San Clemente Final EIS-EIR Vol 2_JULY2011.pdf — San Clemente City Council, July 18, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Dredge Area

19.0 (3/4")

9.50 (3/8")

4.75 (#4)

2.80 (#7)

2.00 (#10)

1.40 (#14)

1.00 (#18)

0.710
(#25)

0.500
(#35)

0.355
(#45)

0.250
(#60)

0.180
(#80)

0.125
(#120)

0.090
(#170)

0.075
(#200)

0.063
(#230)
FineBeach Limit - Entire Project
100 99 98 90 90 90
Borrow Area 2
to 1 m 95 92 91 90 89 88 88 87 86 83 67 39 27 18 12 9
Borrow Area 2
to 2 m 96 94 92 91 91 90 89 89 87 84 65 32 19 12 8 6
Borrow Area 2
to 3 m 95 93 92 91 91 90 89 88 87 83 63 30 16 10 7 5
Borrow Area 2
to 4 m 96 95 93 92 92 91 90 89 87 83 62 29 15 9 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 5 m 97 96 94 94 93 92 92 90 88 83 60 27 13 7 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 6 m 97 96 95 95 94 94 93 92 90 85 65 28 12 6 5 4
Coarse Beach Limit - Entire Project
98 93 66 42 28 18 13 8 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Composite BeachGradation - Entire Project
100 99 98 97 97 95 92 87 80 69 54 40 19 11 7
Table 10. San Clemente Shoreline Project - Typical Sediment Properties Median Grain
Size , D50
(mm)
%
Gravel
%
Coarse
Sand
%
Medium
Sand
%
Fine
Sand
%
Fines
San Clemente Beach
Reach 1 0.31
(0.06 - 0.95)
1 (0 - 5)
3 (0 - 15)
34 (1 - 76)
47 (18 - 82)
15 (1 - 65)
Reach 3 0.17
(0.08 - 0.40)
0 (0 - 2)
0 (0 - 3)
14 (0 - 45)
74 (53 - 90)
12 (1 - 47)
Reach 4 0.22
(0.12 - 0.46)
1 (0 - 9)
1 (0 - 3)
19 (1 - 55)
73 (43 - 98)
7 (1 - 16)
Reach 5 0.17
(0.07 - 0.37)
0 (0 - 1)
0 (0 - 1)
9 (0 - 40)
77 (32 - 98)
13 (1 - 67)
Reach 6 0.14
(<0.06 - 0.41)
0 (0 - 1)
0 (0 - 3)
7 (0 - 47)
78 (10 - 98)
14 (1 - 90)
Reach 7 0.12
(0.08 - 0.31)
0 (0 - 0)
0 (0 - 0)
7 (0 - 31)
84 (64 - 98)
10 (1 - 35)
Reach 8 0.16
(0.08 - 3.45)
4 (0 - 34)
5 (0 - 38)
18 (0 - 65)
65 (2 - 95)
8 (1 - 34)
Entire Project 0.17
(<0.06 - 3.45
1 (0 - 34)
1 (0 - 38)
14 (0 - 76)
72 (2 - 98)
11 (1 - 90)
Borrow Area 2
to 1 m 0.21
(0.08 - 0.47)
4 (0 - 19)
2 (0 - 13)
5 (1 - 24)
72 (38 - 95)
12 (1 - 40)
to 2 m 0.22
(0.10 - 0.71)
3 (0 - 13)
2 (0 - 10)
5 (1 - 24)
77 (37 - 95)
8 (1 - 28)
to 3 m 0.22
(0.14 - 0.44)
3 (0 - 14)
1 (0 - 7)
6 (1 - 29)
78 (47 - 95)
7 (1 - 20)
to 4 m 0.22
(0.15 - 0.41)
3 (0 - 14)
1 (0 - 6)
7 (1 - 31)
79 (49 - 94)
6 (2 - 16)
to 5 m 0.23
(0.14 - 0.40)
3 (0 - 10)
1 (0 - 5)
8 (1 - 32)
79 (50 - 92)
6 (2 - 15)
to 6 m 0.22
(0.15 - 0.38)
2 (0 - 6)
1 (0 - 5)
7 (0 - 31)
82 (52 - 92)
5 (2 - 12)
NOTE: numbers in parentheses are the range of values (minimum - maximum)

FIGURES
Figure 1. San Clemente Shoreline Study Area Map, showing locations of Reaches and Beach Transects.

SO9-22 0
246
OS-5 0
24 O-12 0
2 O-90
24 O-70
2 O-10
2 O-22 0
2 SO9-26 0
2 O-40
2 O-60
246
OS-35 0
24 -14-16-18-20-22-24-26-28

ELEVATION IN METERS
-14-16-18-20-22-24-26-28

ELEVATION IN METERS
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000
Sand with Gravel
Sand
Sand
Silty Sand
Sand
Sand with Gravel
Sand
Strata symbols
Silty sandPoorly graded gravel with sand andsiltPoorly graded sandPoorly graded sand with abundantshell fragments Poorly graded gravel with sandPoorly graded sand with gravelPoorly graded sandwith siltSiltSilty sand with abundant shellfragments BlankSilty sand with gravelPoorly graded gravel with sand, silt,and shell fragmentsGravelSand

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
HORIZONTAL DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE DRAWN SCALE: 1"=(proportional)'VERTICAL 2/18/2005 SCALE: 1"=100' Oceanside
Borrow Area 2: NW-SE Section A
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NUMBER
2 OS-4 0
SO9-16 0
2 O-17 0
24 O-15 0
24 SO9-11 0
24 O-19 0
2 O-10 0
2 SO9-13 0
24 O-26 0
24 O-21 0
2 OS-43 0
2 O-24 0
2 -12-14-16-18-20-22-24-26

ELEVATION IN METERS
-12-14-16-18-20-22-24-26

ELEVATION IN METERS
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500
Silty Sand Silty Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Gravel Layer
Gravel Layer Silty Sand Silty Sand
Strata symbols
Silty sandWell graded gravelwith siltPoorly graded gravelPoorly graded sand Silty sand with abundant shellfragmentsPoorly graded sandwith siltBlankPoorly graded gravel with sand, silt,and shell fragmentsSand Silty sand and gravelGravelPoorly graded sand with abundantshell fragmentsPoorly graded sand with gravelSilty sand with gravel Silt

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
HORIZONTAL DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE DRAWN SCALE: 1"=(proportional)'VERTICAL 2/18/2005 SCALE: 1"=100' Oceanside
Borrow Area 2: NW-SE Section B
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NUMBER
3 SO9-22
0246
OS-5
024
SO9-1
0246
SO9-33
0246
O-17
024
SO9-20
024
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
• •••• •••• ••••
Sand
Gravel-rich Layer
Silty Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Silt
• ••• •• •• • • • • ••
• •••• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • ••• ••• •• • • •• • • •••••• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• • • • • • • •• • • •••••• • • • • •• • • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • ••• ••• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • •• ••• •••••• •••• •• • • • • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • ••• •••• • • • • • • ••• • • •••••• • • • • ••• •••• •• • • • •• ••• •• • • • • • • ••• • • ••••• • • • • ••• •••• •• • • • •• • • •• •• • • •

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF
• • • • • • • •• • • •• • •• •• • • • •• •
• • • •• • • • • •
• • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • •• • ••• 1"=(proportional)' • • • • •• • • 2/18/2005 •• • ••• 1"=100'
Oceanside
Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 1
PROJECT NO.
• •• • • • •• • • • • •
4 OS-8
024
SDG-7
02 SDG-3
0 O-12
02 SO9-2
02 OS-11
024
O-16
024
O-15
024
OS-3
024
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
• •••• •••• •••• •••• ••••
Graveland Sand
Sand
and Silt
Silty Sand
Silty Sand
Sand
Gravel Layer
Sand
• ••• •• •• • • • • ••
• •••• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • •• •••• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • •• ••• ••••• • •••• •• • • • •• ••• •• • • • • • • ••• • • ••••• • • • • ••• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • ••• ••• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• •• • • •• •• • • •• • • • ••• ••• • •• • ••• •• • • ••• •••• • • • •• • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • ••• ••• •• • • • •• •••••• • • •• • • •••••• • • • • ••••••

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF
• • • • • • • •• • • •• • •• •• • • • •• •
• • • •• • • • • •
• • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • •• • ••• 1"=(proportional)' • • • • •• • • 2/22/2005 •• • ••• 1"=100'
Oceanside
Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 2
PROJECT NO.
• •• • • • •• • • • • •
5 SDG-10
024
SDG-6
024
OS-10
02 O-7
02 SO9-32
0246
O-8
024
O-10
02 O-20
024
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
• •••• •••• •••• ••••
Sand
Silt
Silty Sand
Sand
Sand
Gravel-rich
Layer
• ••• •• •• • • • • ••
• •••• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • •• ••• •••••• •••• •• • • • • • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• ••••• • •• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• •• • • •• •• • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • ••• ••• •• • • • •• •••••• • • •• • • •••••• • • • • •• • • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• • • • • • • •• • • •••••• • • • • ••••••• •••• •• • • • •• ••• •• • • • • • • ••• • • ••••• • • • • ••• •• • • •

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF
• • • • • • • •• • • •• • •• •• • • • •• •
• • • •• • • • • •
• • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • •• • ••• 1"=(proportional)' • • • • •• • • 2/18/2005 •• • ••• 1"=100'
Oceanside
Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 3
PROJECT NO.
• •• • • • •• • • • • •
6 O-3
024
SO9-18
0246
SO9-5
0246
O-22
02 SO9-15
0246
O-21
02 •• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
• •••• •••• •••• ••••
Sand
Silty Sand
Sand
Gravel-rich Layers
Gravel-rich Layer
Silty Sand
Gravel-rich Layer
• ••• •• •• • • • • ••
• •••• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• •• • • •• •• • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • • • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • ••• ••• •• • • •• •••• •• • • • •• ••• •• • • • • • • ••• • • ••••• • • • • ••• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • ••• ••• •• • • • •• •••••• • • •• • • •••••• • • • • ••• •• • • ••••• • •••• •• • • • •• ••• •• •• • • •• • • • • • •• • • • •• • • •• •••

