- ···~< ····:·····
::: ·····:·, --·:·····
=-~= ~ .... ; ... ~ ; .... .
1---------------------: ...... :.... = ~--.... :--+----+---+----!::::: ¥~:: t:::: . . : : . . : : .' . .
;_. ·•. . .
::
. .... ;I. ... . ; . ... .
..... :l ... : .... . ..... : .. ".':~ .... . . .... : ..... :) .. . : { :: :: :::::r::::::
::::::::t :::::: ·····:·~··:· ···· ·····:/ ···:·····
·····f ···:·····
1-------------------------+---+---+---i""'":::: l ::::::::::
. . . .... .. ... ... ....
. . ················· . . ..... , ... .. , .....
-13.4
-13.99
-15.27
-16.49
-19.23
0 .55

1.83 3.05

5.79 Silty sand; upper .3 m. gray; lower 24 cm. brown w/shell frags Brown fine-med grained sand w/gravel
Poorly graded sand w/gravel
Poorly graded gray med-fine sand w/shells
A
B
C
D
SM
SP
SP
SP

24.0 1.0

1.0 1.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-1
LOCATION: North of Oceanside Harbor
NORTHING (m): 616,129.1 EASTING (m): 1,891,170.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.496´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.989´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 0729 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 13.44* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -13.4 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.79 RECOVERY (m): 5.79 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 757
......
.... .. . ... . . ... . ......
. ... . . .... ..
. ... . . .. :: : .. : .. :: : : .'
......
.... .. . .... ; . :: : : . : : : : .. : ......
. ....
. ... . . . · ~: ~ .· . . ....
......
. ... . . .... ..
-
-11.0
-11.36
-11.61
-16.42
0 .3
.55

5.36 Silty sand; dark gray
Silty sand; med.brown w/numerous shell frags
Poorly graded sand; med. brown w/very few shell frags
A
B
C
SM
SM
SP

34.0 33.0

0.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-2
LOCATION: North of Oceanside Harbor
NORTHING (m): 617,010.1 EASTING (m): 1,891,228.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.973´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.958´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 0820 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 11.06 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -11.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.36 RECOVERY (m): 5.36 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 758
1---------------------------------++,+ri...+,,t,,-if---+---+----+-----1 ..... : ·····:· ... ·: ... ··:·· .. . . ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
......
.... .. : . ~=-=:.' ......
.... .. . ... . . ... . ...... .... .. . ... . . ... .
.... .. . ... . . ... . .-·.=:: ·.-·: ......
. ....
......
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . . ... . . .... .. : ::::' ': :: : . : ...... .... .. : :: : . ;, . ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... .
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
......
.... .. . .... .....
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . . ... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
. .... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-11.1
-11.49
-13.87
-15.3
-16.28
-16.55
0 .30

2.68 4.11

5.09 5.36
Silty sand; gray; shell frags; occasional gravel
Poorly graded sand; med. gray; occasional shell frags
Silty sand; dark gray; cohesive; shell frags
Poorly graded sand; med. gray
Poorly graded med grained sand w/shell frags
A
B
C
D
E
SM
SP
SM
SP
SP

18.0 2.0

19.0 3.0

2.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-3
LOCATION: Offshore of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 617,581.1 EASTING (m): 1,890,913.7 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.280´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.165´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 0909 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 11.19 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -11.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.36 RECOVERY (m): 5.36 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 759
II : : 1---------------------------------++H-,,..~f---+---+----+-----I ..... : ·••··:· ... ·: ... ·•:•· .. . : ::::
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
......
.... .. : . ~=::.' ......
.... ..
~::: : : . ... . . ... . . ... . . :·:;: :· :
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . 1---------------------------------h',-t,;-rr,,,...,---+---+----+-----i~ .... . : . .. . . : . ... . : .. .. . : .. .. . . .... ......
. ... . . .... .. : . :: : : .'
. ... . . . ... . ; . :: : : .
......
.... .. . .... .....
. . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
. .... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-11.2
-11.74
-12.26
-12.5
0 .46
.98

1.22 Silty sand; gray
Well graded gravel w/silt & sand
Poorly graded gravel; 2.5 cm. diam.

A
B
C
SM
GW-GM
GP
15 0.0

3.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-4
LOCATION: Offshore north of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 618,257.6 EASTING (m): 1,890,265.6 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.642´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.587´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1010 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 11.28 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -11.3 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 1.22 RECOVERY (m): 1.22 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 760
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . . r-----------------1iliiPfl=cr-----r----r---r--r-·· .... = · ····:· ... ·: ... · · : . ... · . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... l-----------------------------1"'.J..,!!.-..i.:1+-----+-----+--+---+·· .... . ······· ..... ... . . . . . .. . •• • -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-15.5
-15.88
-16.95
-17.56
-19.94
-21.37
0 .3

1.37 1.98

4.36 5.79
Poorly graded gravel w/coarse sand
Poorly graded medium grained brown sand
Poorly graded sand w/gravel; shell frags
Poorly graded sand w/silt; gray
Sandy silt; gray; partly cohesive
A
B
C
D
E
GP
SP
SP
SP-SM
ML

1.0 1.0

1.0 9.0

64.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-5
LOCATION: Offshore of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 617,054.7 EASTING (m): 1,890,076.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.990´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.700´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1033 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 15.58 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -15.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.79 RECOVERY (m): 5.79 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 761
.....
. ....
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
. ... . . .... .. : ::::' , ..... . ......
. .... -
-13.8
-14.18
-18.38
0 .37

4.57 Silty sand w/gravel; dk gray; many shell frags
Poorly graded sand; light gray; occasional shells
A
B
SM
SP

21.0 2.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-6
LOCATION: Offshore of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 617,576 EASTING (m): 1,890,220.6 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.273´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.611´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1125 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 13.81 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -13.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.57 RECOVERY (m): 4.57 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 762
g l-----------------------~~~---1-----1---1-------1 " .... : ·····:· ... ·: ... ··:·· .. . . ... . . :·::: :· :
.... .. . ....
;_. :; : :_. ......
.... .. . .... ..... ......
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
: ::::' , ..... . . ... . . .... .. . ....
; . :: : : . : : : : .. : ......
. ....
......
...... . ....
; . :: : : . . ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
......
......
. .... .....
......
.... .. . .... ....
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
. .... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· - . . . . . ...... .. .... ... .... ...... .. . . . . . ·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . ···•• 1• •····················· . . .............................
. .... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-13.7
-15.91
-17.44
0 2.13

3.66 Silty sand; occasional lenses of shells
Poorly graded sand; light gray; med-fine grained
A
B
SM
SP
15 3.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-7
LOCATION: Offshore of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 618,047.7 EASTING (m): 1,889,854.6 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.526´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.850´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1210 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 13.78 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -13.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.66 RECOVERY (m): 3.66 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 763
. ... .... . .. . . .. .
: : : : : : . ... . . ... .
......
.....
. ....
......
. ....
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . . ... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· 1---------------------------------+------<e---+----+----+-----<>-..... =· ····:· ... ·: ·····: .. .. . ·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-17.2
-20.33
-21.55
0 3.05

4.27 Silty sand; occasional shell frags; gray color
Poorly graded sand; med-grained; light gray color
A
B
SM
SP

28.0 1.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-8
LOCATION: Offshore of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 616,579.7 EASTING (m): 1,889,732.3 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.731´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.918´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1332 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 17.28 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -17.3 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.27 RECOVERY (m): 4.27 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 764
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . 1---------------------------------f""==~f---+---+----+----f' .... ' ..... , ..... , ..... ' ..... .... . ...
;_. ;; : . '
......
.... .. . ... . . ... . ... ::: ·.:: ......
.....
-........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-15.2
-16.34
0 1.10
Silty sand; abundant 2.5 cm. gravel and shell frags A SM 18.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-9
LOCATION: Offshore of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 616,684.4 EASTING (m): 1,890,227.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.791´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.568´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1437 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 15.24 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -15.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 1.10 RECOVERY (m): 1.10 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 765
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-15.0
-15.39
-16.61
-17.99
0 .3

1.52 2.90
Silty sand; gray
Poorly graded gravel w/sand; 2.5 cm. gravel; med-light brown color
Poorly graded sand; minor gravel; med-light brown color A
B
C
SM
GP
SP

34.0 1.0

1.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-10
LOCATION: Offshore of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 616,153.5 EASTING (m): 1,890,645.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.506´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.327´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1520 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 15.09 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -15.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 2.90 RECOVERY (m): 2.90 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 766
irnmrn 1---------------------------------+-'-.......... -'-if---+---+----+-----1 ..... : ·····:· ... ·: ... ··:·· .. . • :· 4 ... ,..
"~ .. ' .... ~ .,.!I
~
: :: : . ;, ......
.... .. . ... . . ... .
......
.... .. . ... . . ... . ......
......
.... ..
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . . ... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . 1---------------------------------f&--__,'-'tf---+---+----+-----ll ...... ' ... .. , ..... , ..... ' .... . . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-13.3
-13.65
-13.96
-16.7
-18.38
0 .30
.61

3.35 5.03
Silty sand w/gravel; 2.5 cm. gravel & shell frags
Poorly graded med-fine grained gray sand
Poorly graded med-grained light-brown sand
Poorly graded med-grained light-brown sand
A
B
C
D
SM
SP
SP
SP
15 1.0

1.0 1.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-11
LOCATION: Offshore of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 617,054.5 EASTING (m): 1,890,573.7 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.993´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.38´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/14/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1608 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 13.35 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -13.3 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.03 RECOVERY (m): 5.03 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 767
irnmrn 1---------------------------------+....+-1++..if---+---+----+-----1 . .... : ·····:· ... ·: ... ··:·· .. . . ... . . ..... . ....
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
......
.... .. : ::::' ': :: : . : ......
.... .. . ....
...... .... .. . ... . . ... .
.... .. . ... . . ... . .-·.=:: ·.-·: ......
. ... . . ... . ......
. ... . . . ... .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . . ... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· 1---------------------------------f",o------tf---+---+----+-----I· .... .. . . . ... ..... ... . . ... .. . . .... ......
. ... . . ......
: ::::' , ..... . ......
.... .. .....
. .... ......
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . . ... . . :· : : : :· ; - . . . . . ...... .. .... ... .... ...... .. . . . . . ·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-10.9
-11.4
-11.79
-12.83
-14.2
-14.45
0 .46
.85

1.89 3.26

3.51 Silty sand w/2.5 cm. gravel
Poorly graded coarse sand; red-brown color
Silty sand; lt. brown; cohesive
Poorly graded coarse brown sand
Poorly graded sand; med. brown
A
B
C
D
E
SM
SP
SM
SP
SP

24.0 3.0

19.0 2.0

4.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-22
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 614,372 EASTING (m): 1,893,271.2 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.558´ LONGITUDE: 117°23.625´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/16/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 0745 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 10.94 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -10.9 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.51 RECOVERY (m): 3.51 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 768
. :~ ,.~. ~ ..... : ..... : ..... : .... . : ..... ~ ,,~ . . . . 1----------------------------flia,la,l•·~?l---+---+----+---l...... , : ·····:· ... ·: ... ··: . .... . .... ......
. ... . . ... . . ... . . .... .. : . ~=-=:.' ......
.... .. . ... . . ... . : :: : . ;, ......
.... .. .....
. ....
......
.... .. . ....
. . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ..... : ..... : ..... : ..... . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... ...... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· 1---------------------------------t-----1,----1-----1-----i-----t· ...... .. ................... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . . ·····=· ····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:• ···· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : ..... . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-10.5
-10.88
-12.71
-14.05
0 .30

2.13 3.47
Silty sand; dk. gray
Poorly graded med-coarse sand; red-brown & lt. gray color Poorly graded med-grained sand; lt. brown color
A
B
C
SM
SP
SP

21.0 1.0

2.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-23
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 613,559.8 EASTING (m): 1,894,017.6 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.123´ LONGITUDE: 117°23.139´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/16/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 0832 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 10.58 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -10.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.47 RECOVERY (m): 3.47 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 769
irnmrn 1---------------------------------H-H..,..,,',tf---+---+----+-----I ..... : ·••··:· ... ·: ... ·•:•· .. . . .... ..... . ... . . ......
. ... . . ... . . ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ...... ......
.... .. ; . :: : : . . ... . . .... .. . .... ..... :"::: ·.:: .... .. . .... . ....
; . :: : : . : : : : : : .....
. ....
......
. ... . . ... . ......
. ... . . .. :: : .. :
; . :: : : .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
. .... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~ -···:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-10.0
-10.33
-12.07
-12.46
-12.62
0 .30

2.04 2.43

2.59 Silty sand; shell frags
Clay; dense; hard; dk. gray
Sandy silt; cohesive; hard; gray and brown
Poorly graded med-coarse brown sand
A
B
C
D
SM
ML
ML
SP
100.0

21.0 100.0

64.0 3.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-24
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 613,050.8 EASTING (m): 1,894,347 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°10.910´ LONGITUDE: 117°22.915´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/16/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 0919 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 10.03 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -10 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 2.59 RECOVERY (m): 2.59 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 770
_____ .....,....__ :::11 __ ····· .......... .... . .. .. . ~
~ ~ ~
-...... .. .................
-----............... -------1-'-····· ... . .. .... ... . ... .. . -----1"-"-'-'-'-· .... .. ···:+-----+---~····· ...... .... ... .... .. . ~ ···· .......... ......... .
-14.3
-16.1
-16.4
-17.01
0 1.74

2.04 2.65
Silty sand; shells and shell frags; gray color
Poorly graded gravel w/sand; shell frags & 2.5 cm. gravel Poorly graded med-coarse brown sand
A
B
C
SM
GP
SP

19.0 4.0

1.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-25
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 613,215.5 EASTING (m): 1,893,552.2 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°10.934´ LONGITUDE: 117°23.436´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/16/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1007 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 14.36 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -14.4 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 2.65 RECOVERY (m): 2.65 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 771
. ... . . .... .. . ....
......
...... .... .. . ... . . ... .
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-12.6
-12.92
-13.23
-14.66
-16.58
-17.25
0 .30
.61

2.04 3.96

4.63 Silty sand w/shell frags
Poorly graded coarse sand w/silt & gravel(5.1 cm+)
Poorly graded coarse sand; gray/brown/rust color
Silty sand; lt. gray; cohesive
Poorly graded sand; med-lt. brown color
A
B
C
D
E
SM
SP-SM
SP
SM
SP

26.0 5.0

2.0 39.0

3.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-26
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 613,847.7 EASTING (m): 1,893,375.7 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.275´ LONGITUDE: 117°23.554´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/16/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1051 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 12.62 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -12.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.63 RECOVERY (m): 4.63 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 772
i::::: 1---------------------------------~~H;,~,~~.~r~+j--+------f---+---~ . .... : ·••··:· ... ·: ... ·•:•· .. . • , ~,: ~ ( 1
•• :.: ' ... i
. ... . . .... .. . .... ; . ~=::.
......
.... .. . ....
~::: : : .....
. ....
....
....
. .
....
....
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . . ... . . .... ..
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
. .... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
1----------------------------------+------<e---+----+----+-----<~·- ...... .. .. ........... ... ... . ..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-12.8
-13.68
-18.25
0 .82

5.39 Silty sand; dk. gray; occasional shell frags
Poorly graded med-grained sand w/gravel; occasional layers of shell frags and 2.5 cm. gravel; shell frags 11'-1.2', 12.2'-12.3' A
B
SM
SP

21.0 1.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-32
LOCATION: Offshore of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 616,699 EASTING (m): 1,890,935.5 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.803´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.133´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/17/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 0732 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 12.86 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -12.9 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.39 RECOVERY (m): 5.39 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 773
..... : ... . . ~ .... . : ..... :
·····=·····; ·····:····•:· .. ... ; ... .. ; ..... ; .... . ; .. .. . ·····:·····i·····.:··· .. , .. ...
:i·····:·····:·····:····· ..... : .. ..... ..... ..... ... .. .. ......... ... .. ......
·····:·····i·····i·····i··· ·····:·····:·····: ..... , .. ·····!····•.: ••···; ·····=·····
····!·····!·····!·····=····· .. ... : .... ·:·····:·····:··· :·····: ...... ... .. . .. ... ....
-12.9
-13.59
-14.78
0 .61

1.80 Poorly graded sand w/gravel (2.5 cm); shell frags
Silty med-grained sand; lt. brown; 2.5 cm. gravel & pebbles A
B
SP
SM

1.0 29.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-34
LOCATION: Offshore of Santa Margarita River
NORTHING (m): 615,678.6 EASTING (m): 1,891,618 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.255´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.698´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/17/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 0907 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 12.98 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -13 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 1.80 RECOVERY (m): 1.80 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 774
11111
··=·····
·:• •· ··:·····!·····:····· . , ..... :· ····;·····;····· . .... ... ···:··· ··:·····:·····
·····:·····:·····:·····;
··:·····:·····:·····;
.. .. . .. . : ... ... .. :
.... .
·=· ····:·····:·····=
··: ·····:
·:·•· ••:••···!··· · • : · ·
. . . . .....
·····:·····:·····:·····:
·····:· ·· ··:·····:·. ····i ··
-13.6
-14.42
-15.34
-19.39
0 .76

1.68 5.73
Poorly graded sand w/silt; occasional shell frags; dark gray Poorly graded fine sand; occasional shell frags & 2.5 cm. gravel
Silty med-grained sand; light brown
A
B
C
SP-SM
SP
SM

9.0 1.0

33.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-35
LOCATION: Offshore of Oceanside Harbor
NORTHING (m): 614,874.6 EASTING (m): 1,891,943.2 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.822´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.483´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/17/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1012 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 13.66 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -13.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.73 RECOVERY (m): 5.73 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 775
.1 ~1: t I' 1
-►◄:n.
:I :1: ~ t I
:1 :1: ~ i I
.1:1; t ·1:J
., :1: t ( 1 . .. ...
. .. ... ...
. .. ...
... . ..
: . '
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
. .... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· 1---------------------------------~~~"-1,---+---+----+----t ..... .. ...... ..... ... ..... .. . ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-18.0
-21.15
-22.25
0 3.11

4.21 Silty sand; a few shell frags; slightly cohesive ; dark gray Sandy silt; gray
A
B
SM
ML

39.0 64.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-36
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 613,396.7 EASTING (m): 1,892,037.1 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.023´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.412´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/17/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1113 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 18.04 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -18 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.21 RECOVERY (m): 4.21 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 776
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . 1---------------------------------+J,-.L.LJ..l...&.lf---+---+----+-----I . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-14.8
-19.17
-20.51
0 4.36

5.70 Silty sand; shell frags; cohesive; dark gray
Poorly graded fine-med grained brown sand
A
B
SM
SP

39.0 1.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-37
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 612,591.5 EASTING (m): 1,893,817.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°10.598´ LONGITUDE: 117°23.261´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/17/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1210 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 14.81 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -14.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.70 RECOVERY (m): 5.70 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 777
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . 1---------------------------------~.~-• .-~.~: ..... =+---+-----1---+---~ · .... , . .. . . , . ... . , . . . . . , .. . . . ; . :: : . '
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
:· : : : :· ;
. . .............................
. .... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-48
-16.86
0 2.23
Silty sand; occasional shell frags; slightly cohesive; dark gray
A SM 21.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-38
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 613,740.9 EASTING (m): 1,892,664.2 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.213´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.011´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/17/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1339 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 14.63 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -14.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 2.23 RECOVERY (m): 2.23 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 778
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . 1---------------------------------+'-'-'-"""'-'-"'-lf---+---+----+-----i,, ..... ' ..... , ..... , ... .. ' ..... ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-11.2
-11.46
-12.9
-13.65
-14.88
-15.27
0 .24

1.68 2.43

3.66 4.05
Silty sand; dark gray
Silty sand; partly cohesive; reddish-brown patches
Silty sand; mod. cohesive; gray-brown
Silt; cohesive; red-brown to dark gray
Silty sand; mod. cohesive
A
B
C
D
E
SM
SM
SM
ML
SM

39.0 21.0

21.0 87.0

40.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-39
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 614,092 EASTING (m): 1,893,518.3 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.408´ LONGITUDE: 117°23.464´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/17/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1425 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 11.22 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -11.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.05 RECOVERY (m): 4.05 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 779
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . 1---------------------------------H-H ..... -'r-if---+---+----+-----i>"-" .... : ·• •· ·:· ... ·: . .. . . : . . . .. . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . .
.... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . 1--------------------------------------------+----+-----<>-..... =· ····:· ... ·: ·····: .. .. . ·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· 1----------------------------------~~ ....... -------+----+-----< . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-13.1
-13.48
-14.54
-15.21
0 .37

1.43 2.10
Poorly graded sand w/gravel; 2.5 cm. gravel & shell frags; dk. gray
Poorly graded light brown coarse grained sand
Poorly graded light brown med. grained sand
A
B
C
SP
SP
SP

1.0 1.0

2.0 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-40
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 614,402.1 EASTING (m): 1,892,713.5 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.571´ LONGITUDE: 117°23.984´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/17/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1553 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 13.11 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -13.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 2.10 RECOVERY (m): 2.10 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 780
~:o~
~~c: l-----------------------~~:::a..---1-----1---1-------1 " .... : ·····:· ... ·: ... ··:·· .. . . .... ; . :: : : . ......
.... .. . ... . . ... . . ... . . .... .. . ....
......
.... ..
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... - 1----------------------------------~:~~·.~.~.~: ..... -------+----+-----<1 ...... : ·····=· ... ·= ..... : .... . ...... .....
;,. :; : :,. . ... . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . t---------------------------------r•-•-·-•-•~•,---+---+----+-----f· .... , . .. .. , ..... , ..... , ..... ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-11.3
-12.8
-14.63
-15.18
-15.7
0 1.46

3.29 3.84

4.36 Silty sand; dk. gray; shell frags from 1.22 m.-1.52 m.

Clay; dk gray; highly cohesive
Silt; dark gray
Poorly graded sand w/silt
A
B
C
D
SM
ML
ML
SP-SM
100.0

40.0 100.0

87.0 10
OS-41 HOLE NUMBER: Oceanside PROJECT:

Offshore of San Luis Rey River LOCATION:

CSPCS 83 Zone 6 DATUM: 1,892,612.7 EASTING (m): 614,702.7 NORTHING (m):

NAD83 CA Zone 6 DATUM: 117°24.051´ LONGITUDE: 33°11.733´ LATITUDE:

US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log

6.4 EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): Coastal Frontiers CONTRACTOR:

COMPLETED: 1649 TIME BORING STARTED: 6/17/93 DATE DRILLED:

MLLW DATUM: -11.3 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): 11.34 SOUNDING (m):

LOGGED BY: 4.36 RECOVERY (m): 4.36 PENETRATION (m):

Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Sample
Graphic
No.