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF
• • • • • • • •• • • •• • •• •• • • • •• •
• • • •• • • • • •
• • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • •• • ••• 1"=(proportional)' • • • • •• • • 2/22/2005 •• • ••• 1"=100'
Oceanside
Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 4
PROJECT NO.
• •• • • • •• • • • • •
7 O-5
02 O-23
024
SO9-26
02 SO9-30A
0 OS-34
0 OS-43
02 SO9-14
024
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
• •••• •••• •••• ••••
Silty Sand Sand
Sand
Gravelly Layer
Silty Layer
Gravel-rich Layer
Sand
• ••• •• •• • • • • ••
• •••• •• • • •••••• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • ••• ••• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • •• ••• ••••• • • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • •• •• • •• •••• •• • • • •• ••• •• • • • • • • ••• • • ••••• • • • • ••• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• •• • • • • •••• •• • • • •• ••• •• •• • • ••• • • •• • • ••••• • • • • ••• •••• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• • • • • • • •• • • •••••• • • • • ••• •••• •• • • • •• ••• •• •• • • •

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF
• • • • • • • •• • • •• • •• •• • • • •• •
• • • •• • • • • •
• • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • •• • ••• 1"=(proportional)' • • • • •• • • 2/22/2005 •• • ••• 1"=100'
Oceanside
Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 5
PROJECT NO.
• •• • • • •• • • • • •
8 SDG-20
024
SDG-19
024
SDG-18
024
SDG-17
02 SDG-16
024
SO9-41
0246
O-4
02 SO9-29
0246
O-24
02 SO9-28
024
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
•• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •

ELEVATION IN METERS
• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• ••••
Silt
Silt
Silty Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Silt
Sand
Gravelly
Layer
Silty Sand
• ••• •• •• • • • • ••
• •••• •••• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • •• ••• •••••• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • • •• • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• • • • •• ••• •• ••••• • •• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • •• • • ••• •• •• • • • •• •• • • •• • • •• • • •

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF
• • • • • • • •• • • •• • •• •• • • • •• •
• • • •• • • • • •
• • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • •• • ••• 1"=(proportional)' • • • • •• • • 2/22/2005 •• • ••• 1"=100'
Oceanside
Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 6
PROJECT NO.
• •• • • • •• • • • • •
9 Figure 10. Grain Size Compatibility Curve - Reach 1.

Figure 11. Grain Size Compatibility Curve - Reach 3.

Figure 12. Grain Size Compatibility Curve - Reach 4.

Figure 13. Grain Size Compatibility Curve - Reach 5.

Figure 14. Grain Size Compatibility Curve - Reach 6.

Figure 15. Grain Size Compatibility Curve - Reach 7.

Figure 16. Grain Size Compatibility Curve - Reach 8.

Figure 17. Grain Size Compatibility Curve - Entire Project.

Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
PLATES

-14.1
-14.84
-15.69
-18.13
0 .67

1.52 3.96
Silty very fine grained sand; dark greenish gray; micaceous; live worms; loose; 2.5 cm. of shell hash at base.

Silty Sand; med-fine grained; light gray; loose; abundant disseminated 1.3 cm. to 7.6 cm. black well-rounded pebbles; minor shell frags.

No Recovery (pile driven)
1 2
NS
SM
SM
100
100
39 42
393.701
393.701
636.483
479.003
935.039
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-1
LOCATION: Station 43
NORTHING (m): 616,022.8 EASTING (m): 1,891,018.3 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.4397´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.1388´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/21/03 TIME BORING STARTED: COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 15.42 TIDE (m): 1.25 ELEVATION (m): -14.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.96 RECOVERY (m): 1.52 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Refusal due to very low penetration rate. 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
-16.4
-17.71
-18.32
-19.02
-19.29
-19.57
-19.96
-20.45
0 1.22

1.83 2.53

2.80 3.08

3.47 3.96
Poorly Graded Sand w/Gravel; Very fine grained sand; dark gray; micaceous
Silty sand; dark gray; abundant shell fragments
Sand; med. dark gray; homogeneous; even grained.

Medium grained sand; abundant .6-1.3 cm. rounded black
pebbles and shell hash.

Fine grained sand; dark gray.

Very fine grained to med. grained sand; med. gray; abundant dense packed pebbles and cobbles (<5.1 cm) toward top.

Core Loss
1 2
3 NS
SP
SM
SP
76 99
65 3.0
20 3.0 252.625
328.084
935.039
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-2
LOCATION: Station 44
NORTHING (m): 615,694.2 EASTING (m): 1,890,610.8 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.2595´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.3986´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/21/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1649 COMPLETED: 1700 SOUNDING (m): 17.95 TIDE (m): 1.46 ELEVATION (m): -16.5 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.96 RECOVERY (m): 3.47 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-17.4
-18.65
-19.69
-20.3
-21.54
0 1.22

2.26 2.87

4.11 Silty Sand; dark greenish gray; micaceous; mod- minor shell frags; saturated dense.

Silty Sand; dark greenish gray; micaceous; minor
disseminated <2.5 cm. rounded pebbles, esp. assoc. with shell hash layers; saturated; dense.

Poorly Graded Sand w/Silt & Gravel; med. green gray; wellsorted w/dispersed <2.5 cm. rounded black pebbles; tr. shell frags; mod. micaceous; sharp upper contact; moist
Core Loss (Pile-driven?)
1 2
3 NS
SM
SM
SP-SM
100
98 85
42 25

6.0 203.412
262.467
501.969
393.701
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-3
LOCATION: Station 48
NORTHING (m): 615,325.1 EASTING (m): 1,890,682.8 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.0602´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.3497´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/22/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1340 COMPLETED: 1350 SOUNDING (m): 18.47 TIDE (m): 1.04 ELEVATION (m): -17.4 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.11 RECOVERY (m): 2.87 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-14.6
-15.82
-17.1
-18.56
0 1.22

2.50 3.96
Poorly Graded Sand w/Silt & Gravel; dark gray; mod. shell frags.; dense; sharp lower contact.

Poorly Graded Sand; Med. fine grained sand with abundant <5.1 cm. rounded black pebbles throughout, esp. in upper .3 m.; mod. shell frags.

Core Loss (Pile-driven?)
1 2
NS
SP-SM
SP
79 94
11 2.0
285.433
393.701
590.551
492.126
787.402
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-4
LOCATION: Station 53
NORTHING (m): 615,320.2 EASTING (m): 1,891,610.0 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.0632´ 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): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/22/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1745 COMPLETED: 1805 SOUNDING (m): 16.15 TIDE (m): 1.55 ELEVATION (m): -14.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.96 RECOVERY (m): 2.50 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-16.7
-17.37
-17.67
-18.13
-18.44
-18.59
-19.19
-20.11
-20.72
0 .61
.91

1.37 1.68

1.83 2.43

3.35 3.96
Silty sand; trace shell frags and silt; dark gray; saturated; weak sulfidic odor
Silty sand; dark gray; abundant shell hash; weakly cohesive.

Fine grained sand w/silt; dark gray; very minor shell frags; moist; weakly cohesive; gradational lower contact.

Medium-fine grained sand; dark gray.

Gravel; <7.6 cm. rounded, black dense-packed pebbles/
cobbles in med-fine sand; dark gray.

Medium-fine grained sand w/ silt; clean; dark to med. gray; locally micaceous in <7.6 cm. bands accompanied by <1.3 cm. rounded, black pebbles; moist.

Poorly Graded Sand w/Silt; clean; dark to med. gray; locally micaceous in <3" bands accompanied by <1/2" rounded,
black pebbles; moist.

Core Loss (Pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
NS
SM
SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
100
99 94
100
40 39

7.0 6.0
1148.29
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-5
LOCATION: Station 50
NORTHING (m): 615,174.2 EASTING (m): 1,890,972.3 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.9804´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.1623´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0828 COMPLETED: 0840 SOUNDING (m): 17.89 TIDE (m): 1.13 ELEVATION (m): -16.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.96 RECOVERY (m): 3.35 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-14.1
-15.33
-16.54
-17.62
-18.44
-20.21
0 1.22

2.43 3.51

4.33 6.10
Poorly Graded Sand; med-light gray-brown; med-fine grained at top, gradually increasing to base; salt-and-pepper, with black, white, and orange grains; somewhat micaceous
(granitic source?); saturated, loose; very minor shells.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-light gray-brown; med-fine grained at top, gradually increasing to base; salt-and-pepper, with black, white, and orange grains; somewhat micaceous
(granitic source?); saturated, loose; very minor shells.

Gravel to pebbly sand; mod. well sorted, well-rounded <0.3 cm. pebbles and shell fragments; clast-supported; a few +2.5 cm. cobbles at base.

No recovery (pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
NS
SP
SP
SP
SP
100
100
100
94 4.0

3.0 3.0

1.0 223.097
321.522
364.173
295.276
295.276
246.063
246.063
246.063
246.063
246.063
295.276
295.276
295.276
393.701
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-6
LOCATION: Station 56
NORTHING (m): 615,121.5 EASTING (m): 1,891,802.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.9569´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.6274´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0959 COMPLETED: 1020 SOUNDING (m): 15.18 TIDE (m): 1.07 ELEVATION (m): -14.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.10 RECOVERY (m): 4.33 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Gradual increase in grain size w/depth (graded by long vibration time?) Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-14.1
-14.91
-16.25
-17.05
0 .76

2.10 2.90
Very fine grained silty sand; dark gray-black; micaceous; trace shell frags; slight sulfidic odor; dense, compact; sharp, irregular lower contact.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; med. brownish gray; disseminated rounded <7.6 cm. cobbles, esp. @ .9-1.1 cm.,

1.2-1.4 cm.; compact.