Laboratory
Classification
Sieve
% < #4
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160
sec/m Penetration Rate
ure g Fi
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 781
..... , ..... .. .... ...... , .... ";""
- .. ... , .. .. .... . ...... .. , .... .

I I I I i "" 'l I . j ; :1; ~
·n:r.,:
..... ... ..... .......... .. .. - .~ ~~';t:
. .... , .. ..... .. ........ , .... .
. .. .. . .. ... . . ... ..... .. . .... . ;----+-----,f----+---+"H...,..l-'r+-----------------------------------1 ..... , ..... , .. ... ...... , ... .
®
-15.0
-15.97
-17.71
0 .91

2.65 Silty sand; dark gray; shell frags
Poorly graded fine sand; occasional shell frags
A
B
SM
SP

40.0 1.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-42
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 614,351.4 EASTING (m): 1,891,951.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.539´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.474´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/17/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 1736 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 15.06 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -15.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 2.65 RECOVERY (m): 2.65 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 782
......
.... .. .....
; . :: : : . ......
.... .. . ... . . ... . ......
. ... . . .... .. . ... . . ... . ......
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:·····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-11.5
-12.1
-12.71
-14.42
-14.72
0 .55

1.16 2.87

3.17 Poorly graded sand w/silt & gravel(5.1 cm); shell frags Sandy silt; med. brown
Poorly graded sand w/gravel; upper .3 m. coarse sand w/ pebbles & shell frags; middle 1.1 m. med-coarse sand; lower .3 m. coarse sand w/pebbles & shell frags
Poorly graded gravel w/sand; med-brown; shell frags
A
B
C
D
SP-SM
ML
SP
GP

11.0 51.0

1.0 1.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-43
LOCATION: Offshore of Oceanside Harbor
NORTHING (m): 615,945.5 EASTING (m): 1,891,723.6 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.400´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.632´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/18/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 0613 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 11.55 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -11.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.17 RECOVERY (m): 3.17 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 783
.. ... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ... . . ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... 1---------------------------------++,H-+-'~f---+---+----+-----I ····························· ..... .....
......
. · ~: ~ .· . . ....
......
.... .. . ... . . ... . ......
.... .. . .... ; . ~=::.
. ... . . .... ..
-
. .... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ... . . : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . .
t-----------------------------~llz-'•~•,....._,""'t--+----+---+--~ · .... ; ... .. ; ..... ; ..... ; ..... ·~4 1---------------------------+--=--+--+---+--+---+ .. ... . , ... .. , .... . , ..... ' .... . . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... .
-........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:·····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ... . ... .... .. .. .. , .. .. . . . .............................
.. ... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:· ····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-14.8
-15.42
-18.22
0 .61

3.41 Silty sand; shell frags in lower 9 cm; dk. gray
Poorly graded med-grained sand; very few shell frags & 5.1 cm. gravel @ 1.07 m.; lt. brown
A
B
SM
SP

32.0 1.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-44
LOCATION: Offshore of Oceanside Harbor
NORTHING (m): 615,794.3 EASTING (m): 1,890,857.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.313´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.188´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Coastal Frontiers EQUIPMENT: DIAMETER (cm): 6.4 DATE DRILLED: 6/18/93 TIME BORING STARTED: 0732 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 14.81 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -14.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.41 RECOVERY (m): 3.41 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is NOT tide-corrected. Sounding value used. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 784
.... .. . .... ; . :: : : . : : : : .. : ......
. ... . . ... . ......
. ... . . ......
. ....
......
. ... . . .... .. : ::::' , ..... . . ... . . .... .. . .... ..... . ... . . .... .. . ....
.... .. . ... . . ... .
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... -
. .... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . . ........................... . . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . . ... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-14.9
-16.12
-17.16
0 1.22

2.26 Poorly graded sand with silt
Poorly graded sand w/gravel
1 2
SP-SM
SP
100.0
68 9.9
2 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-1
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,565.9 EASTING (m): 1,890,361.2 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.7295´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.5656´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/99 TIME BORING STARTED: COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 14.9* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -14.9 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 2.26 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 785
. .. .. . .. .. ......
.... .. . .. .. .....
. .. . .. .... .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .... ..
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . . ........................... . . . . .
1---------------------------------1"--~--1----+---+----+------1·· ... ..... ····· .. , ..... , .... . ..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -48
-16.22
-17.4
0 1.62

2.80 Poorly graded sand
Poorly graded sand
1 2
SP
SP

96.5 100.0

3.0 1.7
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-2
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,331.2 EASTING (m): 1,890,550.2 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.6037´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.4423´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/99 TIME BORING STARTED: COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 14.6* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -14.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 2.80 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 786
......
.... .. . .. .. ; . :: : : . . .. . .. .... .. .....
. .. . .. .... .. . .. .. ; . :: : : . .... .. . .. .. ;_. ;~ ~ :_. ...... .....
. .. ..
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . . .. .. .. ... .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . . ........................... . . . . .
. . . . 1---------------------------------tr,,-;-....., ..... ---+---+----+-----1 ··. ··:· ... ·:··· ··: ..... :· .... .... .. . .. .. ; . :: : : . . .. .. . .. .. ......
. .. . .. .... .. . .. .. ......
.... .. . .. ..
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . . .. .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···• • : •• •· ·l·····l··•· •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... .. ... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -15.8
-16.41
-17.23
0 .61

1.43 Sandy Silt; dark gray; occasional mica.

Poorly Graded Sand w/Silt; medium olive gray; common
shells in bottom 15 cm.
1 2
ML
SP-SM
100
99 52
8 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-3
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,787 EASTING (m): 1,890,073 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.8475´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.7530´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1424 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 15.8* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -15.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 1.43 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 787
.. :1 ~: ~ I
n:tF . . , :1: tr'
t):t ➔: :1:1: rtl
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . -
t-------------------------------~,=~•~~~·~r~·-+--+----+---+-----L••. ··:· ... ·:··· ··: ..... :· .... . . . . ............................. . . . . ..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -15.8
-16.87
-17.17
-19.64
0 1.07

1.37 3.84
Sandy silt; medium to dark olive gray; common mica.

Silty sand; transitional unit.

Poorly graded sand; medium to coarse; light yellow, gray to light olive gray; scattered shell fragments; rare mica. 1 2
3 ML
SM
SP
100
95 100
51 26
1 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-4
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,526 EASTING (m): 1,890,226 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.7071´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.6524´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1500 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 15.8* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -15.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 3.84 LOGGED BY: PJF
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 788
......
.....
......
......
.... .. . .. .. . .. .. ......
. .. . .. .... .. . .. .. . .. . .. ...... . .. .. ; . :: : : . ...... .. ~= ~ ... . .. .. .... .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .... .. . .. .. ; .:: : : . ...... . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... , .. ... . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... , . .. .. - . . . . . ........................... . . . . .
. . . . . ........................... . . . . .
..:. ···························· . .. .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . . .. .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:-., .,:·····:·····:·····:····
1---------------------------------~•~••~•-• ---+---+----+------1 ··. ··1·. ··• ! •• •· ·l ..... : • . •. • . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... .. ... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····!·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -15.5
-17.33
-18
-18.43
0 1.83

2.50 2.93
Poorly graded sand w/silt; very fine to medium grained; light to medium gray; rare shell fragments; occasional to common mica; dry to damp.

Silty sand w/gravel; dark gray; rare whole small snails and clams.

Sandy Gravel. Interval possibly included into above sample. 1 2
NS
SP-SM
SM
100.0
78 7.3
30 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-5
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,259 EASTING (m): 1,890,400 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.5636´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.5383´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1520 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 15.5* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -15.5 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 2.93 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 789
; ;1::;
; ;1::;
-
..:. ····
-14.9
-15.94
-16.55
-18.86
-19.56
0 1.04

1.65 3.96

4.66 Poorly graded sand w/silt; very fine to medium grained; light to medium gray; occasional small shell fragments; common mica; dry.

Silty Sand; very fine grained; medium olive gray; common shell fragments; saturated.

Sand; very fine to medium grained; medium gray; common
shell fragments; common mica; relatively dry.

Poorly graded sand w/silt & gravel; abundant pebbles.
1 2
3 SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
100.0
100.0

98.6 11.4

10.5 7.5
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-6
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,024.3 EASTING (m): 1,890,578.8 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.4379´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.4216´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1547 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 14.9* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -14.9 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 4.66 LOGGED BY:

REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 790
:1~:tl
IJ:~ ,.-
~:,: rtl
=L1: r L
.1 :i: C 1·,
:"i;:ti"
nn:
i ;,: i j;
; ;1::;
; ;1::;
.....
; . :: : : . .... .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .... .. . .. .. ; .:: : : . ...... ; . :: : : . . .. . .. .... .. . .. .. ; . :: : : . . .. . .. .... .. . .. .. . .. . .. .... .. . .. .. ; . :: : : . ...... .... ..
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... , .. ... . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... , . .. .. - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . . .. .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:-., .,:·····:·····:·····:····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
1-----------------------------f'IL:>.:""'"l---+---+--+-----t II ··. ··:· ... ·: ·····: ..... :· .... ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... .. ... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -16.5
-18.33
-18.63
0 1.83

2.13 Sandy silt; fine to very fine grained; dark to medium olive gray; common mica throughout with rare shell fragments
(thin-shelled clams). 5.1 cm pebble horizon at base.

Poorly graded sand w/gravel; medium to fine grained; light gray to light olive gray; small 0.6-1.3 cm. pebbles.
1 2
ML
SP
99 86
54 3
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-7
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,678.1 EASTING (m): 1,889,909.5 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.7875´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.8571´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1623 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 16.5* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -16.5 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 2.13 LOGGED BY: PJF
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 791
......
.... .. . .. .. . .. ..
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... , .. ... . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... , . .. .. - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
····························· t-------------------------"1'-'"'" ........ ~-+-----+-----,t-------1 ..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:-., .,:·····:·····:·····:····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... .. ... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -16.2
-17.42
-17.82
-18.03
-18.94
-19.71
-20.35
-21.47
0 1.22

1.62 1.83

2.74 3.51

4.15 5.27
Sandy silt; dark gray; common mica.

Sandy Silt
Poorly graded sand with silt; medium olive gray; occasional gastropod and clam shells; rare shell fragments.

Poorly graded sand w/silt; light to medium gray; rare shell fragments; sharp lower contact.

Poorly sorted sand with gravel; orange gray; common dark rock fragments; occasional small shell fragments.orange gray; common dark rock fragments; occasional small shell fragments.

Poorly graded sand; orange-yellow-brown; fine to very
coarse; well-sorted; occasional mica.

Poorly graded sand; light yellow-brown; medium to coarse; moderately well-sorted; occasional mica; no fines or shells . 1 2
3 4
ML
ML
SP-SM
SP
100
100
100
68 57
56 7
1 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-8
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,377.9 EASTING (m): 1,890,049.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.6259´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.7649´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1653 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 16.2* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -16.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 5.27 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 792
......
.... .. ..... . .. .. , ..... . ......
.....
. .. .. .... .. . .. .. . .. .. ......
. .. . .. .... .. . .. .. ~:: : .. . .. .. ; . :: : : . . .. . .. .... .. . .. .. . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . -:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. 1---------------------------------i--~--+---+---+----+-----l•• ... , .... . , ..... , ..... , ..... ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -17.1
-17.86
-18.47
-20.51
0 .76

1.37 3.41
Sandy silt; dark olive gray; mica common to abundant
throughout; very moist.

Sandy silt; dark to medium olive gray; shell hash lens at base; moderately dry.

Silty sand; light to medium gray; fine to very fine grained; occasional shell fragments; occasional pebbles (.6-1.3 cm) near base.
1 2
3 ML
ML
SM
100
100
100
64 50
14 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-9
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,090.4 EASTING (m): 1,890,151.8 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.4719´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.6969´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1835 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 17.1* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -17.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 3.41 LOGGED BY: PJF
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 793
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. 1;: . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .

I::
1:;
..:. ···························· 1;: ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . .

I:: ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
..
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -16.8
-18.63
-19.85
-20.98
0 1.83

3.05 4.18
Sandy silt; medium to dark olive gray; common mica; shell fragments below 0.91 m.

Poorly graded sand; medium olive gray; abundant mica;
some pebbles to 5.1 cm at 2.7 m.

Poorly graded sand w/silt; very fine grained; medium olive gray; drier than above.
1 2
3 ML
SP
SP-SM
100
100
100
53 3
5 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-10
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 615,811.2 EASTING (m): 1,890,325.8 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.3211´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.5829´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1902 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 16.8* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -16.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 4.18 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 794
.....
; . :: : : . . .. . .. .... .. . .. .. ......
.... .. . .. .. ; .:: : : . ......
.... ..
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... , .. ... . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... , . .. .. - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· . .... : ..... : ..... : ..... : ..... . . . . . .. .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
1---------------------------------i-.-~~-,1,---+---+----+-----l•• .......................... . • ~ -.!: ~ J, ;l1:rJ.
-1 :i: C 1· :·1~: t j'
'f.l~t,:
~~:Ul
'L1:rJ.
,1 ~:' •• ,
-:-., .,:·····:·····:·····:····
·····1····•! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
1----------------------------fL'~-;-,:-t
0 ~ 1· ... ·--+---+---+--~·· . .... . .. ····· ·· · ....... . .. . ······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ...... .. ... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -18
-19.52
-21.05
-22.39
0 1.52

3.05 4.39
Sandy silt; dark olive gray; mica common throughout; no shell fragments; very moist.

Silty sand; dark olive gray; rare to common shell fragments.

Silty sand; medium gray to olive gray; fine grained very rare shell fragments; very abundant mica; firm.
1 2
3 ML
SM
SM
100
98 100
63 30
43 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-11
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,280.6 EASTING (m): 1,889,627.2 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.5707´ LONGITUDE: 117°26.0359´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1934 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 18.0* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -18 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 4.39 LOGGED BY: PJF
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 795
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
1---------------------------------1+-H+H---+---+----+-----l•• • .... • •• ............. •• • .. • -:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -17.7
-18.92
-21.02
0 1.22

3.32 Silt with sand; dark olive gray; common mica; burrowing worm at 0.3 m.

Silty sand; dark olive gray; becoming drier, friable below 2.5 m.
1 2
ML
SM
100
100
81 24
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-12
LOCATION: SO-9 Site
NORTHING (m): 616,090.7 EASTING (m): 1,889,811.3 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.4691´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.9160´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 2008 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 17.7* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -17.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 3.32 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 796
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -17.1
-19.54
-21.06
-22.13
0 2.44

3.96 5.03
Silty sand: medium olive gray; very fine grained; abundant mica; rare shell fragments; very moist.

Sandy silt; medium olive gray; slightly more compacted
below 3.05 m.

Poorly graded sand w/silt
1 2
3 SM
ML
SP-SM
100
100
96 17
57 6
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-13
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,810.9 EASTING (m): 1,890,794.3 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.7827´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.2742´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 2043 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 17.1* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -17.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 5.03 LOGGED BY: PJF
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 797
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..... ...... .. ... . ...... ...... 1---------------------------------1-'r-.,,.'r'+'r+---+---+----+-----+-... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· 1---------------------------------i:.o---LJ--'1----+---+----+-----+ ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -18.3
-20.74
-21.96
-23.33
0 2.44

3.66 5.03
Silty sand; medium olive gray; very fine grained; abundant mica; rare shell fragments; damp.

Silty sand; medium olive gray ; very fine grained; abundant mica; rare shell fragments.

Poorly graded sand with silt; medium dark gray to olive gray; very fine grained; common mica; no shells; very dry;
somewhat compact.
1 2
3 SM
SM
SP-SM
100
99 100
49 14
9 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-14
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,739.9 EASTING (m): 1,890,696.2 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.7437´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.3368´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 2109 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 18.3* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -18.3 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 5.03 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 798
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..... ...... .. ... . ...... ...... 1---------------------------------1-+.H+;.+;-H+---+---+----+-----+- I:
; 1:1:
'~ t '~-
:i:1: t tl
:1 ~: ~ I
.1":l:tF,
., -:i: ~ r'
;tj~t-i;
... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
·····=·····:·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
:,;1;r tl ·····:·····:····:·····:·····
; 1J: f L ..... , .. .. . , .... . , ..... , .. ... JXCr, . . . . 1---------------------------------~--~·-·_ ..... ~ ...... ---+---+----+-----+·· ... , .... . , ..... , ..... , ..... ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -18.6
-20.28
-21.65
-23.8
0 1.68

3.05 5.21
Sandy silt; dark olive gray; abundant muscovite throughout; rare shell fragments; fluid to appx. 15 cm.

Silty sand; dark olive gray; abundant muscovite throughout; rare shell fragments.

Poorly graded sand with silt; light gray to medium olive; very fine to fine; becoming firm, "dry".
1 2
3 ML
SM
SP-SM
100
100
100
53 33
7 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-15
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,600.3 EASTING (m): 1,890,558.7 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.6674´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.4243´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 2135 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 18.6* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -18.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 5.21 LOGGED BY: PJF
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 799
.. •:: '· :1 l: C I n:~F . • 1 :J: tr ;~1:r~-
:i:1: t tJ
:,~=n
, ..... . • 1 :1: t L· ., :i: tr
;t j~ :
"J:1: ttl
=1J:fL
.1 ;1; t 1·,
:1 ?; ~ {
• r J: t 1:
':I :1: r t l :, ~= ~ :
-
..:. ····
-16.8
-18.93
-19.85
-21.68
0 2.13

3.05 4.88
Sandy silt; dark olive gray; very fine grained; common razor clam shell fragments throughout; micaceous.

Silty sand; 5"(?!) diam. sandstone cobble at top.

Poorly graded sand w/silt; medium gray; fine to very fine; abundant mica in layers.
1 2
3 ML
SM
SP-SM
99 96
100
50 13
8 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-16
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,652.7 EASTING (m): 1,891,135.1 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.6992´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.0538´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 2159 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 16.8* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -16.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 4.88 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 800
-
I jl::
; ;I: ..:. ····
-17.1
-20.15
-21.0
0 3.05

3.99 Sandy silt; dark olive gray to dark gray; micaceous; no shells; shell hash at 1.8 m.; plant debris with twigs at 2.1 m.

Poorly graded sand with silt; drier; more compacted.
1 2
ML
SP-SM
99 100
54 6
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-17
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,556.7 EASTING (m): 1,891,019.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.6466´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.1272´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 2223 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 17.1* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -17.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 3.99 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 801
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
1---------------------------------H-.... .....,, ..... __ -+---+----+-----l •• .......................... . . .. . . • 1 :1: t I'' "tj:t 4:
:i:1:t tl ;1J: f L
.1 ;t; t 1·
.,:,:~,
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···• • : •• •· ·l·····l··•· •
1---------------------------------~•-L~•••~•-,• ...... ---+---+----+-----l •• • .. ;. • •• .; . . .. . ; ••••• ;. • •• • ······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -18
-19.22
-21.72
-23.1
0 1.22

3.72 5.15
Sandy silt; medium olive gray; micaceous; no shells;
saturated to 0.91 m, then drier, more compact.

Sandy silt; dark olive gray; wet.