Core Loss (Pile-driven?)
1 2
SM
SP
100
86 35

2.0 360.892
787.402
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-7
LOCATION: Station 41
NORTHING (m): 616,283.4 EASTING (m): 1,890,848.0 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.5796´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.2503´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1245 COMPLETED: 1258 SOUNDING (m): 15.03 TIDE (m): .88 ELEVATION (m): -14.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 2.90 RECOVERY (m): 2.10 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-12.7
-13.54
-13.97
-14.55
-15.83
-16.38
-16.47
-16.83
0 .82

1.25 1.83

3.11 3.66

3.75 4.11
Silty Sand; fine-med. grained; dark gray; micaceous on top; mod. shell frags; compact.

Gravelly sand; med-fine sand w/abundant rounded black 0.3-

3.6 cm. clasts; med brown-gray; minor shell frags.

Sand; med. grained; med. brown-gray; well-sorted;
homogeneous; moist
Poorly Graded Sand w/Silt; med. grained; med. brown-gray; well-sorted; homogeneous; moist
Poorly Graded Sand; med. grained; med. brown-gray; a few clay balls, shell hash.

Cohesive black clay/silt with suspended sand.

No Recovery (pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
NS
SM
SP
SP-SM
SP
100
93 98
100
19 2.0

8.0 2.0
314.961
442.913
393.701
688.976
885.827
1181.1
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-8
LOCATION: Station 40
NORTHING (m): 616,475.1 EASTING (m): 1,891,148.8 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.6852´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.0581´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1415 COMPLETED: 1443 SOUNDING (m): 13.66 TIDE (m): .94 ELEVATION (m): -12.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.11 RECOVERY (m): 3.75 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-14.6
-15.36
-15.97
-16.73
-17.95
-19.17
0 .76

1.37 2.13

3.35 4.57
Silty Sand; very fine grained; dark gray to black; micaceous; mod- minor shells increase to base; saturated; very irregular lower contact.

Gravelly sand; granules to 3.8 cm. rounded cobbles in medfine grained sand.

Sand; med-fine grained; med. brown-gray; massive,
homogeneous; "salt and pepper" ; scattered <0.3 cm. clasts, shell frags; saturated; loose.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; med. brown-gray;
massive, homogeneous; "salt and pepper" ; scattered <0.3 cm. clasts, shell frags; saturated; loose.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; med. brown-gray;
massive, homogeneous; "salt and pepper" ; scattered <0.3 cm. clasts, shell frags; very gradual increase in grain size to base; lower 0.3 m. had a 7.6 cm. diam. cobble; saturated; loose.
1 2
3 4
SM
SP-SM
SP
SP
100
99 100
100
31 5.0

4.0 4.0
226.378
295.276
295.276
275.591
246.063
246.063
393.701
688.976
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-9
LOCATION: Station 39
NORTHING (m): 616,436.7 EASTING (m): 1,890,700.0 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.6617´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.3467´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1603 COMPLETED: 1620 SOUNDING (m): 15.85 TIDE (m): 1.25 ELEVATION (m): -14.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.57 RECOVERY (m): 5.73 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.8
-12.12
-12.43
-12.58
-14.11
-15.17
0 .3
.61
.76

2.29 3.35
Silty sand; very fine grained; black; micaceous; noncohesive; minor shells; live worms.

Fine grained Sand w/Silt; med-gray; clean w/mod.shell frags; irregular patches of black cohesive silty sand.

Gravel; <5.1 cm. black cobbles and shell frags in fine sand.

Poorly Graded Sand; fine grained; clean, well-sorted; light gray; homogeneous; micaceous; only trace shell frags.

No Recovery (Pile-driven?)
1 2
NS
SM
SP
100
95 38

2.0 295.276
1033.46
1033.46
1525.59
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-10
LOCATION: Station 37
NORTHING (m): 616,693.6 EASTING (m): 1,891,212.5 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.8038´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.0187´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0826 COMPLETED: 0854 SOUNDING (m): 12.98 TIDE (m): 1.16 ELEVATION (m): -11.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.35 RECOVERY (m): 2.29 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-12.7
-13.29
-13.44
-14.57
-16.43
-16.73
0 .52
.67

1.80 3.66

3.96 Silty Sand; med-fine grained; black to gray-brown; abundant <0.6 cm. pebbles, shell frags; micaceous; upper 5.1 cm. is black micaceous, weakly cohesive silty sand with live worms.

Gravel; <5.1 cm. pebbles/cobbles tightly held in very fine grained silty sand matrix.

Sand; med-fine grained; med gray-brown; "salt and pepper"; minor widely dispersed <0.3 cm. rounded pebbles; trace to minor shell frags; gradational upper and lower contacts.

Poorly Graded Sand; fine-grained; dark- to med-greenishgray; minor <0.6 cm. pebbles; trace shell frags generally, but abundant in lower 15 cm.

Core Loss
1 2
3 NS
SM
SP
SP
98 93
99 13

2.0 4.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-11
LOCATION: Station 31
NORTHING (m): 616,939.9 EASTING (m): 1,890,840.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.9348´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.2596´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1010 COMPLETED: 1040 SOUNDING (m): 13.87 TIDE (m): 1.10 ELEVATION (m): -12.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.96 RECOVERY (m): 3.66 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: No Penetration Rate Data Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-14.6
-15.27
-15.57
-16.49
-17.25
-17.86
0 .61
.91

1.83 2.59

3.20 Silty Sand; very fine-grained sand; abundant shell frags; micaceous; sharp lower contact; live worms.

Gravel; 0.3-5.1 cm. gravel in brown-gray med-fine sand.

Pebbly Sand; brown-gray med-fine sand w/ rounded 0.3 cm. to 5.1 cm. clasts; very minor shell frags.

Pebbly sand; brown-gray med-fine sand w/ rounded 0.3 cm to 5.1 cm. clasts; very minor shell frags.

Gravel; 0.3-5.1 cm. gravel in brown-gray med-fine sand; last

5.1 cm. is mostly <5.1 cm. cobbles.
1 2
3 SM
SP
SP
97 85
63 37

2.0 3.0
564.304
836.614
787.402
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-12
LOCATION: Station 29
NORTHING (m): 616,875.0 EASTING (m): 1,890,284.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.8963´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.6173´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1217 COMPLETED: 1237 SOUNDING (m): 15.48 TIDE (m): .82 ELEVATION (m): -14.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.20 RECOVERY (m): 3.20 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-14.7
-15.55
-15.83
-15.98
-17.26
-17.5
-18.69
-19.3
0 .82

1.10 1.25

2.53 2.77

3.96 4.57
Silty fine-grained Sand; dark gray; abundant shell frags; saturated, loose; irregular lower contacts
Sand; med-fine grained; clean; med-light gray; mod. shell frags; loose.

Gravel; close-packed rounded <5.1 cm. pebbles in sand.

Sand; med-fine grained; clean; med-light gray; mod. shell frags; loose.

Sandy silt; black; cohesive; sulfidic; sharp lower contact.

Laminated black silt and fine sand; extremely micaceous; well-displayed horizontal lamination to thin-bedding; a few

0.3 cm. light gray sand layers; moist to rather dry; stiff weakly cohesive; lagoonal sediment.

No Recovery (pile driven?)
1 2
3 NS
SM
SP
ML
99 96
100
35 2.0
74 PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-13
LOCATION: Station 29
NORTHING (m): 617,417.2 EASTING (m): 1,890,064.0 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.1883´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.7631´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1435 COMPLETED: 1443 SOUNDING (m): 15.67 TIDE (m): .94 ELEVATION (m): -14.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.57 RECOVERY (m): 3.96 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-12.5
-13.08
-13.26
-13.72
-13.87
-15.3
-15.61
-15.88
-16.37
0 .52
.70

1.16 1.31

2.74 3.05

3.32 3.81
Silty Sand; fine-grained, clean med-gray sand w/irregular patches of black, stiff silty sand; abundant shell frags.

Gravel; <5.1 cm. rounded cobbles and shell hash in sand.

Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; clean.

Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; clean; abundant shell hash.

Silty Sand; fine-grained; med-dark gray; trace shell frags; saturated; somewhat stiff.

Silty sand; dark gray; extremely micaceous; laminated; stiff; locally weakly plastic; almost dry.

Sand w/Silt; fine-grained; med-gray; a few <0.3 cm. black silty sand layers; moist.

No Recovery (pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
NS
SM
SP
SM
SM
99 78
99 100
25 3.0
25 41
583.99
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-14
LOCATION: Station 16
NORTHING (m): 617,734.5 EASTING (m): 1,890,419.7 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.3621´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.5364´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1624 COMPLETED: 1630 SOUNDING (m): 13.72 TIDE (m): 1.16 ELEVATION (m): -12.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.81 RECOVERY (m): 3.32 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.9
-12.22
-12.5
-13.44
-14.97
-15.58
-16.19
-17.71
0 .3
.58

1.52 3.05

3.66 4.27

5.79 Sandy Silt; very fine grained; dark gray; micaceous; minor shells; saturated; loose
Sandy Gravel; +/- 2.5 cm. rounded clasts in med-fine sand; abundant shell frags.

Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; clean.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; clean;
abundant shell frags in lower 7.6 cm.

Silty Sand and Silt; greenish-black; micaceous; some thinbedding and lamination; moist; sharp upper and lower contacts.

Sand; med-fine grained; greenish-gray; local silty interbeds and shell concentrations.

No Recovery (Pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
NS
ML
SP
SP
SM
100
99 100
99 54

2.0 2.0
32 246.063
344.488
1181.1
393.701
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-15
LOCATION: Station 23
NORTHING (m): 617,452.9 EASTING (m): 1,890,729.7 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.2116´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.3351´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/24/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1734 COMPLETED: 1752 SOUNDING (m): 13.41 TIDE (m): 1.49 ELEVATION (m): -11.9 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.79 RECOVERY (m): 4.27 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-12.8
-13.29
-13.44
-13.99
-14.72
-15.88
-16.18
-17.4
0 .46
.61

1.16 1.89

3.05 3.35

4.57 Sand; med-fine sand w/minor silt; dark greenish-gray; profuse shell frags.

Gravel; tight-packed +/-2.5 cm. rounded pebbles in sand w/ shells.