Silty sand; light to medium gray; fine to very fine grained; no shells; bedding(?); drier and more compact.
1 2
NS
ML
ML
100
99 66
54 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-18
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,476.8 EASTING (m): 1,890,893.7 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.6026´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.2078´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 2244 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 18.0* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -18 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 5.15 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 802
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l·····l ····· . . . . ·····:• •· ··:·····:·····:····· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; ..... ..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ..... : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . 1---------------------------------W.M-M..'wlf---+---+----+-----I . . . . ·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . 1---------------------------------f-L'=="""if---+---+----+-----il ..... ' ... .. , ..... , .... . , .... . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-18.6
-19.82
-22.59
-22.87
0 1.22

3.99 4.27
Sandy silt; dark olive gray; abundantly micaceous; slight organic odor; saturated to 0.91 m.

Sandy silt; dark olive gray; moist.

Sandy silt; dark gray.
1 2
3 ML
ML
ML
100
100
100
64 52
52 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-19
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,390.9 EASTING (m): 1,890,761.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.5553´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.2923´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 2307 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 18.6* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -18.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 4.27 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 803
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
1---------------------------------t+t+tt-t-t---+---+----+-----i·· ... ; ..... ; .... . ; ..... ; ..... ······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -20.1
-22.39
-23.45
-25.07
0 2.29

3.35 4.97
Sandy silt; dark olive gray; abundant mica; rare shell
fragments, thin hash layer at base.

Silty sand; dry, compact.

Poorly graded sand with silt
1 2
3 ML
SM
SP-SM
100
100
100
64 43
8 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-20
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,275.6 EASTING (m): 1,890,652.3 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.4923´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.3617´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0025 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 20.1* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -20.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 4.97 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 804
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ..... : ..... : ..... : ..... : ..... . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
1---------------------------------~.r.~.~.r,.~1
~ •• ,1---1----+----,f----~ - - . .. , . . .. .. . . . . . , ..... , . .. . . . 1 ~= t .I''
;~1: n.
:i:1:~ tl
:,~=n
n:tF,
., -:J: tr'
"t ): t .;_.
"J:1: rtl ;1J: f L
.1.:1: t 1· ., :i: ~ (
-:- .. .. :· ····=· ····:·····:·····
·····1····•! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . ; .. : ; ~. . . . . 1---------------------------------..... ~~-------+----+----1 ··. ··:· ... ·:•····: ..... :· .... ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -16.5
-18.33
-20.65
0 1.83

4.15 Sandy silt; dark to medium gray; abundant mica to 0.76 m, common below.

Poorly graded sand w/silt; dark to medium gray; moist to 3.05 m., then dry, compact; occasional pebbles 3.05-3.66 m.
1 2
ML
SP-SM
99 100
54 9
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-21
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,458.8 EASTING (m): 1,891,334.1 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.5956´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.9243´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0055 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 16.5* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -16.5 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 4.15 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 805
-
..:. ····
-17.1
-19.08
-20
-22.28
0 1.98

2.90 5.18
Sandy silt; medium to dark gray; abundant mica to 0.91 m, common below; worms in upper 0.46 m.; "weathered paper
detritus" at 1.22 m.

Silty sand.

Poorly graded sand with silt; drier, compact; no shells. 1 2
3 ML
SM
SP-SM
100
100
100
58 18
5 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-22
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,347.3 EASTING (m): 1,891,206.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.5344´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.0057´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0125 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 17.1* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -17.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 5.18 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 806
rJ~t 1:
:,:,: r tl
;l~: n . • 1 :i: C 1·
:1)'. l {
'tJ:ti:
~~:Ol
·~,: r J.
1 ~= ~ r: :1,:n
nn:
)~:Ul
;~1:r~ . . i:,:, .. :·, °l: c i'
O:t1.'
........
-
..:. ····
-18
-20.29
-20.99
0 2.29

2.99 Sandy silt; medium to dark olive gray; abundant mica grading down to common; uniform.

Silty sand; medium olive gray; fine to very fine grained; commonly micaceous; occasional shells; drier to base.
1 2
ML
SM
100
100
67 16
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-23
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,266.5 EASTING (m): 1,891,108.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.4901´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.0679´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0155 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 18.0* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -18 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 2.99 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 807
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -19.2
-21.64
-23.62
0 2.44

4.42 Sandy silt; medium to dark olive gray; very fine grained; abundant disseminated mica.

Silty sand; medium gray; fine grained; abundant mica; shell fragments; below 3.05 m. drier, more compact with no shells. 1 2
ML
SM
100
100
66 38
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-24
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,169.3 EASTING (m): 1,890,962.6 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.4367´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.1613´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0235 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 19.2* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -19.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 4.42 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 808
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..... ...... .. ... . ...... ...... 1---------------------------------1+-......... r'+---+---+----+-----+-... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -20.4
-21.31
-23.45
-24.79
0 .91

3.05 4.39
Sandy silt; dark olive gray; very fine grained; abundant mica; no shells; slightly liquified to moist.

Poorly graded sand with silt; dark olive gray.

Sand with silt; lighter gray, more compact, drier. No Sample. 1 2
NS
ML
SP-SM
100
96 58
9 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-25
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,079.7 EASTING (m): 1,890,863.8 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.3876´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.2242´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0305 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 20.4* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -20.4 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 4.39 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 809
-
..:. ····
-16.5
-19.55
-21.22
0 3.05

4.72 Sandy silt; dark olive gray; very fine grained; common to abundant fine mica; rare shell fragments, but shell hash layers with small razor shell fragments locally; common plant fragments around 1.8 m.

Poorly graded sand; medium gray; very fine to fine; dry, compact, browner in color with faint horizontal bedding below 3.96 m.
1 2
ML
SP
100
90 58
4 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-26
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,200.1 EASTING (m): 1,891,563.3 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.4569´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.7750´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0340 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 16.5* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -16.5 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 4.72 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 810
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... , .. ... . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... , . .. .. - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· .. ... : ..... : ..... : ..... : ..... . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
1---------------------------------1-'-. ............... .. .. __ -+---+----+-----l •• .......................... . ; . :: : : . .... .. . .. .. . .. .. ......
. .. . .. ......
. .. .. . .. .. , ..... . . .. . .. .....
; . :: : : . . .. . .. .... .. . .. .. ; . :: : : . . .. . .. ...... -:-., .,:·····:·····:·····:····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... .. ... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:· ··· -17.1
-19.84
-20.54
0 2.74

3.44 Sandy silt; olive gray; very fine grained; finely micaceous; uniform; very small razor clam fragments; common plant
fragments around 1.8 m.

Silty sand; medium gray; fine to very fine; common razor shell fragments; common mica decreasing downwards; dry, very compact.
1 2
ML
SM
100
100
58 23
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-27
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,096.7 EASTING (m): 1,891,430.1 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.4002´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.8599´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0410 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 17.1* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -17.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 3.44 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 811
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... , .. ... . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... , . .. .. - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. 1-------------------------------------------+----+----1 . . . . ;
-:-., .,:·····:·····:·····:····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... .. ... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -18
-20.74
-21.72
0 2.74

3.72 Sandy silt; dark gray; very fine grained; micaceous; rare shell fragments to 0.46 m.; no bedding; drier, more compact,
friable, increasing shell fragments at base.

Poorly graded sand with silt; light gray; fine to very fine grained.
1 2
ML
SP-SM
100
100
61 7
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-28
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 614,018.4 EASTING (m): 1,891,309.1 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.3571´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.9372´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0430 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 18.0* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -18 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 3.72 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 812
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. ,_ ________________________________ ,.._.,._...., __________ -+----I . . . . ...
'TJ~ti: ~:,:nl
.....
"L 1: r J •
• 1 :i: C 1·,
:"!;:ti"
nn: 1---------------------------------~·~=~·•;_~•·~·~· ..... __ ,_ _____ _,...,._ __ ~~·. ··=· ... ·=·····: ..... :· .. . . ·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -19.2
-21.33
-22.16
0 2.13

2.96 Silt with sand; dark olive gray; very fine grained; uniform; occasional muscovite; no shells.

Poorly graded sand with silt ; dark olive gray; very fine grained; uniform; occasional muscovite; drier, more compact below 2.44 m.
1 2
ML
SP-SM
100
100
73 8
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-29
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 613,940.1 EASTING (m): 1,891,184.2 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.3140´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.0171´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0500 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 19.2* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -19.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 2.96 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 813
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
1---------------------------------1.,\. ····························· .... ,._,, ...... __ -+---+----+------I ..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -20.7
-22.38
-24.21
0 1.68

3.51 Sandy silt; medium dark olive gray; common mica
throughout 1.3 cm twig at 1.5 m.

Silty sand; dark olive gray; shell hash at top, and at 2.7 m. 1 2
ML
SM
100
100
67 36
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-30
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 613,843.1 EASTING (m): 1,891,058.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.2608´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.0970´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0525 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 20.7* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -20.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 3.51 LOGGED BY: PJF
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 814
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
1---------------------------------1"""--""'t---t-----1-----t-----1 •• ... ..... ········ ..... , .... . -:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:····· ·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -16.5
-18.63
-19.85
0 2.13

3.35 Sandy silt; dark olive gray; uniform; common mica; occasional razor clam fragments and thin-shelled
gastropods; more compact and drier below 1.83 m.

Silty sand; dark olive gray; compact; dry; no shells below

2.53 m.
1 2
ML
SM
100
99 61
24 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-31
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 613,990.3 EASTING (m): 1,891,752.6 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.3446´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.6517´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0550 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 16.5* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -16.5 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 3.35 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 815
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
1---------------------------------hlrhlrM.H----+---+----+------I ····························· ..:. ···························· ..... : ..... : ..... : ..... : ..... . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
1---------------------------------............ '"'+---+---+----+------1 . .. .. . . . .. ····· ·· · ..... . . .. . . -:- .. .. :· ····=· ····:·····:·····
·····1····•! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -17.1
-18.93
-20.12
0 1.83

3.02 Sandy silt; dark to medium olive gray; shell hash at base.

Sandy silt; medium olive gray; common shell hash
(pelecypods), turban shell.
1 2
ML
ML
100
100
53 60
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-32
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 613,891.6 EASTING (m): 1,891,620.3 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.2904´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.7361´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 0610 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 17.1* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -17.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 3.02 LOGGED BY: PJF
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 816
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . - . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
1---------------------------------1-'-.......... -'+---+---+----+------l ............................ . -:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -21
-22.1
0 1.1
Sandy silt; dark olive gray; abundant muscovite; rare small shell fragments.
1 ML 100 56
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-33
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 613,619.7 EASTING (m): 1,891,256.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.1411´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.9683´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1242 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 21.0* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -21 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 1.10 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 817
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . 1---------------------------------..... ~~--------+----+------l ... .... ... ········ ....... ... . - . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ..... : ..... : ..... : ..... : ..... . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=· ····:·····:·····
·····1····•! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -18.6
-19.79
0 1.19
Sandy silt; dark olive gray; muscovite throughout; rare shell fragments.
1 ML 100 64
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-34
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 613,576.7 EASTING (m): 1,891,733.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.1208´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.6611´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1100 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 18.6* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -18.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 1.19 LOGGED BY: PJF
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 818
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -21.3
-22.52
-23.16
0 1.22

1.86 Sandy silt; dark olive gray; abundant muscovite; occasional thin-shelled razor clams
Sandy silt; dark olive gray; abundant muscovite ;occasional thin-shelled razor clams at top.
1 2
ML
ML
99 100
58 60
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SDG-35
LOCATION: SO-8 Site
NORTHING (m): 613,390.8 EASTING (m): 1,891,471.0 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.0186´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.8286´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: ALPINE Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 10.2 DATE DRILLED: 1/24/99 TIME BORING STARTED: 1015 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 21.3* TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -21.3 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): ? RECOVERY (m): 1.86 LOGGED BY: VBC
REMARKS: Elevation is tide-corrected, but actual tide value not given Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

Laboratory
Classification
% < #4
Sieve
% < #200
Sieve
Penetration Rate
40 80 120 160 Penetration Rate sec/m
Figure
This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site.

PAGE 1 of 1 819
. . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ·····:·····:····:·····:····· . . . . ..... ... .. .... .. . , ..... ... .. . . . . . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... , ..... .... . . . . . . ............................. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . .
..:. ···························· ... .. : ..... : ..... : ..... : . .. .. . . . . ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
-:- .. .. :· ····=·····:·····:·····
·····1···· • ! • • •· ·l·····l·· • · •
. . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:·····
······. . ············. ······. ····· ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:•····:·····:···· ... .. ; .... . ; ... .. ; ..... ; . .. .. ... .. : .... . : ... .. : ..... : . .. .. . . . .
. . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ~····:·····:·····:·····:···· . . . . ..... ...... , .... . , ..... ..... . ..... : .. .. . : .... . : ..... : .. ... . . . .
·····l·····l·····l ·····l····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· -15.8
-16.76
-17.68
-18.59
-19.51
-19.96
0 .91

1.83 2.74

3.66 4.11
Silty sand; med. greenish gray; mod-minor shells
Silty sand; med. greenish gray; mod-minor shells
Sandy silt; med. greenish gray; mod-minor shells
Sandy silt; med. greenish gray; mod-minor shells
Sandstone (bedrock); silty; very fine grained; slightly micaceous; dense, compact; no shells; dry
1 2
3 4
5 SM
SM
ML
ML
SM
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

44.0 47.0

53.0 60.0

21.0 216.535
PROJECT: San Clemente HOLE NUMBER: SC-1
LOCATION: San Clemente Borrow Area #1
NORTHING (m): 634,671 EASTING (m): 1,873,567 DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°22.4135´ LONGITUDE: 117°36.5253´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/20/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1634 COMPLETED: 1656 SOUNDING (m): 16.15 TIDE (m): .30 ELEVATION (m): -15.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.11 RECOVERY (m): 4.11 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 820
' . . . . ~ .... : ..... : ..... : ..... : .... . . , .. ; ..... ; ..... ; .... . ; .... . . / ... ; ... .. ; ..... ; .... . ; .... . ~ . . . .
:1 ::: ::::::::::: ::::::: : .... . ------------------·'-··: ..... : ..... : ... .. : .. .. . I : : : :
:: :: ::: ::: ::: :::: : I . . . .
::,.:: ::::::::::::::::::::::: I : . . .
------------------· ··ij: .. ···:· ... ·: ... .. : ..... ····y ······················· ·····~····:·····:·····:····· ·····:y ···:·····:·····:····· ~····i·~··i·····i·····i····· . .... = . . ·x. = . .... = . .. . . = . . . .. i-----------------ttHtTt-1"-et-------t-------t-------t---; ·····I····, ····· I····· i · · · · · ..... : .. ··-i: .... ·: ..... : ..... ...... ...... ......
·····:····~·····:·····:····· .... . : .... ·~ ..... : ..... : ..... ·····:·····~~··:·····:····· ..... : ..... : ... " : ..... : .... . . . .. . : ... .. ; ..... 1a,.< I .... . · ····:· · · · ·:· ····:··· · ·'i.,· · ··· . .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ..... ;.~,
1--------------------------.+&JLLO..&.L+--+---l----+-----1 . .... ; . . . . . ; . .... ;~ .. . . ; . . . . ~ . . .............................
..... : ..... : ..... : .... . : ..... . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~ ····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. . .. ... ..... ... .. . .. ...
-16.4
-17.1
0 .61
Silty sand; very fine grained; mod-abundant shell fragments; gray color.
1 393.701
PROJECT: San Clemente HOLE NUMBER: SC-3
LOCATION: San Clemente Borrow Area #1
NORTHING (m): 636,380 EASTING (m): 1,872,551 DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°23.3305´ LONGITUDE: 117°37.1947´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/20/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1451 COMPLETED: 1525 SOUNDING (m): 16.76 TIDE (m): .27 ELEVATION (m): -16.5 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): .61 RECOVERY (m): 2.53 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: 3 penetrations @ site due to refusal. Entire recovered core composited. Sample not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 821
. . . . . .... , .... ... .... , ... .. , .... .
-
..... : ... .. : ..... : ..... : .... . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ... .. ...... .. .... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ... . . : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ..... , ........... ...... , .... . -........ .. ..... . ... .... ...... . .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:· ····:····•: •· ··· . . . . . .... , ... . ... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:· ····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-16.8
-17.76
-18.68
-19.59
-20.57
-20.66
0 .91

1.83 2.74

3.72 3.81
Silty sand; very fine grained; dark greenish gray; moderate amount of shell frag ments.

Silty sand; very fine grained; dark greenish gray; moderate amount of shell frag ments.

Silty sand; very fine grained; dark greenish gray; moderate amount of shell fragments.

Sandstone (bedrock); silty/clayey; soft; dark gray
1 2
3 4
NS
PROJECT: San Clemente HOLE NUMBER: SC-5
LOCATION: San Clemente Borrow Area #1
NORTHING (m): 636,881 EASTING (m): 1,872,127 DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°23.5987´ LONGITUDE: 117°37.4729´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/20/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1320 COMPLETED: 1353 SOUNDING (m): 17.83 TIDE (m): .98 ELEVATION (m): -16.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.81 RECOVERY (m): 3.81 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: No gradation analysis for samples. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 822
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
·····l·····1·····l····· l · ····
I. ... . ; ... .. ; .... . ; ..... ; .....
. .... ; ..... ; ..... ; ... .. ; .....
\ : : : :
~::: :::: :::: ::: :::::: :::: :::

I : : : :
:,:: !::: ::!: ::::!:::::!:::::
:: :r:! ::: ::!:: :::!::: ::!::::: ··~··:·····:·····:·····:····· .. ·r. : .... . : ..... : ... .. : ..... ~··f·····i·····i·····i····· . . T : . ... . : . .... : ... . . : . . ... -----------------···+·i·····i·····i·····i····· ···1·:·····:·····:·····:····· ···i4- :·····:·····:·····:····· ... ·\: .... ·: .... . : ..... : ..... ·····fl· ····:·····:·····:····· .... -1: ..... : ..... : .... . : .. .. . t-----------------------:::~t::!ct~~jt::::::.:'~::::::.t::::.:-'--1~:: :~~ ~~~::: ! : : : : : . . . . . . . . ·····:·•···:·····:·····:•· ··· . . . . . .... , ....... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : .. .. . . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:· ····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-17.3
-18.25
-18.89
-19.17
0 .91

1.55 1.83
Silty sand; very fine grained; green-gray; minor shells Silty sand; very fine grained; green-gray; minor shells in upper 0.3 m, abundant below
Sandstone (bedrock); silty/clayey; micaceous; dark gray; weakly foliated
1 2
NS
400.262
PROJECT: San Clemente HOLE NUMBER: SC-7
LOCATION: San Clemente Borrow Area #1
NORTHING (m): 638,268 EASTING (m): 1,871,244 DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°24.3427´ LONGITUDE: 117°38.0537´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/20/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1150 COMPLETED: 1157 SOUNDING (m): 19.05 TIDE (m): 1.71 ELEVATION (m): -17.3 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 1.83 RECOVERY (m): 1.83 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: No gradation analysis for samples. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 823
", : .... " .... ·: ..... : ..... : .... . ..... ;.)9 .. ; ..... ; .... . ; .... . ·/ .... .,..: .. "·:· ... ·: ... ": .. ... • .. •:• ••• •:•••• •:oo•••:••oo•
. J ... ; . . . . . ; . .... ; ... . . ; . . .. .
---------------.,~: ;_-~~_-1;, -------.'? ... : ... .. : ..... : ... .. : .... . 11 1: I : : : : tt~l----+----+---+----1~:r:::::: : :: : : : : : : :: : : : : : : :: :
1-------------------------f+,I: ;'ii-• r\: 1n• ,-i-f: ---+---+-----11-------1 : ~ : ::; +. ~:~:~:; :~ ~ . . . . l'---------------------------------_.,r·~·-·.·.·~·,--r-----i---r---, ..... ~ :..:...· ~ -.:.:.-~:..:.: ~ -.:..: ~ ..... , ..... ...... , ..... , .... . ..:····:·····:·····:·····:····· . .... : ... . . : ..... : ... .. : ..... . . . . .... . : ... . . : .... . : ..... : .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·····:·•· ··:·····:·····:····· . . . . ···••1••·············••1••··· -........ .. ..... ... ... . .. ...... .. . . . . .
·····=·····:·····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·•···:·····:····•: •···· . . . . . .... , ... . ... .... , ... .. , .. .. . . . .............................
..... : ... .. : ..... : .... . : ..... . . . .
. . . . ·····:·•· ··:· ····:····•:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· ~····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:····:·····:·····:····· . . . . ·····:·····:·····:·····:····· . . . . . .... .. ... ... ..... ... ........
-18.9
-19.87
-21.09
-21.86
-22.01
0 .91

2.13 2.90

3.05 Sandy silt; very fine grained; dark gray; local shell concentrations
Sandy silt; very fine grained; dark gray; local shell
concentrations; lower 45 cm. has disseminated coarse sand.

Silty sand; very fine grained; disseminated coarse sand; lower 15 cm. has rounded small pebbles; local shell
concentrations.

Bedrock (not recovered)
1 2
3 NS
ML
ML
SM
100
100.0

93.0 67

53.0 36.0
298.556
PROJECT: San Clemente HOLE NUMBER: SC-8
LOCATION: San Clemente Borrow Area #1
NORTHING (m): 638,607 EASTING (m): 1,870,570 DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°24.5352´ LONGITUDE: 117°38.5191´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800 lb. pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/20/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0945 COMPLETED: 1000 SOUNDING (m): 20.88 TIDE (m): 1.92 ELEVATION (m): -19 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.05 RECOVERY (m): 4.66 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Penetrated .3m, then up, back down to TD. Extra material sucked in. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1 824
WW
E/y&ʹ'
EzKKZ/Ed/KEEWh>//EsK>s
D
Ed
825
C H A M B E R s G 0 u p

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
826
1450 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2002 / Notices and net savings to the government as a
result of those exceptions; records
containing contractor information;
records containing reimbursable billing
information; name, Social Security
Number, pay grade and (optionally)
address information.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental
Regulations and E.O. 9397 (SSN).

PURPOSE(S):

To provide managers and supervisors
with timely, on-line information
regarding audit requirements, programs,
and performance.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND
THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

In addition to those disclosures
generally permitted under 5 U.S.C.
552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records
or information contained therein may
specifically be disclosed outside the
DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

The DoD ‘‘Blanket Routine Uses’’ that
appear at the beginning of DCAA’s
compilation of systems of records
notices apply to this system.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND
DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:

Records are maintained in an on-line
database and on magnetic tape at secure
offsite storage.

RETRIEVABILITY:

Records are retrieved by
organizational levels, name of
employee, Social Security Number,
office symbol, audit activity codes, or
any other combination of these
identifiers.

SAFEGUARDS:

Automated records are protected by
restricted access procedures. Access to
records is strictly limited to authorized
officials with a bona fide need for the
records.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

Records are retained indefinitely.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Chief, Information Technology
Division, Defense Contract Audit
Agency, 4075 Park Avenue, Memphis,
TN 38111–7492.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

Individuals seeking to determine
whether information about themselves
is contained in this system should
address written inquiries to the Chief,
Information Technology Division,
Defense Contract Audit Agency, 4075
Park Avenue, Memphis, TN 38111–
7492.

Individuals must furnish name, Social
Security Number, approximate date of
record, and geographic area in which
consideration was requested for record
to be located and identified. Official
mailing addresses are published as an
appendix to the DCAA’s compilation of
systems notices.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

Individuals seeking access to
information about themselves contained
in this system should address written
inquiries to the Chief, Information
Technology Division, Defense Contract
Audit Agency, 4075 Park Avenue,
Memphis, TN 38111–7492.

Individuals must furnish name, Social
Security Number, approximate date of
record, and geographic area in which
consideration was requested for record
to be located and identified.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

DCAA’s rules for accessing records,
for contesting contents and appealing
initial agency determinations are
published in DCAA Regulation 5410.10;
32 CFR part 317; or may be obtained
from the system manager.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

Individual employees, supervisors,
audit reports and working papers.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

None.
[FR Doc. 02–671 Filed 1–10–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers
Intent To Prepare a Joint
Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report for the
San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility
Study, San Clemente, CA
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), DoD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The Corps and the city of San
Clemente propose to study alternatives
to provide shoreline protection to the
San Clemente Shoreline. The study is
for that portion of the shoreline that
runs from Shorecliff Beach to San Mateo
Point, approximately eight kilometers
(five miles).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions regarding the scoping process
or preparation of the EIS/EIR may be
directed to Mr. Paul Rose, Chief,
Environmental Resources Branch, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box
532711, Los Angeles, California, 90053–
2325, (213) 452–3840.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Proposed Action
Provide shoreline protection against
wave attack from coastal storms to the
San Clemente shoreline. Running along
the entire length of the San Clemente
shoreline is a portion of the Los Angeles
to San Diego (Lossan) railroad corridor.

The Lossan is a major passenger rail line
linking San Diego to the rest of the
United States. The Lossan is owned by
the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA). This commuter rail
corridor is among the busiest in the
country and separates the beach from
the bluff. Loss of shoreline protection
and recreational beach width is a
continuous problem for the city of San
Clemente. Damages to coastal
residential and commercial properties
from storm-induced waves have become
a serious threat over the past several
years. The study will investigate
alternatives to provide shoreline
protection.

2. Alternatives
Alternatives that may be considered
include non-structural and/or structural
measures to provide protection against
wave attack from coastal storms. Nonstructural measures include beach and near-shore nourishment with dredged
sand.

3. Scoping Process
The Corps and the city of San
Clemente are preparing a joint
Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
to address potential impacts associated
with the proposed project. The Corps is
the Lead Federal Agency for compliance
with NEPA for the project, and the city
of San Clemente is the Lead State
Agency for compliance with the CEQA
for the non-Federal aspects of the
project. The Draft EIS/EIR (DEIS/EIR)
document will incorporate public
concerns in the analysis of impacts
associated with the Proposed Action
and associated project alternatives. The
DEIS/EIR will be sent out for a 45-day
public review period, during which
time both written and verbal comments
will be solicited on the adequacy of the
document. The Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/EIR)
will address the comments received on
the DEIS/EIR during public review, and
will be furnished to all who commented
on the DEIS/EIR, and is made available
to anyone that requests a copy during
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 20:36 Jan 10, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JAN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 11JAN1 827 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 8 / Friday, January 11, 2002 / Notices 1451 the 30-day public comment period. The
final step involves, for the Federal EIS,
preparing a Record of Decision (ROD)
and, for the state EIR, certifying the EIR
and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan. The ROD is a
concise summary of the decisions made
by the Corps from among the
alternatives presented in the FEIS/EIR.

The ROD can be published immediately
after the FEIS public comment period
ends. A certified EIR indicates that the
environmental document adequately
assesses the environmental impacts of
the proposed project with respect to
CEQA. A formal scoping meeting to
solicit public comment and concerns on
the proposed action and alternatives
will be held on January 10, 2002 at 7
p.m., in the Multipurpose Room (1 & 2)
in the San Clemente Senior Center, 242
Avenue Del Mar, San Clemente,
California.

Luz D. Ortiz,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 02–771 Filed 1–10–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–KF–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers
Intent To Prepare a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Matilija Dam Ecosystem
Restoration Feasibility Study, Ventura
County, CA
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The Los Angeles District of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
prepare a DEIS to support the Matilija
Dam Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility
Study, Ventura County, California. The
study area is the Matilija Dam area and
downstream to the Venture River
Estuary. This study will investigate
feasible alternatives to restore the
Matilija Creek riverine ecosystem,
primarily by removing Matilija Dam.

Also, feasible alternatives for the
removal of sediment behind the dam
and the beneficial use of that sediment
will be investigated.

The DEIS will analyze the potential
impacts (beneficial and adverse) on the
environment of a range of alternatives,
including the proposed action and the
no action alternative. The Los Angeles
District and the Ventura County Flood
Control District will cooperate in
conducting this feasibility study.

ADDRESSES: District Engineer, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles
District, ATTN: CESPL–PD–RQ (R.

Farve), P.O. Box 532711, Los Angeles,
California 90053–2325.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Rey Farve, Environmental Coordinator,
telephone (213) 452–3864, or Mr.

Jonathan Vivanti, Study Manager,
telephone (213) 452–3809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Authorization
This feasibility study was authorized
by U.S. House of Representatives
Committee Resolution on
Transportation and Infrastructure
(Docket 2593), dated April 15, 1999,
which states, in part: ‘‘that the Secretary
of the Army is requested to review the
report of the Chief of Engineers on the
Ventura River, Ventura County,
California, published as House
Document 323, 77th Congress, 1st
Session, and other pertinent reports,
with a view to determining whether any
modifications of the recommendations
contained therein are advisable at this
time, in the interest of environmental
restoration and protection, and related
purposes, with particular attention to
restoring anadromous fish populations
on Matilija Creek and returning natural
sand replenishment to Ventura and
other Southern California beaches.’’

2. Background
Matilija Dam is located on Matilija
Creek, a tributary of the Ventura River,
approximately 16 miles upstream from
the Pacific Ocean. The dam is located in
Ventura County California,
approximately 7 miles and 25 miles
from the Cities of Ojai and Ventura,
California, respectively. The feasibility
study area currently includes the
Matilija Dam and the area immediately
upstream, and downstream of the dam
to the Ventura River Estuary. The nonfederal sponsor of the feasibility study is the Ventura County Flood Control
District.

Matilija Dam was constructed in the
late 1940’s by Ventura County Flood
Control to provide water storage for
agricultural needs. Matilija Dam is a
concrete arch structure 190 feet in
height with an arc length of 620 feet at
its crest. Sediment carried by Matilija
Creek has deposited behind the dam
and filled the reservoir, rendering the
structure useless as a water storage
facility. It is estimated that 6,000,000
cubic yards of sediment lies trapped
behind the dam.

The dam no longer provides any flood
control protection due to sedimentation
behind the dam. There is some
continued water supply use. The Casitas
Municipal Water District currently
operates the dam under a lease
agreement from the County of Ventura,
which expires in 2009. The operation is
an integral part of the Robles/Casitas
Reservoir water supply facilities and is
estimated to currently contribute
approximately 400 acre-feet of water per
year. This water function, however, is
projected to diminish rapidly as the
reservoir continues to fill with
sediments, and is expected to effectively
cease by 2010 after the reservoir fills
completely with sediment.

Presently, the dam is considered to be
a major contributor to the declining
numbers of steelhead trout in Matilija
Creek. If no action is taken to secure
passage for the steelhead trout to reach
the upper watershed and its tributaries,
the dam will continue to obstruct this
endangered species, thereby limiting the
amount of spawning and rearing habitat.

In addition, the dam would continue to
act as a barrier for wildlife movement
for other terrestrial and aquatic species.

3. Alternatives
The feasibility study will focus on
addressing the problems and needs
caused by Matilija Dam with the
primary objective of the feasibility study
being to restore the Matilija Creek
riverine ecosystem. Other objectives that
are considered appropriate may involve
possible beneficial use of the sediment
behind the dam for beach nourishment
or other environmental restoration.

In general, alternative plans will
investigate reasonable alternatives to
restore Matilija Creek, primarily by
removing Matilija Dam. Feasible
alternatives for the removal of sediment
behind the dam and the beneficial use
of that sediment will also be
investigated. Significant beneficial
impacts to the riverine ecosystem
(especially to steelhead trout) are
expected from restoration alternatives
identified in the feasibility study.

4. Scoping Process
Participation of all interested Federal,
State, and County agencies, groups with
environmental interests, and any
interested individuals are encouraged.

Public involvement will be most
beneficial and worthwhile in identifying
the scope of pertinent, significant
environmental issues to be addressed,
identifying and eliminating from
detailed study issues that are not
significant, offering useful information
such as published or unpublished data,
providing direct personal experience or
knowledge which informs decision
making, and recommending suitable
mitigation measures to offset potential
impacts from the proposed action or
alternatives.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 18:14 Jan 10, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JAN1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 11JAN1 828 829
'.

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
In Reply Refer To:

FWS-OR-2620.1
Colonel Richard G. Thompson
District Engineer, Los Angeles District
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers
911 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90017
Attn: Larry Smith, Environmental Resources Branch
MAR 1 2 2002
Re: Request for Information on Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species for the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study, Orange County, California (FP/COE100) Dear Colonel Thompson:

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your request dated December 3, 2001, and received by our office January 2, 2002, to assess the potential for federally listed, proposed, and candidate species that may occur within the vicinity of the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study, Orange County. To assist you in evaluating the potential occurrence of these species within the area of interest, we are providing the enclosed list, which identifies federally listed endangered, threatened, and proposed species that occur in the general region.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consult with us, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should it be determined that their actions may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" (e.g., harm, harassment, pursuit, injury, kill) of federally listed wildlife. "Harm" is further defined to include habitat modification or degradation where it kills or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Take incidental to otherwise lawful activities can be authorized under sections 7 (Federal consultations) and 10 (habitat conservation plans) of the Act.

If a proposed project is authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency and may affect a listed species, then the Federal agency must consult with us on behalf of the applicant, pursuant to section 7 of the Act. In other words, any activity on private land that requires Federal involvement (such as the issuance of a section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers) and may affect listed species must be reviewed by us to insure that the continued existence of the species would not be jeopardized. During the section 7 process, measures to avoid and minimize project effects to listed species and their habitat will be 830
Colonel Richard G. Thompson (FvVS-OR-2620.1)
identified and incorporated into a biological opinion that includes an incidental take statement that authorizes incidental take by the Federal agency and applicant. 2 If a proposed project does not involve a Federal agency, but is likely to result in the take of a listed animal species, then the landowner or project proponent should apply for an incidental take permit, pursuant to section 10 of the Act. When an application is made for an incidental take permit, measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for effects to listed species and their habitat will be identified and incorporated into a habitat conservation plan. If the habitat conservation plan and the application for the permit meet the issuance criteria, a permit authorizing incidental take is issued.

We do not have site-specific information for this area. Therefore, we recommend that project proponents seek assistance from a biologist familiar with the habitat conditions and associated species in and around their project site to assess the actual potential for direct, indirect and cumulative impacts likely to result from the proposed activity.

In addition to the organisms specified on the enclosed list, we are also concerned for the following habitat community types that could potentially occur in the area and are becoming more rare. These include riparian, coastal sage scrub, freshwater marsh, salt marsh, and aquatic communities.

Please contact the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for State-listed and other sensitive species that may occur in the area of the project. State-listed species are protected under the provisions of the California Endangered Species Act. Rare plant species that may occur in the project area are included in the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants in California. State-listed and CNPS species require full consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Natural Diversity Data Base of CDFG should also be contacted for a list of taxa that are known to occur in the project vicinity.

Should you have any questions regarding the species list provided, or your responsibilities under the Act, please contact John Hanlon, Chief, Branch of Federal Projects, at (760) 431-9440.

Sincerely,
A~~~
Karen
~ A. Evans
Assistant Field Supervisor
Enclosure
831
Colonel Richard G. Thompson (FWS-OR-2620.1)
Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed,
and Candidate Species that May Occur in the Area of the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study
Orange County, California
Common Name Scientific Name
FISH
Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi
Southern steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss
BIRDS
Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis
California least tern Stema antillarum browni
Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

MAMMALS
Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus FE = Listed as a Federal endangered species
FT= Listed as a Federal threatened species
3 Status
FE
FE
FE
FE
FT
FE

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
832
1 San Clemente Shoreline Protection
Agency Kick-Off Meeting Notes
16 October 2007

1.0 Purpose
To introduce agency contacts to the project team and project purpose.

2.0 Location
San Clemente Community Center, 100 N. Calle Seville San Clemente, CA 92672

3.0 Meeting Attendees:

Name Company/Agency Contact Info
Noel Davis Chambers Group 949-261-5414
[email protected]
Lisa Louie Chambers Group 949-261-5414
[email protected]
Tom Keeney USACE, Los Angeles 213-452-3857
[email protected]
Jim Kelly USFWS 760-431-9440 x362
[email protected]
Jennifer Pettis NMFS 562-980-4046
[email protected]
Bill Poznokas (CDFG) was unable to attend.

Anthony Spina (NMFS-steelhead) indicated via e-mail 15 October 2007 that there are no steelhead issues for this project and no coordination is required.

4.0 Meeting summary
Meeting start time: 10:00 a.m.
• Project Introduction
• City of San Clemente is local sponsor.
• Project has been scaled down to include Reach 6 (reach surrounding pier) only. • Project is strictly nourishment only.
o To be placed on beach, not in nearshore.
o Other structural models showed a cost higher than the benefit. o Sand to come from regulated borrow site from Oceanside. • Managed retreat not feasible without railroad involvement. • Railroad does not want to participate in project.
• Recreation cannot be a benefit - protection of the pier structure provides justification for project; cannot include national defense railroad as justification. 833
2 • Baseline conditions (F3) were originally completed for 10 reaches, Chambers Group to update for one reach only.
• Currently preparing alternatives and analysis document (F4), reviewing different scales of alternatives.
• Nourishment typically occurs during winter – should avoid any biological seasons.
• Environmental Issue Areas
• Biological
o Plovers and terns – no known nest sites.
o No onshore vegetation will be impacted.
o Need to know disposal sites in relation to sensitive resources. o Surfgrass – flowering plant that provides shelter for juvenile fish - grows in buundles – harder to restore than eelgrass – pre/post-construction surveys and mitigation like eelgrass – follow eelgrass guidelines.
o Map pipeline placement to avoid sensitive habitat.
o Terns, plovers, pelicans.
o Abalone, macroinvertebrates.
• Recreation
o Sand castle building event
o Surfing at T-street
• Air Quality
o Dredge analysis
o Previously analyzed?
• Next step
Send agencies copy of baseline information ASAP.
Send agencies copy of CRM biological report.
Define project description for alternatives.
Determine POC for CCC, Corps Regulatory, and RWQCB.
• Future actions
Final CAR in Mar/Apr 2008
Prepare NEPA and CEQA document.

End time: 11:15 a.m.
834
1 San Clemente Shoreline Protection
CDFG Kick-off Meeting Notes
15 May 2008

1.0 Purpose
To introduce CDFG to the project team and project purpose.

2.0 Location
San Clemente Community Development Department, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673

3.0 Meeting Attendees:

Name Company/Agency Contact Info
Noel Davis Chambers Group 949-261-5414
[email protected]
Lisa Louie Chambers Group 949-261-5414
[email protected]
Tom Keeney USACE, Los Angeles 213-452-3857
[email protected]
Joe Johnson USACE, Los Angeles 213-452-3829
[email protected]
Tom Bonigut City of San Clemente 949-361-6187
[email protected]
Loni Adams CDFG 858-627-3985
[email protected]
Jim Kelley (USFWS) and Bryant Chesney (NOAA Fisheries) were provided a late notice invitation, but were unable to attend.

4.0 Meeting summary
Meeting start time: 2:20 p.m.
• Project Introduction
• City of San Clemente is local sponsor.
• Project is strictly nourishment only.
o To be placed on beach, not in nearshore.
o 30 m (~511,000 cy) alternative preferred over other beach widths. Shorter beach widths would equate to a smaller impact area. o Sand to come from regulated borrow site from Oceanside. • Recreation cannot be a benefit - protection of the pier structure provides justification for project; cannot include national defense railroad as justification. 835
2 • Baseline conditions (F3) were completed for project reach (surrounding San Clemente Pier) only.
• Currently, alternatives and analysis document (F4) under internal review at USACE.
• Nourishment would occur sometime between late Aug/Sep through mid-Mar – would avoid any environmental seasons for biological resources of concern. • Environmental Issue Areas
• Biological
o Snowy plovers and least terns – no known nest sites onsite. o No onshore vegetation will be impacted.
o Habitat type onsite not conducive to amphibians.
o Need to know disposal sites in relation to sensitive resources. Potential resources at Linda Lane and footbridge?
o Surfgrass – March 2008 surveys – 3 methods of survey [walk beach, SCUBA dive, free-dive (masks and fins)] shows surfgrass just outside of estimated project boundary (well outside of construction boundary). o Map pipeline placement to avoid sensitive habitat.
o Exposed rocks south of pier – potential pinniped haulout? need to investigate
lined up at Riviera
o Terns, plovers, brown pelicans (proposed delisting), macroinvertebrates, grunion.
• Water Quality
o SWPPP
o Proposed project is designed to decrease turbidity behind a berm before introduced to wave action
o Turbidity expected in areas that are already turbid (surfzone) • Next step
Send CDFG copy of CRM biological report.
• Future actions
Public review of draft report anticipated to be distributed in Oct/Nov 2008.

End time: 3:30 p.m.
836
1 San Clemente Shoreline Protection
CDFG Kick-off Meeting Notes
16 December 2008

1.0 Purpose
To update the resource agencies on the project status.

2.0 Location
Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine Office, 17671 Cowan Ave., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92614

3.0 Meeting Attendees:

Name Company/Agency Contact Info
Tom Keeney USACE, Los Angeles 213-452-3857
[email protected]
Jennifer Wise USFWS 760-431-9440 x276
[email protected]
Bryant Chesney NOAA Fisheries (562) 980-4037
[email protected]
Loni Adams CDFG 858-627-3985
[email protected]
Lisa Louie Chambers Group 949-261-5414
[email protected]
Noel Davis Chambers Group 949-261-5414
[email protected]

4.0 Meeting summary
Meeting start time: 11:00 p.m.
• Project Background
• City of San Clemente is local sponsor.
• Project is strictly nourishment only.
o To be placed on beach, not in nearshore.
o 20 m (~511,000 cy) alternative preferred over other beach widths. Shorter beach widths would equate to a smaller impact area. o Sand to come from regulated borrow site from Oceanside. • Recreation cannot be a benefit - protection of the pier structure provides justification for project; cannot include national defense railroad as justification. • Baseline conditions (F3) were completed for project reach (surrounding San Clemente Pier) only.
• Alternatives and analysis document (F4) reviewed internally by USACE.