Sand; med-fine grained; med-light brownish-gray; abundant shell frags; oyster shells are tightly-packed in sand making drilling/sampling difficult; no pebbles; sharp upper contact.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-grained; med-gray; mod-abundant shell (oyster) frags; no pebbles; micaceous.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; clean,
homogeneous; no shells or pebbles; loose; sharp lower
contact.

Sandy Silt; black; laminated; interbedded w/green-gray med fine sand; very stiff; lagoonal.

No Recovery (pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
NS
SP-SM
SP
SP
ML
82 95
100
100

5.0 3.0

2.0 55
246.063
246.063
984.252
1377.95
639.764
492.126
1181.1
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-16
LOCATION: Station 28
NORTHING (m): 617,226.4 EASTING (m): 1,890,690.1 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.0889´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.3587´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/25/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0928 COMPLETED: 0958 SOUNDING (m): 14.08 TIDE (m): 1.25 ELEVATION (m): -12.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.57 RECOVERY (m): 3.35 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.9
-13.05
-14.08
-14.81
-15.82
-16.55
0 1.07

2.10 2.83

3.84 4.57
Silty Sand; fine-grained; dark gray; profuse shell frags; compact; weakly cohesive; rather sharp lower contact.

Poorly Graded Sand; fine-grained; med-gray; massive; no shells or pebbles; loose; saturated.

Poorly Graded Sand with Silt; fine-grained; med-greenishgray; micaceous; massive with faint thin-bedding visible at base; no shells or pebbles; dense; non-cohesive.

Poorly Graded Sand with Silt; medium-fine grained; greenishgray; micaceous; upper 0.3 m. shows faint bedding with dark gray slightly silty bands and green-gray sand; loose;
saturated.

No Recovery (Pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
NS
SM
SP
SP-SM
SP-SM
96 100
100
100
25 2.0
11 5.0
738.189
1181.1
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-17
LOCATION: Station 19
NORTHING (m): 617,676.0 EASTING (m): 1,890,619.7 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.3316´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.4073´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/25/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1119 COMPLETED: 1134 SOUNDING (m): 13.05 TIDE (m): 1.07 ELEVATION (m): -12 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.57 RECOVERY (m): 3.84 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.1
-11.46
-11.83
-13.45
-14.12
-14.12
-14.73
-15.52
-15.73
-17.26
0 .3
.67

2.29 2.96

2.96 3.57

4.36 4.57

6.10 Silty sand; dark greenish-gray; micaceous; loose, noncohesive.

Pebbly sand and gravel; med-fine sand w/trace dark silt; black, rounded pebbles, generally .6-5.1 cm., esp. near top; abundant shell hash in upper 0.3 m.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; massive; clean; trace shells; no pebbles; loose.

Silty sand; dark gray; micaceous; a few razor clams; dense; non-cohesive.

Sandy silt; black; micaceous; plastic; very stiff; almost dry.

Sand with silt; fine-grained micaceous sand with diffuse silty layers; dark greenish-gray.

Sandy silt; dark greenish-gray; intensely micaceous; plastic; very stiff and dense.

No Recovery (pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
NS
SM
SP
SM
SM
80 100
100
100
17 2.0
13 29
492.126
393.701
236.22
590.551
1082.68
393.701
393.701
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-18
LOCATION: Station 27
NORTHING (m): 617,420.6 EASTING (m): 1,891,019.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.1959´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.1479´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/25/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1239 COMPLETED: 1301 SOUNDING (m): 11.95 TIDE (m): .79 ELEVATION (m): -11.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.10 RECOVERY (m): 4.57 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.8
-12.16
-12.35
-12.59
-12.83
-14.15
-15.24
0 .27
.46
.70
.94

2.26 3.35
Silty sand; black; saturated; non-cohesive.

Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; mod. shell frags; very dense, compacted.

Gravel; 0.3 cm. to 5.1 cm. rounded clasts in sand; very dense.

Gravel; pebble/cobble layer in med-fine sand.

Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; clean; massive; minor shell frags; loose
No Recovery (Pile-driven?)
1 2
NS
SM
SP
81 93
25 1.0
787.402
885.827
787.402
1181.1
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-19
LOCATION: Station 34
NORTHING (m): 616,924.7 EASTING (m): 1,891,079.6 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.9280´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.1059´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/25/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1511 COMPLETED: 1532 SOUNDING (m): 12.65 TIDE (m): .76 ELEVATION (m): -11.9 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.35 RECOVERY (m): 2.23 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.1
-11.77
-12.01
-13.54
-15.06
-15.43
0 .61
.85

2.38 3.90

4.27 Silty sand; fine-grained; dark greenish-gray; mod. shells, esp. toward base; dense; non-plastic.

Pebbly sand; green-gray; med fine sand w/.3-1.3 cm. pebbles; abundant shell hash at top; saturated; mod-loose.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; massive,
homogeneous; no shells or pebbles; dense; saturated.

No Recovery (Pile-driven?)
1 2
3 NS
SM
SP
SP
96 100
100
22 2.0

2.0 328.084
328.084
426.509
590.551
295.276
393.701
984.252
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-20
LOCATION: Station 36
NORTHING (m): 616,867.1 EASTING (m): 1,891,314.3 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.8982´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.9544´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/25/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1728 COMPLETED: 1750 SOUNDING (m): 12.50 TIDE (m): 1.34 ELEVATION (m): -11.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.27 RECOVERY (m): 3.90 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.6
-12.4
-12.58
-14.11
-15.48
0 .73
.91

2.44 3.81
Silty sand; dark gray; fine-grained.

Sandy gravel; .3-2.5 cm. rounded black close-packed pebbles with abundant shell frags in fine sand; very dense,
compacted; sharp lower contact.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; med-brownish-gray; massive; clean; trace shells; a few pebbles at base.

No Recovery (Pile-driven?)
1 2
NS
SM
SP
87 99
15 2.0
278.871
229.659
393.701
590.551
590.551
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-21
LOCATION: Station 46
NORTHING (m): 616,088.3 EASTING (m): 1,891,637.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.4789´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.7575´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/26/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0812 COMPLETED: 0832 SOUNDING (m): 12.80 TIDE (m): 1.13 ELEVATION (m): -11.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.81 RECOVERY (m): 2.44 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-14.0
-14.54
-14.72
-15.82
-15.94
-16.31
-16.45
-16.61
-16.92
0 .52
.70

1.80 1.92

2.29 2.43

2.59 2.90
Silty Sand; fine-grained; dark gray; mod. shell frags; very dense, compact.

Sandy Gravel; fine-grained dark gray sand with <2.5 cm. black pebbles; abundant shell frags; dense, compacted.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; loose;
minor shells.

Gravel; pebble/cobbles with abundant shell frags in sand.

Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; loose; minor shells.

Gravel; pebble/cobbles with abundant shell frags in sand.

Sand; med-fine grained; med-gray; loose; minor shells.

Gravel; pebble/cobbles with abundant shell frags in sand. 1 2
3 SM
SP
SP
96 100
82 28

2.0 2.0
295.276
1377.95
1771.65
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-22
LOCATION: Station 47
NORTHING (m): 615,787.1 EASTING (m): 1,891,258.8 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.3137´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.9823´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/26/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1028 COMPLETED: 1048 SOUNDING (m): 15.30 TIDE (m): 1.28 ELEVATION (m): -14 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 2.90 RECOVERY (m): 2.90 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-15.0
-15.72
-16.06
-16.91
-17.61
-17.76
-17.95
-18.22
-20.41
0 .64
.98

1.83 2.53

2.68 2.87

3.14 5.33
Silty Sand; fine-grained; black; mod-abundant shell frags; upper 0.3 m. is somewhat stiff, weakly plastic, w/ several live worms.

Sandy Gravel with Silt; generally 0.3-2.5 cm. rounded black pebbles in med-fine sand.

Sand; med-fine-grained; med-gray to brownish-gray; salt and pepper; shell frags very minor to trace; rather dense,
compacted (by vibracore?).

Sandy gravel; generally 0.3-2.5 cm. rounded black pebbles in med-fine sand.

Sand; med-fine-grained; med-gray to brownish-gray; salt and pepper; shell frags very minor to trace; rather dense,
compacted (by vibracore?).

Silty Sand; black; sandy silt laminae interbedded w/silty sand and fine-grained sand; weakly plastic; stiff; dry.

No Recovery (pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
NS
SM
SP-SM
SP
SM
100
89 94
100
30 8.0

2.0 30
223.097
344.488
885.827
393.701
1148.29
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-23
LOCATION: Station 49
NORTHING (m): 615,432.1 EASTING (m): 1,891,211.6 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.1213´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.0102´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/26/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1157 COMPLETED: 1217 SOUNDING (m): 16.15 TIDE (m): 1.07 ELEVATION (m): -15.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.33 RECOVERY (m): 3.14 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-12.1
-12.56
-12.86
-13.56
-14.69
-15.24
0 .37
.67

1.37 2.50

3.05 Silty Sand; black; micaceous; dense; compacted; nonplastic.

Poorly Graded Gravel w/Sand; densely packed <2.5 cm.
pebbles in somewhat stiff silty sand; mod. shell frags.

Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel; med-fine to med-grained; brownish-gray; granule to 5.1 cm. diam. clasts; dense,
compacted, esp. where pebbly.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine to med-grained; brownishgray.

No Recovery (pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
NS
SM
GP
SP
SP
100
26 59
99 28

4.0 2.0

3.0 246.063
393.701
393.701
246.063
295.276
1082.68
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-24
LOCATION: Station 52
NORTHING (m): 615,542.7 EASTING (m): 1,891,964.4 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.1857´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.5265´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/26/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1333 COMPLETED: 1350 SOUNDING (m): 12.89 TIDE (m): .70 ELEVATION (m): -12.2 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.05 RECOVERY (m): 2.50 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.0
-11.97
-12.25
-13.1
-13.89
-14.72
0 .91

1.19 2.04

2.83 3.66
Silty Sand; fine-grained; dark gray; micaceous; trace shell frags; dense.

Silty Sand with pebbles/cobbles and shells.