However, engineering still working on coastal modeling to include sea level rise 837
2 analysis, which should be available by the end of January. Accuracy of predictive modeling is same as comparative modeling.
• Nourishment would occur sometime between late Aug/Sep through mid-Mar – would avoid any environmental seasons for biological resources of concern (e.g., grunion).
• Project currently shows 1.3 B/C (benefits to cost) ratio • Effects Section and Concerns
• Based on littoral and cross drift for any sand replenishment – used same littoral cell as Oceanside as a comparison.
• Mariposa is too far for impacts by beach fill.
• Surfgrass mitigation – potential habitat added (shallow artificial reef at depthor contribute to protected area).
• Encinitas minimized risk by reducing volume placement • Policy statement criteria for state – looking in terms of wetland restoration • Surfgrass – covered and uncovered – what is considered significant? • Contingency plan is required surfgrass – nothing is provided from first event, but would alter future events, dependent upon results
• Facilities are a concern, however project cannot include railroad or recreation as benefits
• Concern with mitigation at a later date if mitigation cannot be agreed upon. • Removal of surfgrass concern – it takes a long time to come back and small patches may be missed (polygon does not show transect lines). • Require formal monitoring plan?
o No future replenishment is scheduled until an agreement is reached o Mitigation alternative – protect another surfgrass area – is there widescale surfgrass mapping available?
o Mapped habitat type vs. plants
o MLPA process – mitigate for surfgrass
• Other species of interest?
o No plover or tern concerns
o Outside of grunion season
• EFH write-up
o Need to address all habitat types – species and lifestage impacted/potentially impacted.
o Stand alone document or make clear reference
• Recurring language – no impact within natural variation – no impact is a concern – need to identify individual impacts.
• Next step
• Meet again when coastal modeling has been completed and new analysis considered.
838
1 San Clemente Shoreline Protection
CDFG Kick-off Meeting Notes
16 July 2009

1.0 Purpose
To update the resource agencies on the project status and present new project alternatives and descriptions.

2.0 Location
Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine Office, 17671 Cowan Ave., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92614

3.0 Meeting Attendees:

Name Company/Agency Contact Info
Tom Keeney USACE, Los Angeles 213-452-3857
[email protected]
Jennifer Wise USFWS 760-431-9440 x276
[email protected]
Loni Adams CDFG 858-627-3985
[email protected]
Lisa Louie Chambers Group 949-261-5414
[email protected]
Noel Davis Chambers Group 949-261-5414
[email protected]
Bryant Chesney (NOAA Fisheries) was provided a late notice invitation, but was unable to attend.

4.0 Meeting summary
Meeting start time: 10:30 a.m.
• Actions Since Last Meeting
• NED plan is the most economically beneficial alternative based on benefits to cost (B/C) ratio
• Sea level rise was not previously considered and the coastal engineering report was revised to reflect the changes
• Previous environmental effects/analyses were based on the results of the 2007 coastal engineering modeling effort and report.
• Revised 2009 coastal engineering report now identifies different coastal impacts, which results in different environmental impacts than the 2007 report. • Modeling considered beach widths at 5m increments between 10m and 35m. The 35m alternative was identified as the NED plan. The 10m and 15m beach widths 839
2 demonstrated negligible differences in B/C ratios and equilibrium footprints; the 15m beach width was chosen over the 10m alternative because the same area would be impacted, but the 15m would require less replenishment cycles than the 10m while providing the same positive B/C ratio.
• Updated Project Descriptions
• Project now has two action alternatives being considered: 15m beach width and 35m beach width – these alternatives represent the resultant dry beach width. • The construction footprint (i.e., the project area where sand is directly placed onto the beach) for the 15m alternative is 23m and the construction footprint for the 35m alternative is 52m.
• During the equilibration time, the wave action on the beach is expected to disperse the sand that has been placed onto the beach into the equilibrium footprint (i.e., the footprint where sand that has been placed onto the beach is predicted to ultimately end up). The equilibrium footprint was not provided in the 2007 coastal engineering report. The equilibrium footprint of the 35m alternative is greater than that of the 15m alternative. See attached figure. • Sand will be dredged from the Oceanside borrow site and hauled to San Clemente where the material will be pumped to the beach via a pipeline. The pipeline would be moored to the seafloor and the material would be pumped onto the beach as a slurry and placed landward of a 200ft L-shaped berm created by pushing existing sand into the appropriate shape. The long arm of the L would be along the water’s edge and the short arm of the L would face inland. This berm construction is intended to decrease turbidity by allowing the sand to settle out of the slurry while the seawater drains back to the ocean. Dry sand is then pushed towards the ocean to increase the beach width until the designated beach width is reached. Sand is placed behind this L-shaped berm until the designated beach width is reached. A new 200ft long L-shaped berm is then constructed in the next segment over and the process repeated. Similar project methods currently in construction at Sunset.
• The pipeline from the dredge would not be dragged across the ocean floor when moving to the next L-shaped berm. An extension to the pipeline will be added on the dry portion of the beach. Also, the pipeline laydown area will be surveyed for biological resources first before recommending the laydown route. • Earliest this project would start would be 2010. Anticipated start in 2012.

Requires local sponsor funds and Congressional authorization. • New Surfgrass Survey
• A recent surfgrass survey was conducted to include the entire Project footprint (i.e., construction and equilibrium footprint).
• The kelp bed immediately seaward of the end of the pier was mapped. The reef had giant kelp, feather boa kelp, surfgrass, and gorgonians. • The area was mainly scattered relief/bedrock along the coastline. Surfgrass in the area was sparse and scattered. Density of surfgrass highest at T-Street reef. Red algae and bare patches were prevalent.
840
3 • Environmental Effects
• The 15 m alternative would potentially degrade the inshore edge of the surfgrass bed at T-street reef and some burial of smaller rocks would be expected. • Modeling typically is more conservative than what’s seen in monitoring (e.g., SANDAG, Solana/Encinitas), usually because of random conditions that may occur in any particular year.
• Conditions of the 15m are comparable to SANDAG.
• Surfgrass and surfing will be monitored. Adaptive management will determine if changing conditions result in decision not to replenish or modify replenishment.

Cycle of replenishment of every 4-5 years is based on the predicted erosion rate occurring every ear and bringing the beach to 0m.
• Sand sources have disappeared from our littoral system, especially after the El Ninos from the 80s and 90s, where sand was speculated to have been taken out and dropped into the submarine canyons; that sand would not come back. Dams and development also have diminished sand replenishment via natural processes. • Evaluation of project effects considering extreme sea level rise is not practical (replenishment events would require over 800,000 cy of sand). If an extreme sea level rise event were to occur, there would be more to take into consideration that potentially would be at risk than the considerations of this project and would require a new project purpose and evaluation.
• Are there other methods to maintain sand on the beach once it’s been placed? o Structural methods typically are not acceptable by CCC. o Offshore breakwaters may be effective, however, not in this situation with the biological resources present.
o Structures require maintenance.
• Long-term monitoring of surfgrass is part of the project. Pre and post construction surveys are proposed for each replenishment activity for the life of the project (50 years). Monitoring is expected to be immediately prior to construction, immediately after construction, then 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after, then once every year for the next 4 years (total of 5 years of post construction monitoring). Need to determine if there are requirements for mitigation for degradation, but not removal of, surfgrass. Need to determine the criteria.

Surfgrass typically can withstand 1/3 blade length burial; may affect growth rate and shoot density.
• Question regarding whether Pismo clam beds are in the area (or any other invertebrates) – invertebrate surveys have not been conducted for the site. • Project will avoid grunion season. Project most likely will not start until the day after Labor Day.
• Outside of least tern season. No concerns with terns, pelicans, or plovers. • Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – will mitigate if monitoring shows the project doesn’t work and has significant impacts.
• Need to determine if beach maintenance/raking occurs. Did not look at surfgrass/kelp wrack during walking survey.
841
4 • Next step
• Public review anticipated for November 2009.
• Internal review at Corps and outside District review (within Corps) will occur concurrently.
• Alternatives Formulation Briefing (AFB) meeting with the local sponsor and USACE HQ. They are allowed 2 months to provide comments. • Public review follows incorporation of comments from AFB. • Coordination Act Report (CAR) Final is required for Final Report. Draft CAR is not required with the Draft EIS/EIR.
• Report reviews will go through Center of Excellence (equivalent to science advisory board).
• Next step
• Meet again when coastal modeling has been completed and new analysis considered.

Meeting end time: 12:15 p.m.
842
1 San Clemente Shoreline Protection
CDFG Kick-off Meeting Notes
15 September 2009

1.0 Purpose
To update NOAA Fisheries on the project status and present new project alternatives and descriptions.

2.0 Location
Chambers Group, Inc., Santa Ana Office, 5 Hutton Centre Dr., Suite 750, Santa Ana, CA 92707

3.0 Meeting Attendees:

Name Company/Agency Contact Info
Tom Keeney USACE, Los Angeles 213-452-3857
[email protected]
Bryant Chesney NOAA Fisheries (562) 980-4037
[email protected]
Lisa Louie Chambers Group 949-261-5414 ext 7289
[email protected]
Noel Davis Chambers Group 949-261-5414 ext 7208
[email protected]

4.0 Meeting summary
Meeting start time: 10:20 a.m.
• Discussion
• Recent modeling still shows a positive benefit to cost ratio • Concern is that document is not explicit regarding the dollar value tied to mitigation
• A more developed contingency plan is preferred
• Recent studies at UCSB testing new surfgrass transplantation method o Sprig method – not plug method
• Would like to see a monitoring plan with criteria in draft EIS o External agency review
o MMRP – coastal monitoring for sand movement and surfgrass o Details still aren’t worked out for the monitoring plan for pre- and postmonitoring • CDFG and NOAA Fisheries will want to review detailed MMRP before finalized • Draft CAR most likely will not accompany the draft EIS 843
2 • Expect HQ review in October 2009 and Public Review in November 2009 • Consideration of random transects vs permanent transects or a hybrid of these methods
• Need to spell out contingency plan if impacts are observed o Impacts to reef
o Impacts based on coastal engineering report
• Currently, coastal modeling shows effects to reef will be minimal • Need to find reasonable potential for monitoring – a detailed restoration plan without knowing if or what needs to be restored or if it can be done • Consideration of adaptive management
o Are there contingency funds available?
for example, will the local sponsor be prepared to cost share $200 per month vs $500 per month
o public document needs to explicitly show possible plans • would like to quantify area of direct impact/burial vs indirect impact in acreages o x acres buried by y amount
o area of influence vs area of substantial burial
• not feasible to conduct nourishment in phases in one year due to mob/demobilization costs
• Surfgrass survey clarification
• Survey was by dive transects, except for kelp canopy, which was based on following a path
• Large substantial strands of surfgrass would have been found by this method • Possible to consider LIDAR or sidescan sonar for more comprehensive study of resources in area?
• Next step
• Public review anticipated for November 2009.
• Internal review at Corps and outside District review (within Corps) will occur concurrently.
• Alternatives Formulation Briefing (AFB) meeting with the local sponsor and USACE HQ. They are allowed 2 months to provide comments. • Public review follows incorporation of comments from AFB. • Coordination Act Report (CAR) Final is required for Final Report. Draft CAR is not required with the Draft EIS/EIR.
• Report reviews will go through Center of Excellence (equivalent to science advisory board).

Meeting end time: 11:15 a.m.
844
1 San Clemente Shoreline Protection
Agency Meeting Notes
30 April 2010

1.0 Purpose
To update the resource agencies on the project status and conduct a site visit.

2.0 Location
San Clemente Municipal Pier, 601 Avenida Victoria, San Clemente, CA 92672

3.0 Meeting Attendees:

Name Company/Agency Contact Info
Tom Keeney USACE, Los Angeles 213-452-3875
[email protected]
Jennifer Wise USFWS 760-431-9440 x276
[email protected]
Bryant Chesney NOAA Fisheries (562) 980-4037
[email protected]
Loni Adams CDFG 858-627-3985
[email protected]
Lisa Louie Chambers Group 949-261-5414 ext 7289
[email protected]
Noel Davis Chambers Group 949-261-5414 ext 7208
[email protected]

4.0 Meeting summary
Meeting start time: 10:30 a.m.
• Project Location
• Identified project boundaries along coast:
o Mariposa
o Linda Lane
o T-Street
• Updates Since Last Meeting
• Coastal engineering modeling was conducted by USACE. Sea level rise was considered in the analysis.
• Burial of surfgrass would occur regardless of the quantity of sand based on the current model, but the degree of burial (e.g., depth, areal coverage, persistence) varies depending 845
2 on the alternative chosen. The 15m alternative was chosen because it had the least amount of modeled impacts while still meeting the project object. • Proposed 15m plan chosen in an effort to reduce impacts to the extent possible while still having a project
• City of San Clemente would prefer to have 35m beach
• Mitigation and monitoring plan has been prepared, but not yet supplied to the resource agencies. Consideration of recent Santa Barbara surfgrass study was included. • Agency Requests
• Consideration of alternatives that will avoid the surf grass impacts that the 15m alternative poses (e.g., alternative locations of sand disposal). • Robust monitoring plan and contingency plan – including numbers o At a minimum, the monitoring plan needs to include mitigation for the expected surf grass burial impacts as well as a contingency for further impacts to surf grass and reef habitat, a plan for monitoring for actual surfgrass/reef impacts, and a plan for monitoring to ensure that you are in compliance with your proposed surf grass/reef habitat mitigation success criteria. Alternatively, a surf grass avoidance plan should be proposed if surf grass mitigation is determined to be infeasible. o CDFG expressed concern about the survey method and accurately determining the actual surfgrass burial impacts in the high energy waves of this area, specifically that it may be very difficult or essentially not possible.
• How will impacts be measured?
• Possible to survey for baseline trend?
• Explore ways to retain the proposed sand volume placed at this location to reduce the frequency of sand replenishment necessary in the future (e.g., submerged reef). • Was submerged reef considered as a potential alternative under NEPA? o No – local sponsor did not want to include “structures” as alternatives • Will the opportunistic sand project be included – no
• Most likely, NOAA Fisheries will come out with comment regarding full array of alternatives.
• Possible effects of El Nino events should be considered for the near future in the analysis. • Next step
• Will provide the agencies with:
o Most updated version of the EIS/EIR
o Current monitoring report appendix
o Current calculations of costs for monitoring and mitigation • Most answers to agency questions most likely would be answered by the Main Report prepared separately for this project.

Meeting end time: 11:35 a.m.

Photos attached
846
^ĂŶůĞŵĞŶƚĞ^ŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ
DĞĞƚŝŶŐEŽƚĞƐϯϬƉƌŝůϮϬϭϬ
ŚĂŵďĞƌƐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶĐ͘ WͲϭ
ϯϯϭϯ
dd,D
Edʹ^/d
W,KdK'ZW,^
&ĂĐŝŶŐƵƉĐŽĂƐƚĨƌŽŵ^ĂŶůĞŵĞŶƚĞ
WŝĞƌƚŽǁĂƌĚƐDĂƌŝŶĞ^ĂĨĞƚǇ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘
&ĂĐŝŶŐƚŚĞďĞĂĐŚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇ
ƵƉĐŽĂƐƚŽĨƚŚĞƉŝĞƌĨƌŽŵ^ĂŶ
ůĞŵĞŶƚĞWŝĞƌ͘
&ĂĐŝŶŐƵƉĐŽĂƐƚĨƌŽŵ^ĂŶůĞŵĞŶƚĞ
WŝĞƌƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ>ŝŶĚĂ>ĂŶĞ͘
847
^ĂŶůĞŵĞŶƚĞ^ŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ
DĞĞƚŝŶŐEŽƚĞƐϯϬƉƌŝůϮϬϭϬ
ŚĂŵďĞƌƐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶĐ͘ WͲϮ
ϯϯϭϯ
&ĂĐŝŶŐƚŚĞďĞĂĐŚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇ
ĚŽǁŶĐŽĂƐƚŽĨƚŚĞƉŝĞƌĨƌŽŵ^ĂŶ
ůĞŵĞŶƚĞWŝĞƌ͘
&ĂĐŝŶŐƚŚĞďĞĂĐŚĚŽǁŶĐŽĂƐƚŽĨƚŚĞ
ƉŝĞƌĨƌŽŵ^ĂŶůĞŵĞŶƚĞWŝĞƌ͘
&ĂĐŝŶŐĚŽǁŶĐŽĂƐƚĨƌŽŵ^ĂŶ
ůĞŵĞŶƚĞWŝĞƌƚŽǁĂƌĚƐdͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘
848
849

PUBLIC MEETING
Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental
Impact Report
for the
San Clemente
Shoreline Erosion Feasibility Study -
Beach Sand Nourishment Project
A presentation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
AFTER

COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2010
San Clemente Community Development Building
910 Calle Negocio, South Entrance, 2nd Floor
7:00 p.m.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for review at the San Clemente Library (242 Avenida Del Mar) or online at: www.san-clemente.org. 850
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE FEASIBILITY STUDY

REQUEST TO SPEAK/WRITTEN COMMENT FORM
NAME(P/ea,ep,;m) ,J.o.J\L ~tk.r-
,
DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING? 6¥YES □ NO
DO YOU WISH TO PRIVATELY GIVE VERBAL COMMENTS TO A COURT REPORTER? □ YES □ NO ADDRESS (Street and N11mbe1):-~-'----' 0=---_lS_0L-"'-__ C,._t>_( _t:> ______________________ _ CITY: .5 WY! C---l~e. STATE: CA ZIP CODE: -f-9__,,_~_,,__t_ 7 ___:.4 ___ _ TELEPHONE NO.· q41q _.4 '7 9,.,, 't /"7 Q EMAIL ADDRESS: r½-r4.,L-t6~@SIH:'f,,,. J&z,.,:, O~ FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE STUDY, VISIT: http://www.san-clemente.org

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU PROVIDE VERBAL COMMENTS TODAY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN

COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT, YOU MAY RESPOND BELOW AND SUBMIT THIS SHEET TO A CORPS REPRESENTATIVE OR WRITE TO THE CORPS BY SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 AT: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, LOS ANGELES DISTRICT; PLANNING DIVISION; ATTN: THOMAS KEENEY, CESPL-PD; 915 WILSHIRE AVE; LOS ANGELES, CA 90017.

ALTERNATIVELY, YOU MAY EMAIL COMMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: [email protected] DATA REQUlRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT
AUTHORITY: 33 CFR 327
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: Distributed at Public Meetings and Workshops to provide a record of attendees, and to develop a mailing list for future public meetings in keeping with the policy ofOCE to conduct Civil Works Program in an atmosphere of public understanding, trust and mutual cooperation. All interested individuals and agencies are to be informed and afforded an opportunity to be heard and their views considered in arriving at conclusions, decisions, and recommendations in the formulation of civil works proposals, plans, projects, and on the proposed uses of navigable waters.

ROUNTINE USES: Utilized for determining attendance at Public Meetings; determining who desires to speak at Corps Public Meetings and developing mailing lists for various Corps studies.

DISCLOSURE: Voluntary. Failure to provide infonnation may result in not being contacted for future public meetings, etc.

NAME (Please print):

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE FEASIBILITY STUDY

REQUEST TO SPEAK/WRITTEN COMMENT FORM
/y\)"'K~ DO.. ~v')e__s
DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING? Y YES □ NO
DO YOU WISH TO PRJVATELY GIVE VERBAL COMMENTS TO A COURT REPORTER? □ YES ~ NO ADDRESS (Street and Numbe,): I 9 b w . I) Vf._ Lo'tx:>.S. M0-"'7.Y)D-S.

CITY: :::>O-Y) C1e.-YY)e/) k_ STATE: (:_-:f+- ZIPCODE: 9~ «.

TELEPHONE NO.: q 1r'J 2i CJt}-?f17Y EMAIL ADDRESS: }'Y!e-C>bo-"'\~ {2_ FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE STUDY, VISIT: http://www.san-clemente.org Sb ~3 )oba.\. ~

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU PROVIDE VERBAL COMMENTS TODAY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE WRJTTEN

COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT, YOU MAY RESPOND BELOW AND SUBMIT THIS SHEET TO A CORPS REPRESENTATIVE OR WRJTE TO THE CORPS BY SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 AT: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, LOS ANGELES DISTRICT; PLANNING DIVISION; ATTN: THOMAS KEENEY, CESPL-PD; 915 WILSHIRE AVE; LOS ANGELES, CA 90017.