Sand; fine-grained; med-brownish-gray; clean; loose.

Silty Sand; very fine grained to fine grained; dark gray; sulfidic odor; loose to somewhat compact.

No Recovery (pile-driven?)
1 2
3 NS
SM
SM
SM
100
81 100
19 15
18 246.063
393.701
787.402
590.551
1082.68
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-25
LOCATION: Station 51
NORTHING (m): 615,770.7 EASTING (m): 1,892,004.1 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.3093´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.5026´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/26/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1453 COMPLETED: 1510 SOUNDING (m): 11.64 TIDE (m): .58 ELEVATION (m): -11.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.66 RECOVERY (m): 2.83 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.9
-12.47
-12.8
-13.75
-14.72
-14.88
-15.43
-16.8
0 .55
.88

1.83 2.80

2.96 3.51

4.88 Silty Sand; dark gray; minor shells; compacted; rather sharp lower contact.

Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel; <2.5 cm. rounded pebbles in fine sand; compact.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; light gray; clean; no shells or pebbles; loose to compacted.

Silty Sand w/Gravel; fine sand with stiff black plastic silt and

0.3-5.1 cm. black pebbles/cobbles.

Silty Sand; med-gray micaceous silty sand and layers of dry, plastic, cohesive sandy silt.

No Recovery (pile-driven?)
1 2
3 4
5 NS
SM
SP
SP
SP
SM
100
52 100
100
85 31

3.0 2.0

3.0 31
246.063
787.402
787.402
787.402
492.126
688.976
393.701
2165.35
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: O-26
LOCATION: Station 42
NORTHING (m): 616,236.1 EASTING (m): 1,891,476.2 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.5579´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.8457´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: Sea Surveyor EQUIPMENT: Alpine Vibracore DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 8/26/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1623 COMPLETED: 1703 SOUNDING (m): 12.74 TIDE (m): .82 ELEVATION (m): -11.9 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.88 RECOVERY (m): 3.51 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters)
• • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-14.3
-14.66
-15.58
-16.49
-17.41
-18.32
-19.24
-19.94
-20.15
-20.46
0 .30

1.22 2.13

3.05 3.96

4.88 5.58

5.79 6.10
No Sample
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt; fine-grained; light gray; micaceous; minor shell frags; widely scattered <1.3 cm. pebbles
Same as .3-1.22 m.

Poorly Graded Sand with Silt; fine-grained; light gray; micaceous; minor shell frags; widely scattered <1.3 cm. pebbles; a concentration of <1.3 cm. pebbles from 2.29-2.59 cm.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; light gray;
micaceous; minor shell frags; widely scattered <1.3 cm
pebbles; two +/- 33 cm. cobbles at 3.20 m.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; light gray;
micaceous; minor shell frags; widely scattered <1.3 cm. pebbles.

Poorly Graded Sand; med-fine grained; light gray;
micaceous; minor shell frags; widely scattered <1.3 cm. pebbles; Same as 3.96-4.88 m.

Silty Sand; med-gray; micaceous; at 5.64 m. a thick dark brown decomposed woody layer.

Silty Sand to Sandy Silt; med- gray; stiff; sulfidic odor.

NS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP
SP
100.0

91.0 100.0
100.0

12.0 6.0

4.0 4.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-1
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 617,262 EASTING (m): 1,890,185 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.1050´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.6843´ 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: 1433 COMPLETED: 1453 SOUNDING (m): 15.24 TIDE (m): 0.88 ELEVATION (m): -14.4 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.10 RECOVERY (m): 5.79 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 2,6,7, and 8 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-13.8
-14.5
-15.41
-16.33
-16.94
0 .61

1.52 2.44

3.05 Poorly graded sand; brownish gray; minor <2.5 cm. rounded black pebbles
Same as 0-.61 m.

Poorly graded sand with gravel; dense-packed 2.5-5.1 cm. pebbles in brown-gray sand
Pebble-cobble layer with interstitial med-fine sand
1 2
3 4
SP
SP

93.0 52.0

2.0 2.0
629.921
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-2
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 616,967 EASTING (m): 1,890,448 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.9472´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.5129´ DATUM: NAD83 CA Zone 6 US Army COE
Los Angeles District
Vibracore Log
CONTRACTOR: TEG Oceanographic EQUIPMENT: 800lb. Pneumatic DIAMETER (cm): 8.9 DATE DRILLED: 1/23/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1545 COMPLETED: 1551 SOUNDING (m): 14.63 TIDE (m): .74 ELEVATION (m): -13.9 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.05 RECOVERY (m): 5.18 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 2 and 4 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-13.6
-14.56
-15.48
-16.39
-17
-17.76
-18.07
-18.22
0 .91

1.83 2.74

3.35 4.11

4.42 4.57
Same as .91-1.83 m.

Poorly graded sand; med fine grained; med-light gray;
homogeneous; clean; minor shell fragments
Same as .91-1.83 m.

Same as 3.35-4.11 m.

Poorly graded sand; minor scattered black rounded 0.6 cm. pebbles
Poorly graded sand w/gravel; <2.54 cm. rounded black
pebbles in sand; sharp lower contact.
<5.1 cm. gravel in coarse sand and shell hash.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 SP
SP
SP
100.0

96.0 80.0

3.0 4.0

2.0 347.769
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-3
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 616,706 EASTING (m): 1,890,665 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.8070´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.3714´ 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: 1600 COMPLETED: 1620 SOUNDING (m): 14.02 TIDE (m): .37 ELEVATION (m): -13.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.57 RECOVERY (m): 4.88 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 1,3,4, and 7 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-14.9
-15.75
-16.76
-17.76
-18.59
-19.5
-20.42
-21.03
0 .82

1.83 2.83

3.66 4.57

5.49 6.1
No Recovery
Poorly graded med-fine grained sand; abundant shell
fragments; mod. 1.3 cm. pebbles
Same as .82-1.83 cm., except rounded +/-7.6 vm cobbles at

2.83 m. and 2.59 m.; shell hash in lower .30 m.; sharp lower contact.

Same as 3.66-4.57 m.

Poorly graded fine sand; brownish gray; trace <1.3 cm.
pebbles; homogeneous
Same as 3.66-4.57 m.

Same as 3.66-4.57 m.

NS
1 2
3 4
5 6
SP
SP
100.0
100.0

4.0 2.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-5
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,637 EASTING (m): 1,891,059 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.2314´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.1096´ 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: 1/21/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0755 COMPLETED: 0810 SOUNDING (m): 16.15 TIDE (m): 1.22 ELEVATION (m): -14.9 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.1 RECOVERY (m): 5.27 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 2,3,5, and 6 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-13.0
-13.99
-14.6
-15.21
-15.82
-16.43
-17.04
0 .91

1.52 2.13

2.74 3.35

3.96 Poorly graded sand w/silt; med. gray; mod. dense; moderate local shell frag concentrations.

Same as 0-.91 m.

Silty sand w/gravel; compact; dense; abundant shell frags Poorly graded gravel w/sand; dense-packed <5.1 cm. pebbles Poorly graded med-fine sand; scattered pebbles; minor shell frags.

Same as 2.74-3.35 m.
1 2
3 4
5 6
SP-SM
SM
GP
SP
100.0

72.0 30.0

90.0 10.0

22.0 4.0

4.0 429.79
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-7
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,097.4 EASTING (m): 1,892,066.9 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.9454´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.4574´ 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: 1233 COMPLETED: 1236 SOUNDING (m): 13.72 TIDE (m): .64 ELEVATION (m): -13.1 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.96 RECOVERY (m): 3.96 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: No visibility at end of run TD=3.96 m? Samples 2 and 6 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-16.3
-17.27
-18.19
-18.79
-19.41
-20.02
-20.63
-21.24
0 .91

1.83 2.43

3.05 3.66

4.27 4.88
Poorly graded sand; med. fine; brownish gray; massive;
micaceous
Same as 0-.91 m.; gradational lower contact.

Poorly graded sand; med. coarse; gray brown; no pebbles.

Same as 1.83-2.43 m.; gradational lower contact.

Poorly graded sand; gray brown; coarse grained; mod dense; minor shell frags.

Same as 3.05-3.66 m., but becoming pebbly
Poorly graded gravel; 1.3-2.5 cm. pebbles; minor shells; loose 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 SP
SP
SP
GP
100.0
100.0
100.0

11.0 4.0

2.0 2.0

0.0 246.063
282.152
321.522
272.31
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-8
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 614,791 EASTING (m): 1,891,763 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.7777´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.6494´ 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: 0923 COMPLETED: 0934 SOUNDING (m): 16.76 TIDE (m): .40 ELEVATION (m): -16.4 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.88 RECOVERY (m): 4.88 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 2,4, and 6 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.7
-12.16
-12.92
-13.83
-14.13
-14.44
-14.75
-15.66
-16.73
-17.03
0 .46

1.22 2.13

2.43 2.74

3.05 3.96

5.03 5.33
Cobble layer; <7.6 cm. rounded tight-packed black clasts, shell hash in med-fine sand
Same as 1.22-2.13 m.

Poorly graded sand w/silt; fine-grained; minor shells;
homogeneous; gray
Poorly graded sand w/silt; fine-grained; minor shells;
homogeneous; gray
Poorly graded sand w/silt and gravel; fine-grained; minor shells; scattered 2.5-5.1 cm. rounded cobbles; gray
Poorly graded sand w/silt; fine-grained; minor shells;
homogeneous; gray
Same as 1.22-2.13 m.

Same as 1.22-2.13 m.

Silty sand; very fine grained; dark gray; stiff; lower 7.6 cm. plastic; mod sulfidic odor.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 SP-SM 98.0 6.0
472.441
301.837
413.386
249.344
833.333
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-11
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 617,204 EASTING (m): 1,890,906 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.0779´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.2195´ 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: 1/21/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1325 COMPLETED: 1345 SOUNDING (m): 12.8 TIDE (m): 1.1 ELEVATION (m): -11.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 5.33 RECOVERY (m): 5.33 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 1,2,4,5,6, and 7 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-11.6
-12.1
-12.4
-13.16
-13.62
-13.93
-14.69
-15.6
-16.21
0 .46
.76

1.52 1.98

2.29 3.05

3.96 4.57
Poorly graded sand; fine grained; brown-gray; clean;
abundant shells in upper 15.2 cm.

Gravel; rounded <2.5 cm. black pebbles in fine sand; sharp lower contact.

Poorly graded sand; fine grained; homogeneous
Poorly graded sand; abundant shell frags.

Poorly graded sand with gravel; <2.5 cm. rounded black
pebbles.

Poorly graded sand; green gray; fine grained; mod-minor shells; homogeneous
Same as 2.29-3.05 m.

Same as 2.29-3.05 m; shells increasing in lower .91 m.
1 2
3 4
5 6
SP
SP
SP
SP

90.0 100.0

93.0 99.0

4.0 2.0

2.0 3.0
209.974
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-13
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 616,431 EASTING (m): 1,891,340 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.6626´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.9344´ 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: 1/21/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1111 COMPLETED: 1131 SOUNDING (m): 13.41 TIDE (m): 1.77 ELEVATION (m): -11.6 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.57 RECOVERY (m): 5.79 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Refusal @ .61 m. on first try. Second try refused @ 4.57 m. Samples 5 and 6 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-10.7
-11.67
-12.59
-13.5
-14.17
-14.72
-14.87
0 .91

1.83 2.74

3.41 3.96

4.11 Poorly graded sand w/silt; mod. shell frags
Same as 0-.91 m.

Same as 0-.91 m.; gradual increase in grain size with depth Same as 0-.91 m.; gradual increase in grain size w/ depth Poorly graded sand; med-fine grained; abundant shells
Silty sand w/pebbles; mod shell frags.
1 2
3 4
5 6
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

5.0 5.0

3.0 209.974
229.659
400.262
282.152
406.824
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-14
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,925 EASTING (m): 1,891,906 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.3924´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.5668´ 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: 1/21/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 0940 COMPLETED: 1005 SOUNDING (m): 12.5 TIDE (m): 1.74 ELEVATION (m): -10.8 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.11 RECOVERY (m): 4.11 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Sample 6 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-12.7
-13.17
-13.93
-14.84
-15.76
-15.91
-16.06
-16.67
-17.59
-18.5
-18.81
0 .46

1.22 2.13

3.05 3.2

3.35 3.96

4.88 5.79

6.1 Silty sand w/gravel;<7.6 cm. pebbles in fine grained gray sand; broken clam shells; plastic dark gray silt lenses.

Same as 2.13-3.05 m.

Poorly graded sand; fine grained; minor shells;
homogeneous; med. gray
Same as 2.13-3.05 m.

Sand with gravel; <2.5 cm. rounded orange-pink pebbles in sand.

Same as 2.13-3.05 m.

Silty sand w/5.1 cm. stiff sandy silt layer; dark gray
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
SM
SP

70.0 100.0

16.0 4.0
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-15
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 615,925 EASTING (m): 1,891,413 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°12.3892´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.8839´ 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: 0806 COMPLETED: 0836 SOUNDING (m): 13.72 TIDE (m): 1.01 ELEVATION (m): -12.7 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 6.1 RECOVERY (m): 6.1 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Samples 2,3,5,6,7, and 8 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-12.4
-12.7
-13.31
-14.23
-15.14
-15.6
0 .3
.91

1.83 2.74

3.2 Silty sand; very fine grained; dark gray;minor shells, except for lower 7.6 cm.

Same as .91-1.83 m.; minor shells
Poorly graded sand; fine grained; 15 cm. shell hash layer at base; light gray
Silty sand; sulfidic odor dark gray; somewhat plastic
Clean sand; fine grained; gray green color
1 2
3 4
5 SM
SP
100
100.0
41 3.0
557.743
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-16
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 617,906 EASTING (m): 1,890,442 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°13.4451´ LONGITUDE: 117°25.5236´ 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: 1/21/03 TIME BORING STARTED: 1500 COMPLETED: 1525 SOUNDING (m): 12.8 TIDE (m): .4 ELEVATION (m): -12.4 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.2 RECOVERY (m): 5.94 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Refusal on first 2 attempts @ .61 ft. depth. Third try refusal @ 3.2 m. Samples 2, 4, and 5 not analyzed. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-14.9
-15.6
-16.51
-17.12
-17.42
-17.58
-17.73
-18.95
0 .61

1.52 2.13

2.43 2.59

2.74 3.96
Silty sand; stiff; dark gray to black; minor shell frags Same as 0-.61 m.

Sand; med-fine grained; dense; med gray;minor shells
Same as 1.52-2.13 m.

Gravel; pebble/cobble layer.

Same as 1.52-2.13 m.

Core Loss
1 2
3 4
NS
255.906
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: SO9-17
LOCATION:

NORTHING (m): 614,131 EASTING (m): 1,892,267 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.4349´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.3221´ 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: 1045 COMPLETED: 1058 SOUNDING (m): 15.39 TIDE (m): .4 ELEVATION (m): -15 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 3.96 RECOVERY (m): 4.88 LOGGED BY: K. Raabe REMARKS: Lower .61 m. fell out of core barrel while being raised to surface. No gradation analysis of samples. Strata Elev.(m) Depth (meters) • • •• ••• ••• •
Graphic
Sample
No.

PAGE 1 of 1
-16.0
-16.94
-18.16
-18.77
-19.69
-20.3
-21.21
-21.97
-22.13
0 .91

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.

PAGE 1 of 1
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
PROJECT: Oceanside HOLE NUMBER: OS-41
LOCATION: Offshore of San Luis Rey River
NORTHING (m): 614,702.7 EASTING (m): 1,892,612.7 DATUM: CSPCS 83 Zone 6 LATITUDE: 33°11.733´ LONGITUDE: 117°24.051´ 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: 1649 COMPLETED:

SOUNDING (m): 11.34 TIDE (m): ELEVATION (m): -11.3 DATUM: MLLW PENETRATION (m): 4.36 RECOVERY (m): 4.36 LOGGED BY:

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

PAGE 1 of 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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
-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
WW
E/y&ʹ'
EzKKZ/Ed/KEEWh>//EsK>s
D
Ed

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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 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

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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. 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.
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. 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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
^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
^ĂŶůĞŵĞŶƚĞ^ŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ
DĞĞƚŝŶŐEŽƚĞƐϯϬƉƌŝůϮϬϭϬ
ŚĂŵďĞƌƐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶĐ͘ WͲϮ
ϯϯϭϯ
&ĂĐŝŶŐƚŚĞďĞĂĐŚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇ
ĚŽǁŶĐŽĂƐƚŽĨƚŚĞƉŝĞƌĨƌŽŵ^ĂŶ
ůĞŵĞŶƚĞWŝĞƌ͘
&ĂĐŝŶŐƚŚĞďĞĂĐŚĚŽǁŶĐŽĂƐƚŽĨƚŚĞ
ƉŝĞƌĨƌŽŵ^ĂŶůĞŵĞŶƚĞWŝĞƌ͘
&ĂĐŝŶŐĚŽǁŶĐŽĂƐƚĨƌŽŵ^ĂŶ
ůĞŵĞŶƚĞWŝĞƌƚŽǁĂƌĚƐdͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘

State of California – The Resources Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME John McCamman, Director
http://www.dfg.ca.gov
1933 Cliff Drive, Suite 9
Santa Barbara, California 93109
805.568.1231
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
September 30, 2010
Thomas W. Keeney
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Planning Division
915 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of San Clemente Shoreline
Protection Project
Dear Mr. Keeney:

The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR) dated July, 2010 for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineer’s (Corps) San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project (Project) to be implemented in 2012 or sooner. The preferred project proposal is to dredge 251,130 cubic yards of natural ocean bottom sand from an offshore borrow site located one mile off the coast of Oceanside, California. The sediment is expected to be 10 percent fine sediment, 83 percent sand and seven percent gravel. A hopper dredge will be used to extract the material. At the receiver site (San Clemente Beach), the dredge would be attached to a floating pipeline moored to the sea floor that would carry the discharge slurry of sand and water along the bottom to the beach, approximately 1,500 feet. The beach fill area would be 3,412 feet long with a +17-foot crest elevation, and is estimated to result in a 50-foot beach width. Once started, the proposed project duration is estimated to be 46 working days over the course of four months. The Corps is proposing to repeat this project every six years.

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

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

Thomas Keeney

Page 4 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Bonigut, P.E.

Assistant City Engineer
City of San Clemente - Public Works Dept.
910 Calle Negocio, Suite 100
San Clemente, CA 92673
(949) 361-6187
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
NATIONAL OFFICE P O BOX 6010 SAN CLEMENTE CA 92674 6010
)-
&
+B@4B@A@
+6!(&,

'
2
+(#

-
(%( ",-4%''"' "/","('
66+&2(+),(' "'

+,7

--'5!(&,6

'
2
66(1ECBGAA

(,'
%
,4HB@EC7BCBE
"
&"%5!(&,66

'
2?.,

6+&26&"%
+6

'
27
!'$2(.(+-!
())(+-.'"-2-(
(&&
'-('+-
("'-'/"+('&
'-%
&)
-
--
&
'-<'/"+('&
'-%
&)
-
)(+-=+-
<
>(+-!
'%
&
'-

!(+
%"'

,""%"-2-.
2"'-!
"-2('%
&
'-
4%"(+'"6!
.++"

+
(.'
-"('",'('7)+("-
'/"+('&
'-%(+ '"3-"('

"
-

-(-!
)+(-

-"('
'

'#(2&
'-(-!
0(+%
9,(

',40/
,'

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

"
-

%(
%&
&
+,!")(-!(.,'
,40
+
)+-"
.%+%2
,
',"-"/
-(-!
&'
&
'-('%
&
'-
9,,!(+
%"'
6,,.
!40
!/

"'-!

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

-(+'
+%2

6

%"
/
-!--!