ALTERNATIVELY, YOU MAY EMAIL COMMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: [email protected]

DATA REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT
A THORITY: 33 CFR 327
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: Distributed at Public Meetings and Workshops to provide a record of attendees, and to develop a mailing list for future public meetings in keeping with the policy ofOCE to conduct Civil Works Program in an atmosphere of public understanding, tmst and mutual cooperation. All interested individuals and agencies are to be informed and afforded an opportunity to be heard and their views considered in arriving at conclusions, decisions, and recommendations in the fommlation of civil works proposals, plans, projects, and on the proposed uses of navigable waters. ROUNTrNE USES: Utilized for determining attendance at Public Meetings; detem1ining who desires to speak at Corps Public Meetings and developing mailing lists for various Corps studies. DISCLOSURE: Voluntary. Failure to provide information may result in not being contacted for future public meetings, etc. 851

COMMENTS

COMMENTS
852
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE FEASIBILITY STUDY

REQUEST TO SPEAK/WRITTEN COMMENT FORM
NAME (Please print): V o rJ );::_, ..... z-(C
DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS MEETING? □ YES
DO YOU WISH TO PR.IVATELY GIVE VERBAL COMMENTS TO A COURT REPORTER? □ YES ADDRESS (SI reel and N11111be1):-._l _r.J_-,'--/ -"--A--'---'v----'--(F----'--,----'s"--'--A---'--~----'/-?_- ----'-/ =L-' _J_ o_· ------------------- CITY: S' ..+ ,_,, c.. .£.-/£ ,,.__ ~ ~ 1 /2" STATE:_C_ ,+ __ _ ':7 (i .,.7.? ZIP CODE: ----' ~---- TELEPHONE NO.- °I~ i 4 'I f - 2 2 EMAIL ADDRESS:

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE STUDY, VISIT: http://www.san-clemente.org

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU PROVIDE VERBAL COMMENTS TODAY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN

COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT, YOU MAY RESPOND BELOW AND SUBMIT THIS SHEET TO A CORPS REPRESENTATIVE OR WRITE TO THE CORPS BY SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 AT: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, LOS ANGELES DISTRICT; PLANNING DIVISlON; ATTN: THOMAS KEENEY, CESPL-PD; 915 WILSHIRE AVE; LOS ANGELES, CA 90017.

ALTERNATIVELY, YOU MAY EMAIL COMMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: [email protected]

DATA REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT
AUTHORITY: 33 CFR 327
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: Distributed at Public Meetings and Work hops to provide a record of attendees, and to develop a mailing list for future public meeting in keeping with the policy ofOCE to conduct Ci ii Works Program in an atmosphere of public understanding, trust and mutual cooperation. All interested individuals and agencies are to be informed and afforded an opportunity to be heard and their views considered in arrivi ng at conclusions. decisions. and recommendations in the fonnulation of civil works proposals, plans, projects, and on the proposed uses of navigable waters.

ROU TINE USES: Utili zed for determining attendance al Public Meetings; determining who desires to speak al Corps Public Meetings and developing mailing lists for various Corps stud ies.

DISCLOSURE: Yolunta1y . Failure to provide information may result in not being contacted for future public meetings, etc. 853
f/ I -v fr IS d (/'- T
WlfA-T A-6'0~1 1-v.,c....,,,,..,

COMMENTS
54-~ (.)
c.L-£,,,,.,.,a.,-, --r--/ Co
vt. s
7 854

SIGN-IN SHEET
San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study Public Meeting of the Draft EIS August 19, 2010 - 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673 Name Address Phone Email
LJ/M J..)A(.fl_ ~HZJ@SfltJ-(}_~~. c:,yt
~o<¾ 01R-DA1Y z11'"!:. \f a,k fro"' ~ "µ_,3 c:>R.~l,.r-.( br> l::ff Ii) tr, C l'J ..t_c ~U/p._ AMhvo~ 7-0 1 Avl, d..e14. 'f/v IC.ti~ am /J ro 5R. § ~ (Pew I , ~ V'v"I.. (, ~J/) A r.: ,!7 & ~ •-- A, • ~ - l/<j/.lt: /4/,,,,,,,:/'~~,.,-:,~-- /I " - ~ ~' V/;'_v(ah / ·7 /(,, A • - •• l'I' rl' I' /
- / J! /.J_' I
'
1nP /-0.di?15 oJ\ I £l;:x/;~ --.Yo/?t:Rdr, r s.c. I k' ~ &__,QC) f o K , /k. f- < ~11/J#AI' JILJ/;)~ ~/0#~[!) ,I:?&>~? ...__,
9fi.tC.. ('/ / ~'fL 21,~ ht=- Mo/I\ 1Z-lVI>
It,? -<>11e. /4 .. ~&),. V V39 A.,~ rL,u ~ < t'n A C/'f 1ff2. A'{~< b~,7<-T 67•1"·/ ~ ~~i ~~~Lu.d- 2-6') 7 q'NV /.\S e,c, I~ @ $--' '-~ x ~ , u
/' ...... j ~>-flw_AN\lr{ r; () 7 f Mr-(\ ~ )'( I ~A-j,, ~ / "'\ .... --- -. .t r-, II l2~ t---. ~ '-.,;;" ~ 1 i...r-- 'i 7 ~ <l.S q C) ~1.t.\c...,~1.>l'::!SA..vk...EP ~ y ;vr-u.;,~:.r ~ ~ 11 JI Vt o.__ Y)a:.,, JJ_,h o/lttl ~ / - I Lt, Vl) - 0 u· I ~
~
~4.
iQ 'l
~
fV\.. lL
855

SIGN-IN SHEET
San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study Public Meeting of the Draft EIS August 19, 2010 - 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673 Name Address Phone Email
"/ 0 '(_ L Y) A--, 1" ( i+A- (1,,. Y.)Cvl,, j ( Yr\ d ✓ II' l-tsA Lowe I lbh\-Mf.>~ (' 6tBV..f -
DoR(:S ff :Jle. 'tl!P r ;__;;~ tsi~/\ ilt?l\,clo
/?; / / /-fc,..,f- .. 2oZ.,/ / l"A 1/L- r,/e, /4.J .4k.,.,cs /j Y'7-19Y;]7''/L. ?i I ,_, .,. f (;;:, Cc'><. v- t-C Mri M:J-k,1- J /...~ /Iv 111 0 ... , t' D SA OJ S.,,t crv1-1i v,,-2.Jfj ~ f;,; Ii u 1i-10 "s q (( n1 P of, II/ W{)fl/ _(;/ff,j/J)lv /1, ltt:lr) !pf cf@7L 9tf} 1--{4-'fJ(IJ /:fel)(;wi 07 tD 1.M Af 4/ ~ WL~<S LS-.("' U<J't-1.__ £1dLv< ~ ( wa:.uc.s ·r L (oJJ+oL ,C
p~.s.u, --,:,n ·r- --, T../ I Is- ,AvlJ · %.I P~l-0 q ~ Ur "kl-H ps~~ () C-lv, I ,.b,AL m n~-P 'P..n-r -- j) c , (7
& 1.iA A-/·R'e~ /'T _fc-" ..,At '~ ""'- s.c.. 'If 9. J t, I . s05 ..-) M' Ct k:. 1-<u. v- & A/) r Po Bo( WtO ~ {._ - Ct'-lr Ye; ';l.%,,1 n.-i_ .,-4"!. ,._ Sc....~.<~.,,,Jk.,.o 7) /; / k<.- ...., 7.-- ,£ Iv 7 --;Jv~ j A,-.- f? /,e b & 9'47 --f 9f- ~ 7? f' ""- &/ . l ~RE b' sc.o G C.u:S qs AuB .tf;:.t.__Jv.A(L {{ L/-1 ,<'J-1z. ~ 511" kwe.-"'j7R,f l1J o c...t''< 5 1 re r . ,.._
~
~.

K
-
Co
~8'R,4Lb.te' ~ c::SfhP'fl'/J'H)/.5. 919- ~Al - 91)':!l j ?--A-~<., .9. E-/40-i £) Co , --18 ~ \_.I~~ N.JrtJ 2.1t w M ~cro~P.t- C/Ct2 ')t,I ·)
Wl
856
From:

To:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

UNITEP STATES MARINE CORPS

MARINE CORPS BASE
BOX 555015
CAMP PENDLETON CALIFORNIA 92055-5015 IN REPLY REFER TO:
5090
ENVSEC/513
SEP 1 5 ?010
Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton CA District Engineer (Mr. Thomas W. Keeney, Planning
Division, Environmental Resources Branch), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, P.O. Box 532711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN CLEMENTE

SHORELINE FEASIBILITY STUDY IN SAN CLEMENTE
(a) Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers Interested
Parties Letter of 6 August 2010
(1) MCB Camp Pendleton Comments on the Draft Joint
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report for the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility
Study in San Clemente

1. In response to reference (a), MCB Camp Pendleton comments on the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study in San Clemente are provided in enclosure (1).

2. Point of contact for additional inf · Mr. Ken
Quigley at (760) 725-9733 or kenneth.q
D.F. LEVI
By direction
Copy to:

CG, MCIWest
857
MCB Camp Pendleton Comments on the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study in San Clemente.
1) General. The location of the proposed borrow site depicted in Figures 1.1-1, 1.3-1 and throughout the DEIR/DEIS would be more accurately identified as located off Camp Pendleton since it is directly west of Camp Del Mar and the Del Mar Boat basin not the Oceanside Harbor area as currently stated.
2) General. The proposed borrow site and transit routes appear to be in close proximity or through nautical restricted areas that exist in the vicinity of the Camp Del Mar area and further up the coast off Red Beach of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The Coast Guard has listed and . described these restricted areas off Camp Pendleton in detail in their publication: Coast Pilot 7 in §334.900, §334.905 and §334.910. Regulations for these areas prohibit several activities including dredging and anchoring. As sites are in close proximity to the proposed borrow site the Draft EIS/EIR should incorporate some information regarding their existence and restrictions. 3) Page 1-1 Study Area - the proposed borrow area is outside the described study area. Does it have its own study area? If so where is it addressed?
4) Page 3-1 Evaluation Criteria. Were any planning constraints considered for the impact caused by the dredging at the borrow site? Such as - "Preserve water quality characteristics along the coast and near shore areas in the vicinity of the borrow site" 5) Page 3-3 Beach Fill. Lines 27 and 28 states "Beach nourishment may use offshore or onshore borrow sites. In the study area, offshore sources have historically been used for several reasons." Please include the reasons for excluding on~hore borrow sites. 6) Page 3-9. Figure 3.4-1- Oceanside Borrow Site Map. Recommend that this graphic be changed to a Navigational Chart for more clarity of the borrow site's location. 7) Page 4-1 Affected Environment Since part of the project includes dredging material at the borrow site, information on that location should be included in the Affected Environment Chapter. 8) Page 4-1 Meteorology and Air Quality needs to include discussions about San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) since there will be emissions in that Air District. 9) Page 4-13 Water Quality, Sediments, and Oceanography should discuss discharges in the vicinity of the borrow site.
10) Page 4-38 Biological Resources Lines 7 and 8 states - "These sections describe biological resources found in the vicinity of the proposed beach fill and borrow site areas along the San Clemente coastline." The proposed borrow site is along the Camp Pendleton/Oceanside coastline.

Does this section cover that site or only the potential borrow site near San Clemente? Some sections like Page 4-45 lines 26-36 provide information on the proposed borrow site along the Camp Pendleton/Oceanside coastline and others like Table 4-14 focus only on the San Clemente site ignoring biological resources in the immediate vicinity of the proposed borrow site.

Enclosure (1)
858
MCB Camp Pendleton Comments on the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the San-Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study in San Clemente.
11) Table 4-14 Special Status Listed Species that May Occur in the San Clemente Pier or Oceanside Borrow Site Areas:
-Southern steelhead has also been found in the Santa Margarita River near the proposed borrow site.
-Western snowy plover nesting sites are located within about one mile of the proposed Oceanside borrow site as such the "Potential For Occurrence in the Project Area" should be high.
-California least tern nesting sites are located within about one mile of the proposed Oceanside borrow site as such the "Potential For Occurrence in the Project Area" should be high.
12) Page 4-51 Section 4.4.3.3 Steelhead Trout (Federal Endangered) - Southern steelhead has also been found in the Santa Margarita River near the proposed borrow site. 13) Page 4-51 Section 4.4.3.5 California Least Tern (Federal and State Endangered)- Lines 3 & 4 Large numbers of California least tern nesting sites are located within about one mile of the proposed Oceanside borrow portion of the project area and are likely to forage at the proposed borrow site.
14) Page 4-51 Section 4.4.3.6 Western Snowy Plover (Federal Threatened) Lines 37 & 38 - The Santa Margarita River nesting site is located within about one mile of the proposed Oceanside borrow portion of the project area.
15) Page 4-57 Section 4.5 .2 Area of Potential Effects (APE) states "The offshore portion of the APE includes two offshore borrow sites, Areas 1 and 2. Area 1 is located southwest of the San Clemente Municipal Pier, and Area 2 is located off the coast of Oceanside." Section 4.5.3 summarizes the archaeology within and adjacent to the southern California coastline from Doheny State Beach to San Mateo Point. Where is the summary for Area 2 which is located off the coast of Camp Pendleton/Oceanside?
16) Page 4-64 Section 4.6.2 Vessel Transportation - Oceanside Harbor may be 20 miles from the San Clemente portion of the project area but it is within one mile of the Proposed Borrow Site.

The section should also address Marine Corps and Navy use of the area near and between the two portions of the project site and dredge/barge impacts on those uses. This may also be the place to address the nautical restricted areas listed and described in the Coast Guard publication known as Coast Pilot 7 that are in the vicinity of the Camp Del Mar area (in addition to a 3rd restricted area located further up the coast off Red Beach). The planned borrow site for this project is located within the Camp Pendleton Amphibious Vehicle Training Area (CPAVTA), as noted on most nautical charts (extends approximately 5.5 miles out from the southern end of the Camp Pendleton/Oceanside Harbor north breakwater and north to just south of San Mateo point). While that should not be a problem and dredging' operations would not be prevented off the southern coast of Camp Pendleton, nevertheless, advance coordination of any planned dredging operations in or near the CPA VT A is required. The Final EIR/EIS for this project should include a provision 2 Enclosure (1)
859
MCB Camp Pendleton Comments on the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study in San Clemente.
that the dredging operator pre-coordinate all planned dredging and transport operations with Camp Pendleton. If the Base is made aware of such offshore dredging operations and transport in advance, this activity can be incorporated into the Daily Training Schedule and efforts can be made to deconflict any potential Naval or Marine Corps amphibious training operations that may also be planned in close proximity to the dredging site and throughout the CPA VT A. 17) Page 4-80 Section 4.9.1 Beaches - fails to address Camp Pendleton and Oceanside beaches which are located within one mile of the proposed borrow site. 18) Page 4-81 Section 4.9.2 Annual Events -fails to address Camp Pendleton Del Mar Recreation Beach and Oceanside Harbor Events which are located within one mile of the proposed borrow site.
19) Page 5-1 Section 5-1 Air Quality and Meteorology - Where is the discussion for emissions within the SDAPCD?
20) Page 5-25 Impact WR-50-2: Would there be any potential impact from turbidity during dredging to southern steelhead attempting to enter the Santa Margarita River during the rainy season?
21) Page 5-35 Section 5.4 Biological Resources - Lines 25 & 26 - with the discovery of southern steelhead in the Santa Margarita River its potential to occur in the project area (borrow site) is higher then identified in the draft EIS/EIR.
22) Page 5-45 - Impact BR-115-1: A direct adverse effect on the population of a special status listed species or the loss or disturbance of important habitat for a listed species. Lines 34-36 - Western snowy plovers also breed on the beaches of Camp Pendleton near the Oceanside borrow area.
23) Page 5-52 Section 5.6 Ground and Vessel Transportation only talks about ground transportation impacts. There is nothing about impacts to ocean vessel transportation. As noted earlier in Section 4.6.2 Vessel Transportation, the planned borrow site for this project is located within the Camp Pendleton Amphibious Vehicle Training Area (CPAVTA and advance coordination of any planned dredging operations in or near the CPA VT A is required. If Camp Pendleton is made aware of such offshore dredging operations and transport in advance, this activity can be incorporated into the Daily Training Schedule and efforts can be made to deconflict any potential Naval or Marine Corps amphibious training operations that may also be planned in close proximity to the dredging site and throughout the CPA VT A. 24) Page 5-60, Section 5.8 - Noise - What are the noise standards/criteria on shore in the vicinity of the borrow site? This would seem important to support the statement in lines 1 and 2 on page 5- 64, and 26 through 30 on page 5-67.
3 Enclosure (1)
860
MCB Camp Pendleton Comments on the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study in San Clemente.
25) Page 5-77, Section 5.11 - Public Health and Safety - It appears the planned borrow site for this project is located within the Camp Pendleton Amphibious Vehicle Training Area (CPA VT A), as noted on most nautical charts. While that should not be a problem and dredging operations would not be prevented off the southern coast of Camp Pendleton, nevertheless, advance coordination of any planned dredging operations in or near the CPAVTA is strongly recommended. The Final EIR/EIS for this project should include a provision that the dredging operator pre-coordinate all planned dredging and transport operations with the Camp Pendleton Range Scheduling department in the Range Operations Division. If the Base is made aware of such offshore dredging operations and transport in advance, this activity can be incorporated into the Daily Training Schedule and efforts can be made to deconflict any potential Naval or Marine Corps amphibious training operations that may also be planned in close proximity to the dredging site and throughout the CPAVTA.
26) Page 6.1 Description of Cumulative Projects - Why isn't the Oceanside Harbor Dredging project include in the Cumulative Impact Analysis since it is located within one mile of the borrow site?
27) Page 7-1 Section 7.0 Environmental Commitments - Since the planned borrow site for this project is located within the Camp Pendleton Amphibious Vehicle Training Area (CPA VT A), as noted on most nautical charts the commitment that the dredging operator pre-coordinate all planned dredging and transport operations with Camp Pendleton should be added. If the Base is made aware of such offshore dredging operations and transport in advance, this activity can be incorporated into the Daily Training Schedule and efforts can be made to deconflict any potential Naval or Marine Corps amphibious training operations that may also be planned in close proximity to the dredging site and throughout the CPA VT A. 28) Page 9-3 Section 9.3.10 Other Agencies/Public Interest Groups -Coordination with MCB Camp Pendleton is required for all activity that takes place in the Camp Pendleton Amphibious Vehicle Training Area (CPA VT A), as noted on most nautical charts. 4 Enclosure (1)
861

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX
Thomas Keeney
Project Ecologist, Planning Division
U.S. Army USACE of Engineers
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles, California 92053-2325
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
September 20, 2010
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project, Orange County California. (CEQ# 20100289)
Dear Mr. Keeney:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project, (Project), Orange County California. Our review is provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CPR 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Our comments were also prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Guidelines promulgated at 40 CPR 230 under Section 404(b )(1) of the Clean Water Act (CW A).

EPA recognizes the need to protect our shorelines and supports efforts to minimize erosion. We recommend that the Purpose and Need for this project be expanded to include preservation of the natural environmental features in and out of the water, as well as recreational activities currently favored in the area. EPA believes that consideration of additional alternatives is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the CWA Section 404(b)(l) Gujdelines and authorization of the LEDPA.

Based on our review of the Proposed Project 50 foot beach width alternative, we have rated the DEIS as Environmental Concerns -Insufficient Information (EC-2) (see enclosed "Summary of Rating Definitions"), due to our concerns regarding air quality, impacts to waters of the United States (WUS), biological resources, the source and quality of beach nourishment materials, and climate change. The project's nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions exceed the conformity threshold. Prior to completing the Final EIS, the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (USACE) should either revise the project so that the emissions no longer exceed the threshold, or complete a conformity determination for the project. Whichever the case, EPA is ready to coordinate with the USACE to avoid project delays. To clarify a point of apparent confusion, off-site mitigation (or offsets) may be focluded in a conformity determination, but should not be considered in an analysis to determine the applicability of conformity. We are also concerned that the DEIS includes a monitoring plan to assess nourishment needs yet fails to adequately address monitoring or mitigating plans in the context of environmental impacts from fill activities such as loss of surf grass and water quality. 862
EPA encourages the USACE to include in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) the results of a comprehensive biological survey of the San Clemente shoreline. Without such a survey, it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed action.

The DEIS states that offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternative.

EPA encourages the USACE to explore all options to obtain beach nourishment material, including opportunities to use dredged material produced from other USACE projects on the California coast.

In light of climate change and rising sea level, EPA questions the viability of a plan to place sand on a.beach over a 50-year period. Reconsideration of the 50 year timeline associated with this project may be necessary to reflect the lifespan of the beach. EPA recognizes the project location is already in a high flood risk area.

We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS. When the FEIS is released for public review, please send one hard copy and two CD ROMs to the address above (mail code: CED-2).

If you have any questions, please contact James Munson, the lead reviewer for this project, at (415) 972-3800 or [email protected], or me at (415) 972-3521.

Enclosures:

Summary of EPA Rating Definitions
Detailed Comments
Cc:

Bryant Chesney, NOAA
Jennifer Wise, USFWS
Loni Adams, CDFG
Kathleen M. Goforth, ger
Environmental Review Office
2 863
EPA'S DETAILED COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEl\'lENT (DEIS) SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA. (CEQ# 20100289) September 20, 2010
Project Purpose and Need

Page 2 ends

erosion that results from winter storms and to prevent damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line". However, the DEIS does not clearly demonstrate whether placement would be a "beneficial use" at the proposed location through the rebuilding of an eroding beach. The DEIS section on the relationship between the sediment budget and long-term shoreline change does not appear to support that the beach is eroding. For example, the DEIS states that the "resultant sediment budget indicates the shoreline is essentially in balance between erosion and accretion" (see Section 4.3.4.3). The table on shoreline change also demonstrates that the shoreline has varied between eroding, accreting, and balanced (see Table 4-10) with the maximum erosion rate of minus 2 feeUyear at T-street.