(&)%
-"('(-!",
<
",,"&)%2-!
,-+-"' )("'-(+

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

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

,-02-(

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

!'
6
!()
-!--!

"-20"%%

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

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

+(,"(''
--
&)-,
-(&'
(.+
(,-"'
(,-7

-"/
'

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

-,-!
,
',""%"-"
,((.+
(&&.'"-26!

(&&"-&
'--(E@72
+)+(#

-
0"-!-!
66+&2(+),(' "'

+,",,
+"(.,.'

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

'/"+('&
'-%'
,(
"%"&)%"
-"(',6!-",-!
/","('0
!/
(+(.+
(,-8
!-
(0
0'-"--(%(($%"$
'
!(0!
%-!2
(0
0'-(.+

!
,'
%.,
-(
0!
'(.+
!"%
+
'9,
!"%
+
'+
,)%,!"' "'-!
0/
,8
'(+-.'-
%20
!/
2
--(,

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

)(-
'-"%)+(#

-0
+

(&&
'-"' ('
.++
'-%20"%%!
%)-("',-" -
"-6

*%+

#

"
!

(
.&
'-,--
,5:Changes to the beach shoreline caused by erosion have reduced recreational opportunities and are threatening the stability of City facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor.” It is unclear what “private property” is under threat by shoreline changes, and what protection it would be afforded by the proposed project. It is our understanding that all structures constructed west of the railroad within the project area are public facilities. It is important to describe the structures accurately as their storm-damage protection provides the economic benefits of such a project.
!",%
$()+"/-
)+()
+-2,!(.%
%,(
+
%

-"(',B6A5.+)(,
'

'
B6B5+(#

-"/
6

+%*%+$

"
,'(-

4-!
+"%+(

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

-"('%(' -!

)+(#

-,-+
-
!6
--!
+"%+(
!,,.

,,.%%2&'

+(,"(''
0/
--
$
",,.
,(++
%-"/
%2%(0
(,-6!

(
.&
'-
(
,'(-
1)%"
"-%2

,
+"
0!"
!
,

-"(',+
&(+
-+",$4'(+0!2-!
)+
,.&)-"('",&

-!-
('-"'.

+(
$
)%

&
'-0"%%'(-
%%(0

"'-!
.-.+
4'

,,"--"' -!
'

(+!" !%2

' "'

'

(,-%2,
0%%,

,
+"

"'(,-%' "'

+"' ))
'
"14

-"('D6D6"/
'-!--!
.%$(-!

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

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

"
-"('(.-.+

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

1)%'-"('6

-"('D6D,--
,5
“It will become mandatory for the SCRRA to construct seawalls in the future.

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

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

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

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

-
(
,'(-
/
'
'
(&),,-!
&(,--!+
-
'

)(+-"('(
-!
+"%+(
4,+
,-(-!
'(+-!=+")(,>'
-(-!
,(.-!=%">+
-&.
!
!" !
++",$(0/
"&)
-
&
,42
-!,'(---
&)-

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

-"(',6

+%*%,$

#

#
#

"
!

(
.&
'-
%"&,-!-
+(,"('-!+
-
',).%"
+
,-+((&,40!"
!
(.%
+
*."+

+
%(
-"('"
+(,"('-+
'
,
('-"'.
6
- (
,('-(,--
-!-,.
!+
%(
-"('
0(.%

.,
).%"
,
-2",,.

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

,-+"'+"%+(

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

-6!
).%"
+
,-+((&,0!"
!+
%(
-

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

-+
(

.+-7-+

-'
-!
"
+67-+

-
%+

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

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

"
+%+

2!,+"%+(
.'

+),,%%(0"' ,
),,

%(0-!
+"%+(
6

4'("'
+
,
"')

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

(

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

+
%(
-

,-(-!
+"%+(
6
-%,%-%,$

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

-"(',!(0,-!--!
%(' 7-
+&,

"&
'-.

-(+-!",
,

-"('",
,,
'-"%%2"'
*."%"+".&40"-!'
-
+(,"('
*.%"' '
-

+
-"('6!

,

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

!'
,(-!%(' ,!(+
'
-!+(. !-"&
6!",0(.%
"'
"
-
-!-"'-!
%('
-
+&'%
&
'-
9,,!(+
%"'
",'
+%2.'
!'

4'
-!-,

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

"-29,

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

,!+"'$"' 6+-"
.%+%2,-+"$"' ",-!
*.(-
5:During the period 1980-1989, the
shoreline was predominantly positive with accretion rates ranging from + 1.4ft/yr (+0.43 m/yr) to +7.2 ft/yr (+2.16 m/yr).” This is the period that experienced the strong 1983 El Nino winter storms, but which apparently survived with little net erosion.

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

&.)&,$

"
!

'.)

!(
7

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

,
+"

"'-!",,

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

+"' ))
'
"1=F6C6D>42
-'(&"-" -"('&
,.+
,+
)+(/"

6
!
AAE-%-
+'-"/
)+

"
-,

"'"-"/
%2
/
+,
"&)
-,-(0/

!+
-
+",-"
,
'

(
,,.
,-&('"-(+"' (,.+
('
"-"(',(%%(0

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

'

(
,'(-+

(/
+6,

('
-!

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

+"' ))
'
"14"')+-"
.%+4
-!
+
",)(,,""%"-2(,
/
+

+
-"('(,.+"' *.%"-26,,.
!40
+
*.
,-
-!-&('"-(+"' (,.+"' *.%"-2
(+
'
-
+
(',-+.
-"('
)+(/"

,
&"-" -"('('2
!(,
')+(#

-4"'
%.
"' -!
E@-%-
+'-"/
6(-
'-"%"&)
-,
,

,
+"

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

+
-"('(0/
*.%"-25:!
,.+"'

1)
+"
'

&" !-
(',",-('(+&%:-$
7(4;.--!
':
%(,
7(.-;,-!
0/

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

-!2&
-+"

('-(.+,"',!(+
;'
0(.%
#.,-"2-!

'

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

1)
+"
'

"-"('4&

-"' '(-
,"'-!
))
'
"

,,)

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

+-$
'6!",'

,-(
+
%

0"-!"'-!
(
2(-!

"&)
-,'%2,",6!",&('"-(+"' '
&"-" -"(',!(.%
+
%

--!

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

%(06
-

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

&
&**.&,%*$

"
!

'**.

!(

"
'

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

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

," '""
'-%2

(+)
+"(
(A@2
+,6!",",
2('
-!

,-"&-

)
+"(
(+
-.+'(+
.-.+
'(.+",!&
'-,6'%%(0'

(A@2
+,

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

.-.+
)%',+

#.,-

",.'

)-%
6"&"%+-(,.+ +,,4
"+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

&

6
"'4-!'$2(.(+-!
())(+-.'"-2-(
(&&
'-6
%(($(+0+
-(.+-!
+

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

---!

"-2%
/
%6
"'

+
%24
+$.,
!
+

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

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

Thank you,
Keith Aiken

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
A-1
APPENDIX G – DRAFT COORDINATION ACT REPORT

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FINAL FISH AND WILDLIFE

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

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

Beach erosion is an ongoing problem along the San Clemente shoreline. Over the past 20 years, average beach widths in the City’s beaches have been gradually reduced to about 15 m (50 ft), a reduction of more than 50 percent compared to beach measurements from 1958 and 1981.

Changes to the beach shoreline caused by erosion have reduced recreational opportunities and are threatening the stability of City facilities, private property, and a major southern California commuter rail corridor.

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

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

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

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

The Service met with the Corps, NOAA, CDFG and EPA on January 31, 2011, to address comments on the Draft EIR/EIS and recommendations in the Draft FWCA. Several issues were discussed at the meeting including: 1) the adequacy of baseline transect surveys and assumption of a worse case impact of up to only 0.81 hectares (ha) [2 acres (ac)] of surfgrass/reef impacts based on these surveys, even though the entire 2 ha (5-ac) T-Street Reef is expected to be in the equilibrium footprint and subject to sand movement and burial; 2) the use of only a 1 to 1 mitigation ratio in light of temporal loss of at least 2-5 years from the time of impact to completion of mitigation, especially for surfgrass impacts given the uncertainty of surfgrass restoration; 3) the potential to modify the project to a 10-meter (m) [33-foot (ft)] beach width to help minimize potential impacts to surfgrass and reef and mitigation risks/costs due to the uncertainty regarding surfgrass restoration; 4) resource agency approval role in determining appropriate mitigation, criteria for triggering mitigation, success criteria, and monitoring and reporting requirements; 5) the adequacy of the proposed $3 million mitigation fund when mitigation costs are estimated to be up to $3.5 million; 6) potential cumulative impacts from the City’s opportunistic beach replenishment program; 7) potential impacts to the intertidal reef at Mariposa Point and use of Mariposa Point as a control in light of these potential impacts and from the City’s opportunistic beach replenishment program; 8) the use of only one verses multiple control site(s); and 9) allowing subsequent beach replenishment before any previous impacts are successfully mitigated.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project iii
The Corps provided comments on the Draft FWCA Report and an updated Monitoring, Mitigation, and Reporting Plan (MMRP) via electronic mail (email) transmissions dated June 9 and July 20, 2011, respectively. We forwarded the Corps’ comments and updated MMRP to NOAA, CDFG, and EPA; the NOAA and CDFG responded that the Corps did not fully address many of their original concerns. The NOAA and CDFG also provided additional comments on the revised MMRP including: 1) the provision for only 2 years of monitoring for any necessary rocky reef mitigation, instead of 5 years as for kelp mitigation; 2) the provision for impacts to shallow reef to be mitigated with deep water reef; and 3) the provision for out-of-kind kelp mitigation for surfgrass impacts that could lead to continual loss of surfgrass from beach replenishment. We have incorporated NOAA and CDFG comments and recommendations relative to the proposed project’s potential impacts on fish and wildlife resources and habitats into the recommendations of this Final FWCA Report.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION
Description of Project Area
The City of San Clemente (City) is located along the coast of southern California about 100 kilometers (km) [60 miles (mi)] south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County near the border of San Diego County. The study area is encompassed within the City and extends about 1,040 meters (m) [3,412 feet (ft)] from Linda Lane to T-Street (Figure 1). A portion of the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) rail line runs between the beach and the coastal bluffs through San Clemente. The project area includes the San Clemente Municipal Pier (Pier), beachfront structures, and the Marine Safety Headquarters on the beach. The borrow site for beach replenishment materials is located offshore of the City of Oceanside Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to provide shore protection through nourishment of the beach at the Pier. Developing and maintaining the beach is needed to prevent the severe beach erosion that results from winter storms and to prevent damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used LOSSAN rail line that runs along the beach through the City. In addition, the continued loss of sand at the beach would have a negative impact on recreation, which supports the local economy, and would reduce the ecological functioning of the sand beach/littoral zone.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project
Figure 1
2 – Project Vicinity Map (Corps 2010)
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Alternatives
Non-Structural Measures
Managed Retreat
Managed retreat restricts or opposes efforts to control long-term retreat of the shoreline. This can include policies ranging from complete removal of all shore protection structures to simply not allowing new structures to be built. For this project, managed retreat of coastal development would include relocation of the railroad and beach facilities due to the continued erosion of the recreation beach area. Continued erosion and storm wave attack would likely eliminate any beach area available for recreation use and may eliminate the need for facilities or relocate some facilities (e.g., restrooms) to the landward side of the railroad.