The sediment budget and the long-term shoreline change studies referenced on DEIS p. 4-36 conflict with the more recent studies cited on DEIS p. 4-35 that appear to support the downward trend of beach width in the project location. However, according to the DEIS, it has been eight years since the last study, the most recent beach width being measured in 2002 (Table

4.3~6). Due to the time elapsed, the high variability of beach width in the past, and the appearance of conflicting information with the historical and long-term analyses, we recommend that the FEIS include the results of more recent beach width monitoring in the project location.

Other project purposes include protection of railroad infrastructure from wave erosion.

Section 4.6.1.2 of the DEIS states that the Orange County Transportation Authority has placed "riprap along the most critical segment between North Beach and the Marine Safety Building to decrease wave erosion impacts"; however much of this segment is not within the project footprint, and the project area south of the Marine Safety Building has no protecting riprap. The FEIS should address why the project area south of the Marine Safety Building has no protecting riprap. If this area is not considered part of the "critical segment", the FEIS should explain the purpose and need of including the area in the project.

Recommendations:

The FEIS should include an analysis of all existing data to clearly demonstrate a net loss of sediment deposition over the project area, and that local beach profiles show the effects of such erosion and thus are in need of replenishment. The FEIS should also provide clarification of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (US ACE) anticipated erosion rate of 12.8 feet per year (see Section 3.4.2.5) and why this rate is higher than historical erosion rates (-2 ft/year at T-street). For additional clarity, we also recommend that the sediment budget (Table 4-9) and long-term shoreline change (Table 4.3-6) sections include a map and description of the sampling stations, as well as a depiction of shoreline change during each of the represented periods.
1 864
Alternatives Analysis
The DEIS includes a no-action alternative and two action alternatives. The two action alternatives include nourishment of the same linear project area but with different beach widths, (50 feet and 115 feet). While the proposed project (50 feet width option) would have fewer impacts from fill activity than the 115 feet alternative, both alternatives would have similar adverse environmental and recreational impacts in the same linear project areas.

Recommendation:

The FEIS should include, at a minimum, an additional alternative that reduces the amount of linear project footprint. EPA suggests that an alternative excluding fill south of the Marine Safety Building may meet the needs of the project while greatly reducing adverse impacts to surfing, coral reefs, and surfgrass. The FEIS alternatives analysis should include a reasonable range of practicable alternatives that meet the project purpose and demonstrate the project's compliance with the CW A Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines and selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative LEDPA.

Air Quality
General Conformity
EPA is concerned that applicability of the general conformity program has not been appropriately addressed in the DEIS. The project area is in Orange County, California. This county is part of a larger area that is not meeting federal air quality standards for ozone. The DEIS states that "The area may request a higher classification" (DEIS Vol. 2 p. 12). In fact, the area was reclassified to extreme nonattainment for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) on June 4, 2010. For this reason, the area now has a lower applicability threshold for general conformity. The DEIS is not clear that the applicability threshold used for analysis was 25 tons per year (tpy); however, we believe this to be the case, and want to clarify that the required threshold for analysis is 10 tpy. For more information go to:
http://www.epa.gov/oagps001/greenbk/gfr2rpt2.html.
2 865
Recommendation:

The FEIS should state clearly that the general confonnity threshold is 10 tpy. Provide the results of the General Confonnity applical;>ility analysis to indicate whether the preferred alternative is above or below this de minimis level. If it is over de minimis, indicate the method that will be used to demonstrate that the project conforms to the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the area.

Air Quality Analysis
The DEIS reports that the project will have no long-term impacts and a temporary shortterm adverse impact to air quality, but does not comprehensively assess the Project's operational and construction direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to air quality. The FEIS should include a complete description of potential impacts and ways to reduce those impacts. In particular, EPA has concerns regarding the apparent lack of both an air quality impact assessment of fill placement, and a staging area plan that minimizes exposures to sensitive receptors and residents.

Construction Mitigation Measures
EPA commends USACE for incorporating mitigation strategies to reduce or minimize air pollutant, paving, and fugitive dust emissions. However, in addition to idling restrictions, proper maintenance of equipment, and the selection of construction equipment based on low emission factors, this Project should incorporate more stringent emission controls for PM and ozone precursors for construction-related activity.

Recommendations:

Due to the serious. nature of the particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM1o) and PM2.5 conditions in the South Coast Air Basin, EPA recommends that the best available control measures (BACM) for these pollutants be implemented at all times and that the FEIS and ROD incorporate the Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan. We recommend that all applicable requirements under the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules and the following additional measures be incorporated into the Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan.

Fugitive Dust Source Controls:
• Stabilize open storage piles and disturbed areas by covering and/or applying water or chemical/organic dust palliative where appropriate. This applies to both inactive and active sites, during workdays, weekends, holidays, and windy conditions.
• Install wind fencing, and phase grading operations, where appropriate, and operate water trucks for stabiUzatio~ of surfaces under windy conditions. • When hauling material and operating non-earthmoving equipment, prevent spillage, and limit speeds to l 5 miles per hour (mph). Limit speed of earthmoving equipment to 10 mph.

Mobile and Stationary Source Controls:
3 866
• Reduce use, trips, and unnecessary idling from heavy equipment. • Maintain and tune engines per manufacturer's specifications to perform at California Air Resources Board (CARB) and/or EPA certification, where applicable, levels and to perform at verified standards applicable to retrofit technologies. Employ periodic, unscheduled inspections to limit unnecessary idling and to ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained, tuned, and modified consistent with established specifications. CARB has a number of mobile source anti-idling requirements. See their website at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/truck-idling.htm • Prohibit any tampering with engines and require continuing adherence to manufacturer's recommendations
• If practicable, lease new, clean equipment meeting the most stringent of applicable Federal or State Standards. In general, only Tier 2 or newer engines should be employed in the construction phase.
• Utilize EPA-registered particulate traps and other appropriate controls where suitable, to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and other pollutants at the construction site.

Administrative controls:
• Identify all commitments to reduce construction emissions and incorporate these reductions into the air quality analysis to reflect additional air quality improvements that would result from adopting specific air quality measures. • Identify where implementation of mitigation measures is rejected based on economic infeasibility.
• Prepare an inventory of all equipment prior to construction, and. identify the suitability of add-on emission controls for each piece of equipment before groundbreaking. (Suitability of control devices is based on: whether there is reduced normal availability of the construction equipment due to increased downtime and/or power output, whether there may be significant damage . caused to the construction equipment engine, or whether there may be a significant risk to nearby workers or the public.) Meet CARB diesel fuel requirement for off-road and on-highway (i.e., 15 ppm), and where appropriate use alternative fuels such as natural gas and electric. • Develop construction traffic and parking management plan that minimizes traffic interference and maintains traffic flow.
• Identify sensitive receptors in the project area, such as children, elderly, and infirm, and specify the means by which you will minimize impacts to these populations. For example. locate construction equipment and staging zones away from sensitive receptors and fresh air intakes to buildings and a.it conditioners. ·
Air Quality Impacts Associated with Transporting Fill Material 4 867
EPA is concerned that the air quality analysis in the DEIS does not include emissions associated with the multiple collection barge trips needed to remove and transport fill from the project site nor does the DEIS appear to include estimates of the number of necessary collection barge trips, distance traveled, and corresponding air emissions.

Recommendations:

The FEIS should include a revised air quality analysis and updated emissions comparison to SCAQMD significance thresholds to account for the emissions from the equipment required to transport fill. The FEIS should also commit to additional minimization measures for these emissions.

Water Resources
Although a CW A Section 404 permit is not needed for the proposed action, the project must be in compliance with the CWA Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines. Also, the FEIS and ROD will serve as the basis for future permits that will be needed for maintenance of beach nourishment. Under the proposed action, sand replenishment will have to be done every five or six years to restore the design beach width and those actions may need a permit.

While the project will have impacts to high value marine habitats, including special aquatic sites (defined at 40 CFR 230.3(q-l )), the Section 404(b)(l) Alternatives Analysis (Appendix A) concludes that all inipacts are localized and temporary, and therefore, insignificant. There is no discussion of the basis for this conclusion.

As a result of the large volumes of sand being placed on receiver beaches, the proposed project could lead to significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on surface water quality and fisheries from increased turbidity and fill in special aquatic sites. Other short- and long-term threats to water quality include construction-related containments such as oil and hydraulic fluid and increased turbidity that would occur during the future, associated maintenance activities for the proposed project.

Recommendations:

The FEIS should include a comprehensive biological survey of the San Clemente shoreline.

The FEIS should address the potential of the project to contribute to elevated turbidity levels. The USACE should consider marine design modifications regarding factors such as location and size, to minimize these environmental impacts.

Additional minimization measures for impacts to the aquatic environment should be discussed in the FEIS. Minimization measures include timing and rate of fill placement.

The USACE should commit to placement in fall or winter to better mimic natural shoreline turbidity processes and reduce impacts during high recreational use times, and to develop debris management plans to ensure that the borrow site materials do not deposit trash, or other debris that may be harmful to the ocean environment. 5 868
Source & Quality of Beach Nourishment Materials
The DEIS briefly considers sources of sand such as onshore and offshore borrow sites ( DEIS p. 3-3); however, it then goes on to state, "for this project offshore dredging would be required". Any opportunities for further minimizing impacts to the aquatic environment by using sand from other USACE permitted projects, or using sources from which the dredging might provide enhancement of environmental, navigational, or recreational conditions should be discussed in the FEIS.

We note that the chemical testing of the sediments in the proposed Oceanside borrow pit occurred several years ago. Due to this lapse of time, additional testing may be necessary. The DEIS did not describe the initial sampling scheme (depth of cores, how many cores) nor whether the cores went down to anticipated dredging depth. Additionally, the table did not provide a chemical reference sample along a beach transect at the proposed receiving site.

The DEIS provides insufficient discussion of the regulatory approval process of material for testing. A Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for tiered testing, pursuant to the Inland Testing Manual should be required for each placement within the beach nourishment program.

The SAP should examine the source material and the receiver site sediments and address tiered testing requirements (including grain size and the need for other testing) and be reviewed by the USACE, USEPA, Coastal Commission, and the RWQCB for concurrence prior to any sampling of the materials. All SAP's and approvals should be reviewed by the interagency dredging group run by the Los Angeles USACE s District (SC-DMMT).

Recommendation:

The USACE should evaluate and discuss in the FEIS the opportunity to coordinate with other projects that may produce suitable material for beach nourishment purposes. The ROD should include a commitment to consideration of opportunistic sources of beach nourishment material prior to each nourishment cycle.·
The discussion of the chemical testing of the proposed Oceanside borrow site should be expanded in the FEIS to include pertinent information such as core depth and number of samples.

The FEIS should also describe, and the ROD should commit, to project review through an interagency regulatory approval process (i.e. SC-DMMT) to ensure that the sediments are suitable for ocean placement.

Biological Quality Surveys and Monitoring
We acknowledge the USACE commitment to a 50 year monitoring period (over the life of the project). As discussed in the DEIS, surveys and monitoring have typically been incorporated into beach nourishment projects. The document cites the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) "monitoring data that suggest the San Clemente fill will erode on average at a rate of 12.8 feet per year (3.9 m/yr)", (p. 3-18). To counter this erosion, the DEIS states that proposed project monitoring would be required to assess replenishment schedules. 6 869
However, the document does not sufficiently discuss a biological monitoring plan. This information should be included in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed action in protecting biological diversity/quality.

The monitoring plan should include pre- and post-project dive surveys and benthic community sampling of the borrow site and the receiver site to ensure that each benthic community returns to its pre-project density and structure.

We stress that any monitoring should have appropriate adaptive management to ensure minimal impacts to aquatic resources. The Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup is currently preparing a document outlining practices to minimize impacts to aquatic resources. The adaptive man~gement process should allow for incorporation of these practices and associated principles and any other developments in regional sediment management over the life of the project.

Recommendation:

The FEIS should include a detailed description of a survey/monitoring program for.the biological impacts of the Proposed Project, and commit to its incorporation as a required project element. The monitoring program should have a clear adaptive management strategy to ensure that the aquatic environment is protected.

Endangered Species
The DEIS insufficiently evaluates the potential impacts to endangered species. For example, the document states, "No proposed or endangered species are expected to be present on the site" (DEIS p.A-10). The basis for this statement is unclear due to the lack of a complete shoreline biological survey.

Recommendation:

The FEIS should include a comprehensive biological survey of the entire project area as well as the borrow site, including a complete review of species that may be affected by the project. The results of consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), if appropriate, regarding threatened or endangered species or critical habitat should be included in the FEIS. Beach nourishment activities should avoid the nesting seasons for listed species, such as the least tern.

Cumulative Impacts
Given that the Project will take place over the next 50 years, the FEIS should include a comprehensive list of other projects in the area that are under construction or planned within that time frame, such as ecosystem restoration opportunities at San Elijo Lagoon, and related cumulative impacts. The DEIS states, "most of the sediment from the project is expected to accumulate on down coast beaches" (p.6-4). The feasibility of periodically replenishing beaches should be analyzed and incorporated in plans for future growth. An analysis of how future 7 870
projects, in conjunction with the proposed Project, may cumulatively impact the health of the affected resources should be addressed in this section.

Recommendation:

The FEIS should include a comprehensive discussion of all types of reasonably foreseeable projects that may take place in the area during the construction period, such as the LOSSAN Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements, the San Elijo Lagoon restoration, 'and others, and predict the cumulative impacts on affected resources.

Climate Change
Current research estimates that climate change could cause sea level rise and change the amount, timing, and intensity of rain and storm events. The Pacific Institute has created maps estimating flood risk due to sea level rise in the San Clemente Shoreline area; to see the map go to: http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea level rise/hazmaps/San Clemente.pelf Recommendation:

The FEIS should describe and evaluate projected climate change consequences such as sea level rise, frequency of high intensity storms, and amplified rain events; their effects on the beaches~ and how these effects could change re-nourishment plans for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management
Per Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), portions of the project footprint may be in a Zone VE Coastal Flood Zone with velocity hazard with a established base flood elevation (BFE). See FIRM#: 06059C0536J Orange Co Uninc & Inc Areas 12/03/2009. Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.

For more information go to:
http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/nfipkeywords/zone ve .shtm.

Recommendation:

The FEIS should discuss any impacts that the Proposed Project may have on the potential for flooding.
8 871
Thomas Keeney
Project Ecologist, Planning Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - SPL
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles, California 92053-2325
Dear Mr. Keeney:

UNITEC STATES CEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southwest Region
501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200
Long Beach , California 90802-4213
SEP 2 0 2010
NOAA's National Marine Visheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS) for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project. NMFS offers the following comments pursuant to section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMP A), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA).

Proposed Action
Two scales of beach fill alternatives were analyzed; they both consist of dredging material from offshore Oceanside, then hauling and placing it at San Clemente Beach.

For purposes of the essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation, the proposed action is nourishment of 3,412 feet of beach with a + 17 foot berm crest elevation and a width of 50 feet. Approximately 251,130 cubic yards (192,000 m3) of sediment will be dredged from the Oceanside offshore borrow site to supply nourishment activities. Sediment will be transported to the receiver site using a hopper dredge and mooring buoy. The sediment will be placed on the beach between Linda Lane and T-street. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012 but may begin as soon as 2010. Similar re-nourishment events would occur approximately every six years, dependent upon monitoring results and funding availability.

National Environmental Policy Act Comments
Affected Area
The DEIS should elaborate on the quantity of habitat affected by the proposed action.

For example, the acreage of benthic habitat affected by dredging operations should be provided. Similarly, the estimated area affected by sediment placement should be provided. This estimate should account for both direct impacts associated with sediment 872
2 placement and indirect impacts associated with the equilibrium footprint. In addition, the estimated rates and depth of burial within the equilibrium footprint should be provided.

Submerged Reef Alternative
The objectives of the proposed project are to 1) reduce storm-related damages to public and private properties and 2) enhance and maintain beach recreation and associated economic tourism benefits. The DEIS also identified a number of planning constraints that inform the evaluation criteria for the various alternatives. These constraints are 1) preserve the nearshore ecosystem that supports commercial lobster and fishing industries and snorkeling activities; 2) preserve the opportunities for surfing; 3) preserve critical habitat that suppo1is listed species; 4) preserve water quality characteristics; 5) preserve cultural and historical features; and 6) preserve air quality conditions. The DEIS then incorporated the objectives and constraints of the project into the following evaluation criteria: addresses purpose and need, technical feasibility, economic feasibility, environmental impacts, and public acceptability.

Of the alternatives identified, NMFS believes additional analysis of the submerged reef alternative is warranted. Moreover, additional justification should be provided for the comparisons and conclusions made for the varying alternatives, as summarized in Table 3-1. NMFS is aware of initial planning efforts in Ventura County (i.e. Oil Piers) and northern San Diego County (i.e. Fletcher Cove) to evaluate the application of submerged reefs for beach protection and other benefits. The initial documents prepared for these projects support the potential feasibility of this approach. Moreover, submerged reefs provide additional habitat benefits and, if designed properly, may improve surfing conditions.

According to a report developed for the Corps planning process for the Oil Piers Ventura County project, studies of benefits associated with the construction of multi-purpose reefs at various locations around the world have all shown significant benefit/cost ratios.

The lowest was approximately 20: l for a small reef in Bournemouth, UK, to over 60: 1 for the Narrowneck reef on the Gold Coast, Australia. A recent report for a multipurpose reef in Wellington, New Zealand, estimated a conservative benefit to cost ratio of 24:1.

Although NMFS does not believe submerged reefs are a panacea for erosion control, they may impede erosion at local scales. They minimize many negative aspects of other erosion control methods and have the potential to benefit ecosystems, tourists and local communities. Thus, NMFS believes this alternative warrants further discussion and evaluation in the DEIS.
873
3 Analysis
Balancing Ecosystem Services
The proposed project involves some inherent trade-offs. Protection of existing infrastructure and maintaining recreational opportunities associated with beach usage are obvious ecosystem services that may be provided by this project. However, repeated beach fill projects may have an environmental cost to various natural resources ( e.g. surf grass, rocky reefs, intertidal and shallow subtidal invertebrate assemblages, fishery resources). These costs need to be incorporated into the analysis to ensure the benefit to cost ratio is not skewed. Prior to the commitment of federal resources, a clear evaluation should be provided that examines the expected costs over the long-term. Without such an analysis, it would be difficult to accurately predict whether the proposed project would be in the public's best interest.

Adequacy of Monitoring Studies
Peterson and Bishop (2005) reviewed 46 beach monitoring studies and showed that 1) only 11 percent of the studies controlled for both natural spatial and temporal variation in their analyses; 2) 56 percent reached conclusions that were not adequately supported; and 3) 49 percent failed to meet publication standards for citation and synthesis ofrelated work. They opined that regulatory and resource agency practices are in urgent need of reform as the risk of cumulative impacts grows in the face of sea level rise, climate change, and increased coastal development. NMFS notes that, with the exception of one project from the 1970s, all the studies that were reviewed were on the Atlantic or Gulf coastlines. Thus, their results may not be directly applicable to projects implemented in Southern California. However, NMFS shares the concerns expressed by the authors that the presumption that nourishment projects are ecologically benign may be based upon an incomplete and flawed body of science. 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, NMFS believes a more rigorous examination of their sampling design, statistical analyses, and conclusions are necessary.

Cumulative Impact Analysis
The cumulative impact analysis does not include the opportunistic program that has recently been permitted by Corps Regulatory Division (SPL-2004-00838-JPL). This is a 5-year opportunistic beach nourishment program to place a maximum of 300,000 cubic yards of sediment per year on four different sites within the coastal zone of the City of San Clemente. This project would use opportunistic fill sources and cover a maximum of 29 acres of tidal habitat. The disposal sites include one at North Beach, one at Linda Lane, and two at T-Street. In addition, a stockpile site is proposed near the intersection of A venido Pico and El Camino Road. Given the spatial overlap and proximity, NMFS believes this program should be evaluated within the cumulative impact analysis. 874
4 In addition, the DEIS should evaluate how climate change may affect the frequency of nourishment events. Sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of storms, and increased wave height are expected climate change impacts that may exacerbate existing beach erosion rates and may increase the frequency of nourishment events. These may all affect the fate of sediment placed for beach nourishment purposes and subsequent movements into the nearshore environment and should, thus, be considered in the cumulative impact analysis.

Environmental Commitments
Section 7 of the DEIS identifies a variety of environmental commitments for the proposed action. However, no commitments are provided to address biological resources. NMFS recommends that this section be amended to include mitigation measures for biological resources.

Endangered Species Act Comments
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; see 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)) requires federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce and/or the Secretary of the Interior to insure that "any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species .... " See also 50 C.F.R. part 400.

In Section 4 of the Joint DEIS/DEIR, the following BSA-listed species were described as having the potential to occur in the nearshore waters off San Clemente and Oceanside, CA: Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (B. physalus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), sei whale (B. borealis), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Pacific olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni). Black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) was listed as endangered under the ESA on January 14, 2009 (74 FR 1937) and should also be included as having the potential to occur in the project area.

If the Corps determines that their proposed project may affect any ESA-listed species under NMFS' jurisdiction, including whales, seals, sea lions, abalone and sea turtles, the Corps should request concurrence from NMFS.

Marine Mammal Protection Act Comments
Whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions are protected under the MMP A. See 16 U .S.C. § 1361 et seq. Under the MMPA, it is generally illegal to "take" a marine mammal without prior authorization from NMFS. "Take" is defined as harassing, hunting, capturing, or killing, or attempting to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Except with respect to military readiness activities and certain scientific 875
5 research conducted by, or on behalf of, the Federal Government, "harassment" is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal in the wild, or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Harassment of marine mammals may occur if hauled animals flush the haul out site and/or move out of the immediate aquatic area to increase their distance from dredgingrelated activities, such as noise associated with the dredging, presence of workers, or unfamiliar activity in proximity to a haul out site. The measured sound exposure levels of a clamshell dredge may range between 75-88 dBA (re 20 µPa) at 50 feet. Animals have been observed flushing from haul out sites at a sound exposure level of less than 100 dBA, and it is possible that marine mammals may modify their behavior as a result of the noise produced by the dredging operations. NMFS recommends including detailed information on the expected impacts that dredging will or will not have on marine mammals.

The DEIS/EIR indicated that it is expected that marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area, specifically gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), would be expected to avoid the immediate vicinity of the dredging area, and that the turbidity plumes from the project would have an adverse impact on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Please note the definition of a "take" under the MMP A and that the rapid exit from the project area could be considered harassment under the MMP A. In addition, avoidance is not considered a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to marine mammals should the action cause harassment and animals avoid the project area. Please provide more detail as to why the turbidity plumes would have an adverse impact on bottlenose dolphins. Based on the information provided in the DEIS/EIR regarding the potential take of maiine mammals, it may be necessary to receive authorization from NMFS under the MMP A for this proposed project.

Magnuson-Stevens Fisherv Conservation and Management Act Comments Action Area
The proposed project occurs within EFH for various federally managed fish species within Coastal Pelagic Species, Pacific Groundfish Species, and Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). In addition, the project occurs within areas designated as habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species within the Pacific Groundfish FMP. HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area.

Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under MSA; however, federal projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. As defined in the Pacific Groundfish FMP, San Clemente contains the following types of HAPC: surf grass, rocky reef and canopy kelp.
876
6 Figure 4.4-2 depicts the observed surfgrass in relationship to the dive transects, expected impact area (i.e. equilibrium footprint), and kelp habitat. Scattered surfgrass amongst boulders have been observed in the northern portion of the Linda Lane impact area.

More extensive rocky reef and surfgrass habitat occur in the southern portion of the impact area at T-street. The survey information provided does not delineate areal extent of rocky reef and surf grass within the impact area. Appendix B estimated the T-street reef to be 5 acres. No quantification of area and/or coverage was provided for the scattered boulders and surfgrass habitat. Rocky intertidal and more expansive subtidal rocky reef and associated kelp habitat exists in areas immediately adjacent to the expected impact area.

Effects of the Action
Based on information provided in the EFH assessment and developed during consultation, NMFS concludes that proposed action would adversely affect EFH for various federally managed species within Coastal Pelagics Species, Highly Migratory Species, and Pacific Groundfish FMPs. Dredging will disturb benthic organisms within the project footprint via direct removal or indirect mortality from an associated turbidity plume. Sediment from the beach fill project will be redistributed by wave and tidal energy onto nearshore areas, which may bury rocky reef habitat, surf grass habitat, and benthic organisms that serve as prey for a variety of fishery species. In addition, turbidity generated from the beach fill will adversely affect the light regime in the immediate nearshore area, which may reduce the quality and/or quantity of surf grass and kelp habitat.

Surf grass habitat is 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). 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. Surf grasses 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.

The DEIS acknowledges that some burial will occur and that the inshore areas of the impact area will be most affected by burial. However, the DEIS asserts that the proposed action will not result in a long-term net loss in habitat value of surf grass. In addition, it states that the proposed project will have no significant adverse effects on special aquatic sites. NMFS does not believe these conclusions are adequately supported by the analysis. 877
7 Previous predictions of burial associated with placement of 175,000 cubic yards were described in the DEIS that indicated an estimated maximum 1 foot burial of surfgrass for less than six months. 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 DEIS indicates that some portions of surf grass 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.

Based upon the above and that the proposed project involves approximately 40% more sediment than previous predictions, NMFS believes the proposed project would reduce the quality of surf grass habitat in the project vicinity. Given the uncertainties associated with modeling, there is also a real potential for reductions in the quantity of surf grass habitat.

Galst and Anderson (2008) have suggested that surf grass is important for nearshore fish communities and reductions in surfgrass could negatively affect recruitment patterns.

Specifically, experimental reductions in coverage of seagrass (ranging from 7 to 180 square meters) resulted in significant decreases in the density of newly recruited fish species. Similarly, NMFS expects reductions in coverage and/or density may reduce other ecological services provided by surfgrass, such as primary productivity, substrate for epibiota, and wave energy dissipation.

To date, NMFS is unaware of any comprehensive survey to delineate surf grass and rocky reef in the project area. According to Appendix B of the DEIS, which describes a biological resources monitoring program, the general area of the T-street reef is approximately 5 acres. Appendix B further states that potential burial of the inshore edge of T-street is uncertain, but, if it were to occur, it would be expected to occur in the approximately 20 percent inshore edge of the T-street reef area. Scattered patches of rocky reef and surf grass may also exist in other areas of the footprint, but no estimates are given to quantify the extent of the impact. Given the lack of detailed habitat characterization and uncertainty associated with burial predictions, it is difficult to estimate the quantity of surf grass habitat that may be affected.

Hard-bottom habitats, such as rocky reefs, are present within and adjacent to the project area. These hard-bottom habitats provide substrate for a diversity of algae and invertebrate species, which are utilized by a number of different fish species. Many organisms adapted to rocky reef habitats are highly susceptible to burial and/or sediment scour. Thus, burial and/or increased scour may diminish the ecological functions provided by rocky reefs. Some increased level of burial and/or scour is expected to occur to rocky reef areas within the equilibrium footprint. However, the DEIS suggests that the proposed action will have only minor transitory effects, but acknowledges that unforeseen impacts may occur and that resource monitoring is appropriate. Significant burial is not expected in the rocky intertidal areas near Mariposa Point or the more extensive subtidal rocky reefs and kelp habitat found near Mariposa Point and immediately offshore (approximately 1,000 to 1,300 feet from the beach) of the estimated impact area.
878
8 The proposed project will increase turbidity within the project area due to dredging and beach fill operations. Based upon monitoring conducted at another dredging operation in Oceanside, the estimated average down coast distance of the turbidity plume was between 272 and 329 feet. Turbidity monitoring of a hopper dredge operation for a regional beach sand project indicated that plumes did not exceed 2,700 square yards (0.56 acres). Construction monitoring during a regional beach sand project indicated that turbidity plumes ranged between 2,640 and 10,000 feet and were largely confined to the surfzone. Beach nourishments create turbidity plumes, an area of water with a high concentration of suspended sediments that can last for days and cover habitats adjacent to the project site. Turbidity decreases light penetration and therefore has adverse effects on seagrass and canopy kelp habitats. These plants form the basis of highly productive systems and any losses would adversely affect nearshore EFH. In addition, turbidity plumes may alter fish behavior. Many fishes will likely disperse away from the turbidity plume as fine particulates can clog gill rakers and decreased visibility can make foraging more difficult. Sessile, filter feeding invertebrates may experience mortality, as suspended sediments can clog feeding apparatus.

Impacts to rocky reef, surfgrass, and/or kelp habitat may also occur if anchor moorings and/or the slurry pipeline were placed on these sensitive habitats. The DEIS indicates that placement of moorings and pipelines shall avoid these sensitive habitats. However, a more detailed and comprehensive habitat survey should be conducted to properly delineate the areas to avoid.

California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) spawn on sandy beach habitats throughout the Southern California Bight every year from March to August. On full and new moons, eggs are deposited in the sand above the high tide line shortly after spring high tides.

Two weeks later, corresponding with spring high tides, larval grunion hatch from eggs and return to the water. Beach nourishment can cause mortality by burying developing eggs. Heavy machinery and other disturbances during construction could also kill developing or juvenile grunion. However, the proposed project would not impact grunion spawning because it has committed to occur outside the grunion spawning season of March to August.

EFH Conservation Recommendations
As described in the above effects analysis, NMFS has determined that the proposed action would adversely affect EFH for various federally managed fish species within the Coastal Pelagics, Highly Migratory Species, and Pacific Groundfish FMPs. Therefore, pursuant to section 305(b)(4)(A) of the MSA, NMFS offers the following EFH conservation recommendations to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset the adverse effects to EFH.
1) Given the high ecological values associated with surf grass 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 879
9 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 surf grass 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. a. The Corps and/or the project partner should include in-kind surfgrass restoration, establishment, and/or enhancement as part of the mitigation plan.

According to the 2008 mitigation 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 surf grass should be considered a DTR resource. Therefore, NMFS believes the Corps and/or the project partner should include in-kind surf grass restoration or establishment as part of the mitigation plan. b. Given the uncertainty associated with surfgrass mitigation success, the Corps and/or the project partner should develop a contingency plan should surf grass mitigation efforts fail.

Based upon discussions with the Corps, kelp mitigation may be the most appropriate out-of-kind approach if in-kind mitigation does not yield positive results. Therefore, the Corps and/or the project partner should design an artificial reef capable of supporting kelp habitat that would offset similar ecological functions that were lost due to surfgrass impacts. c. The Corps and/or the project partner should coordinate with NMFS and other interested agencies to determine an appropriate mitigation ratio for impacts to surf grass and rocky reef habitat. 880
10 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 mitigation plan. The monitoring plan should be desctibed in greater detail than the program cun-ently desc1ibed in Appendix B. The sampling design and statistical analyses should be clearly desctibed and should be based upon fundamental ptinciples of statistical inference. This monitoting 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.

Statutory Response Requirement
Please be advised that regulations at section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA and 50 CFR 600.920(k) of the MSA require your office to provide a written response to this letter within 30 days of its receipt and at least 10 days prior to final approval of the action. A preliminary response is acceptable if final action cannot be completed within 30 days.

Your final response must include a description of measures to be required to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse impacts of the activity. If your response is inconsistent with our EFH conservation recommendations, you 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.

Supplemental Consultation
Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(1), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Comments
The purpose of the FWCA is to ensure that wildlife conservation receives equal consideration, and is coordinated with other aspects of water resources development [16 U.S.C. 661]. The FWCA establishes a consultation requirement for federal departments and agencies that undertake any action that proposes to modify any stream or other body of water for any purpose, including navigation and drainage [16 U.S.C 662(a)]. Consistent with this consultation requirement, NMFS provides recommendations and comments to federal action agencies for the purpose of conserving fish and wildlife resources. The FWCA allows the 881
11 opportunity to offer recommendations for the conservation of species and habitats beyond those currently managed under MSA and ESA.

According to Subpart E Section 230.43 of the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (404(b){l) 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 ofrooted aquatic vegetation. NMFS believes surfgrass should be considered a SAS and receive special consideration when evaluating actions involving discharge of dredged or fill material.

Surf grasses are considered to be among the most productive seagrass systems on the planet (Ramirez-Garcia 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.

Surf grass 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 surf grass 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. Surf grass is also important foraging habitat for the endangered green turtle 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 surf grass 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.

NMFS has determined that rocky reef and surf grass habitat may be negatively impacted by proposed project activities. As such, EFH Conservation Recommendations provided above also serve as FWCA recommendations to compensate for these negative impacts.

Please contact Mr. Bryant Chesney at (562)980-4037, or via email at [email protected] if you have any questions concerning this EFH consultation or require additional information. Please direct questions regarding marine mammals to Ms. Monica DeAngelis at (562)980-3232 or [email protected], questions regarding sea turtles to Ms. Christina Fahy at (562)980-4023 or 882
12 [email protected] and questions regarding abalone to Ms. Melissa Neuman at (562)980-4115 or [email protected],
Robert S. Hoffinan
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Habitat Conservation
883
13 References
California Marine Life Protection Initiative. 2009. Regional Profile of the MLPA South Coast Study Region (Point Conception to the California-Mexico Border).

Castaneda-Fernandez de Lara, V., M. J. Butler, S. Hernandez-Vazquez, S. Guzman del Proo, and E. Servi ere-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.

Castaneda-Fernandez de Lara, V., E. Serviere-Zaragoza, S. Hernandez-Vazquez, 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., S. Wylie-Echeverria, E. Carrington, and D. Shafer. 2008. Short-term sediment burial effects on the seagrass Phyllospadix scouleri. ERDC TN-EMRRP-EI-03.

Engle, J.M. 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.

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.

Peterson, C.H. and M.J. Bishop. 2005. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Beach Nourishment. Bioscience 55: 887-896.

Ramirez-Garcia, P., A. Lot, C.M. Duarte, J. Terrados, N.S.R. Agawin. 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.

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, J.G. and B. Myers. 1980. Assemblages of algae and invertebrates in Southern California Phyllospadix-dominated intertidal habitats. Aquatic Botany 9:73-94. 884
14 Turner, T. 1985. Stability of rocky intertidal surf grass beds: Persistence, preemption and recovery. Ecology, 66(1 ): 83-92.
885
STAT OF CALIFORNIA -----·---

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor ---"=--
PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Officer
(916) 574-1 800 FAX (916) 574-1810
California Relay Service From TDD Phone 1·800-735-2929
from Voice Phone 1-800-7 35-2922
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1880
Contact FAX: (916) 574-1885
September 15, 2010
Thomas W. Keeney
Project Ecologist, Planning Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - SPL
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles , CA 92053-2325
File Ref: SCH# 2010084002
Subject: Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project
Dear Mr. Keeney:

Staff of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has reviewed the subject document. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the federal lead agency.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city of San Clemente is the Lead Agency and the CSLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any and all projects that could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands, their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses, and the public easement in navigable waters.

As background, the State acquired sovereign ownership of tidelands and submerged lands and beds of navigable waterways upon its admission to the United States In ·1850. The State holds these lands for the benefit of all the people of the State for Public Trust purposes which include waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries , water-related recreation , habitat preservation, and open space. The landward boundaries of the State's sovereign interests in areas that are subject to tidal action are generally based upon the ordinary high water marks of these waterways as they last existed prior to fill or artificially-induced accretions. In non-tidal navigable waterways the State holds a fee ownership in the bed of the waterway between the two ordinary low water marks. The entire non-tidal navigable waterway between the ordinary high water marks is subject to the Public Trust. The State's sovereign interests are under the jurisdiction of the CSLC.

Components of the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project (Project), as we understand them, include the following :
886
Thomas W. Keeney Page 2 September 15, 2010
• The Project was implemented to analyze potential environmental impacts of proposed alternatives designed to address ongoing beach erosion issues along the city of San Clemente shoreline. Issues of concern include possible future damage to an existing railroad line, public safety and liability problems, and the loss of economic benefits associated with degraded recreational opportunities. • Two alternatives were considered : a 'No Action' alternative, and a 'Beach Fill ' alternative. The Beach Fill alternative considered various combinations of beach fill widths and replenishment cycles . Two beach fill alternatives were selected for analysis and are identified as '50 ft (15m) Beach W idth Alternative', and '115 ft (35m) Beach Width Alternative'. Although they share common design elements, they are expected to have different environmental impacts , and so were analyzed as two separate alternatives.
• The '50 ft(~ Sm) Beach Width Alternative' has been identified as the tentatively recommended plan alternative.
• Both selected Beach Fill alternatives involve the dredging of fill material from a borrow site one mile offshore of the city of Oceanside. The '50 ft (15m) Beach Width Alternative' would utilize approximately 251 ,000 cubic yards (cy) of material to create a SO-foot wide berm and an immediate post-construction dry beach width of approximately 76 feet at the receiver site. • The receiver site is located at San Clemente Beach, in the city of San Clemente, and extends approximately 3,412 feet from Linda Lane to T Street. The receiver site encompasses the San Clemente Municipal Pier.
• The dredged material would be transported in 1,700 cy loads on a hopper dredge to a mooring location offshore of the beach receiver site and would be pumped onshore via a submerged pipeline.
• Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012 and is expected to take 46 working days to complete, although commencement could begin as early as 2010.

Please be advised that both the borrow site and the receiver site involve sovereign lands under the jurisdiction of the CSLC. Use of the borrow site will require authorization from the Commission for the issuance of a dredging lease. The receiver site appears to overlap the lease area under Lease No. PRC 8567.9 issued by the CSLC to the city of San Clemente for the 'City of San Clemente Opportunistic Beach Replenishment Program'. Use of the receiver site will require the city of San Clemente to amend Lease No. PRC 8567.9 to accommodate the project. Lease applications can be accessed via our website at www.slc.ca.gov. ·
In order to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the EIS/EIR are implemented , the lead agency must adopt a program for monitoring the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects (see CEQA Guidelines §15097). Section 7.0 of the EIS/EIR states that Table 7-1 entitled "Summary of design features and monitoring commitments" lists the actions committed to be undertaken by 887
Thomas W. Keeney Page 3 September 15, 2010
the USACE for the proposed action to ensure environmental impacts are reduced to the extent possible
However, the "design features" in the table appear to be an abbreviated and incomplete combination of 1) the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, and 2) the steps for minimization and compensation identified in Section H of Appendix A entitled "Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation of the Effects of the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material into Water of the United States : San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project." In order to provide the basis for an effective mitigation monitoring program as required by CEQA, CSLC staff recommends that the table be revised to include a comprehensive summary of all the mitigation measures and monitoring commitments relied upon in the EIS/EIR, and at a minimum reflect the following revisions:
• Table 7-1 should include several omitted mitigation measures identified in Section 5 including Geology/Topography (MM-ER-115-2.1 ), Biological Resources (MM-BR-50-2.1 and 2.2), Cultural Resources (MM-CR-50.1 ), Noise (MM-N-50-

3.1 ), and Recreation (MM-R-50-4.1 ).
• The table should reference or incorporate all components of the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan in Appendix B.
• The mitigation measures in the table should be numbered to indicate the corresponding section or appendix where they originated.

As a Responsible and Trustee Agency, the CSLC will need to rely on this document for the issuance of a new dredging lease and an amendment of the existing lease specified above. We request that you consider our comments and implement these recommendations prior to adoption of the Final EIR/EIS.

For questions and comments related to the environmental review, please contact Joan Walter, Environmental Scientist, at (916) 574-1310 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Please contact Kenneth Foster, Public Land Management Specialist, at (916) 574-2555 or by e-mail at [email protected] .gov for more information about the Commission's sovereign lands leasing jurisd1ct1on. cc: Office of Planning and Research
Kenneth Foster, LMD, CSLC
Joan Walter, DEPM , CSLC
Cy R. Oggin , hief
Division of Environmental Planning
and Management
State of California – The Resources Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME John McCamman, Director
805.568.1231
Santa Barbara, California 93109
1933 Cliff Drive, Suite 9
http://www.dfg.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Los Angeles, CA 90017
915 Wilshire Boulevard
Planning Division
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Thomas W. Keeney
September 30, 2010
Protection Project
Impact Report for the City of San Clemente Shoreline
project every six years
days over the course of four months. The Corps is proposing to repeat this width. Once started, the proposed project duration is estimated to be 46 working with a +17-foot crest elevation, and is estimated to result in a 50-foot beach beach, approximately 1,500 feet. The beach fill area would be 3,412 feet long would carry the discharge slurry of sand and water along the bottom to the dredge would be attached to a floating pipeline moored to the sea floor that used to extract the material. At the receiver site (San Clemente Beach), the sediment, 83 percent sand and seven percent gravel. A hopper dredge will be coast of Oceanside, California. The sediment is expected to be 10 percent fine natural ocean bottom sand from an offshore borrow site located one mile off the sooner. The preferred project proposal is to dredge 251,130 cubic yards of Clemente Shoreline Protection Project (Project) to be implemented in 2012 or (DEIS/DEIR) dated July, 2010 for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineer’s (Corps) San Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the Draft Dear Mr. Keeney:
.

Act (MLPA) in coastal marine waters of California. Pursuant to our jurisdiction, responsible for marine biodiversity protection under the Marine Life Protection afford protection to the State’s fish and wildlife. The Department is also Fish and Game Code and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations that Act, the Native Plant Protection Act, as well as other provisions of the California this capacity, the Department administers the California Endangered Species native plants and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations. In jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, As a trustee for the State’s fish and wildlife resources, the Department has 888
•
.
-
.

Thomas Keeney

Page 2 of 4 ends

San Clemente City CouncilJuly 18, 2023

San Clemente City Council
July 18, 2023