Structural Measures
Beach Fill
Beach nourishment involves placement of compatible sand from a borrow area to effectively widen the beach. The beach fill material acts as a buffer, dissipating storm waves and run-up over the wider profile. Beach nourishment may use offshore or onshore borrow sites. In the study area, offshore sources have historically been used for several reasons. Prior offshore studies of the area conducted by the Corps have identified potential sources of sand suitable for an offshore borrow site. The potential offshore borrow sites in the study area were investigated by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG 2000) and the Corps (1993) for beach compatible sand, and appropriate sites were located by these previous investigations offshore of the City Oceanside.

For this project, offshore dredging would be required for the beach fill alternative. Available offshore borrow sites exist, and sand would be delivered to the beach fill sites using hopper dredges with pump-out or large cutter suction dredges. For the hopper dredge with pump-out, temporary near-shore pipeline and mono buoys would be positioned at about the 9 m (30 ft) depth contour to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines.

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

They are typically built of 3- to 5-ton stone over a layer of smaller stone over a layer of fill designed to stop shoreline retreat and to protect landslide improvements from damage by wave action. Seawalls and revetments are placed parallel to the shoreline as a last line of defense to protect adjacent land areas from direct wave attack, flooding, and erosion. Sheet-pile walls are steel or precast concrete panels vertically placed in the ground to form continuous seawalls for Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 4
protecting back-beach improvements. Revetments are generally effective if maintained, but they encroach significantly onto the beach. The seawall structural measure typically requires less spatial area and maintenance.

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

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

Submerged artificial reef-type designs for the purpose of sand retention and storm damage reduction come in many forms, but they may be simplified into "soft" and "hard" designs. In the soft designs, near-shore sand berms are constructed of dredged sand placed parallel to the beach in shallow water. The soft breakwater reduces incident wave height, and gradual onshore migration of the sediment can contribute to re-nourishment of the adjacent shoreline, providing the berm itself is stable enough to withstand the wave environment.

Hard submerged breakwaters, which include artificial reefs, reduce wave energy through breaking and dissipation. They are generally not as effective as surface piercing breakwaters at retaining sand, but they do not generally have the adverse effects on recreational surfing conditions that surface visible structures do and may enhance surfing conditions if designed for dual purpose.

Shore Perpendicular Structures
Cross-shore sand retention structures, such as groins and jetties, are constructed perpendicular to the shore to form fillets that can slow beach erosion by trapping littoral sediment. Groins are cross-shore retention structures that act as a barrier to alongshore sediment transport. Offshore breakwaters are effective at retaining sand, but they are expensive and require a healthy source of littoral sand to perform their sand trapping function.

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

The amount of sand trapped by the structure depends on the permeability, height, and length of the structure and the amount of sand in the littoral system. As material accumulates on the updrift side of the structure, supply to the down-drift side is reduced. This results in local beach accretion on the up-drift side of the structure and erosion for some distance down-shore. After the beach near the structure adjusts to an “equilibrium” stage in accordance with the wave conditions, all littoral drift will pass the structure directly over it or be diverted around the seaward end of the structure.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 5
No Action
The no action alternative assumes that no project would be implemented and that the Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s (SCRRA) existing maintenance plan would continue to be implemented, which may result in potential damage to the railroad ballast and tracks, but without any measures implemented by the City to address continued erosion of the recreation beaches near the Pier. With the no action alternative, the erosion-prone beaches are assumed to be further depleted and storm damages would be expected to increase in severity, increasing the threat to the railroad corridor. Public safety and liability problems would not be resolved, and recreational activity on the beaches would be degraded, resulting in a loss of associated economic benefits.

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

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

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

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

The 15 m (50 ft) beach width alternative would require about 192,000 m3 (251,000 y3) of beach compatible sand. At the time of construction, the actual immediate post-construction width would be about 23 m (76 ft) (Figure 2). It is expected that up to 8 m (26 ft) of dry beach width would be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 46 working days to complete.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 6
Figure 2 – Plan View of 15 m (50 ft) Beach Width Alternative (Corps 2010) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 7
The 35 m (115 ft) beach width alternative would require about 448,000 m3 (586,000 y3) of beach compatible sand. At the time of construction, the actual immediate post-construction width would be about 52 m (171 ft). It is expected that up to 17 m (56 ft) of dry beach width will be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. This alternative is estimated to take 108 working days to complete.

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

Construction Method
The project would be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. A medium-sized hopper dredge would be used, with effective capacity estimated at 1,300 m3
(1,700 y3) and 3.2 loads per day. The hopper dredge
would pump out the dredge material via a 6-centimeter (cm) [24-inch (in)] pipe line at 1,376 m3
/hr (1,800 y3/hr). The hopper dredge would be filled at the designated borrow site (i.e., Borrow Area 2 and 2a), which has beach compatible sand with approximately 10 percent fines and is about 1.6 km (1 mile) offshore of the City of Oceanside (Figure 3). The hopper dredge would then haul the dredged material about 35 km (21 mi) north to San Clemente. At the receiver beach, the dredge would be attached to a moored floating section of pipeline extending 457 m (1,500 ft) to the shoreline. The material would be re-suspended and discharged through the on-board pumping system to the receiver site.

The hopper dredge requires a mono buoy to discharge its sand onto the beach. A mono buoy is a floating pipeline connection platform that is moored to the seafloor, and it is used to interconnect with a steel sinker pipeline that carries the slurry along the seafloor to the beach. For this project, the mono buoy would be anchored in at least 7.6 m (25 ft) of water, between 762 to 1,524 m (2,500 and 5,000 ft) from shore and in the appropriate location in relation to sensitive resources and engineering considerations. From one mono buoy location, sand can be pumped directly onshore and up to about 610 m (2,000 ft) alongshore in either direction. Dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week.

Onshore Placement Method
Sand would be combined with seawater until it reaches the consistency of slurry. It then would be conveyed to the beach either via pipeline or a combination of hopper dredge and pipeline, as described above. Existing sand at the receiver site would be used to build a small, “L”-shaped berm to anchor the sand placement operations. The short side of the “L” would be transverse (crosswise) to the shoreline and would be about 15 m (50 ft) long. The long side would be shore parallel at the seaward edge and would be about 61 m (200 ft) long. The berm construction may be adjusted from the design requirements during fill placement depending on actual field conditions. The crosswise side of the berm would be constructed to allow alongshore landward beach access for emergency access at all times.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 8
Figure 3 - Offshore Borrow Areas (Corps 2010)

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 9
The slurry would be pumped onto the beach between this berm and toe. The berm reduces ocean water turbidity by allowing all the sand to settle inside the bermed area while the seawater is channeled along the berm until it reaches the open end where it drains into the ocean.

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

Construction Access and Staging Areas
Beach access for the construction equipment and crew would be split between open space on the beach and a City-owned public parking lot (Figure 4) (Corps 2010). An open area exists along the beach immediately adjacent and north of the Pier and in the immediate vicinity of the Marine Safety Headquarters. It is expected this site would be used for the contractors’ office trailer, parking area for heavy earthmoving equipment, and storage area for dredge pipe and other miscellaneous materials. This site is used extensively for access to the Marine Safety Headquarters and other municipal operations. The contractors’ dredge and vessels would require offsite mooring and berthing space. The nearest suitable mooring area is Dana Point Harbor, a small craft harbor about 8 km (5 mi) north.

Figure 4 Beach Access and Staging Areas (Corps 2010)
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 10
Future Project Beach Profile Monitoring
Long-term shoreline erosion processes create damages through long-term profile translation landward and the increasing potential for wave-related damages. The landward advancing shoreline reduces the beach width available for storm damage protection, thereby increasing the probability of wave-related damages to facilities and structures. Long-term beach erosion also results in the gradual reduction of the beach surface area available for recreation. The peak erosion rate is –0.21 m/yr (–0.7 ft/yr); the maximum erosion rate is -0.46 m/yr (-1.5 ft/yr); and the maximum accretion rate is +0.38 m/yr (+1.24 ft/yr).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marine Shoreline and Offshore Habitats
The predominant intertidal habitat along San Clemente’s shoreline is sandy beach, although some rocky outcrops that extend from mid-beach to the low intertidal zone are present at Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 11
Mariposa Point, which is north of the Pier. Beyond the surf zone, the seafloor is a mosaic of sand and low-to-high relief patch reef. Some pinnacles of the reef are visible in the near-shore zone at low tide, while two prominent offshore pinnacles break the surface offshore of Mariposa Point and south of the Pier. Other reef habitats are located south of the Pier offshore of T-Street that extends west, and then north around the end of the Pier (Figure 5) (Corps 2010).

Rocky Intertidal
Although the predominant intertidal habitat along San Clemente’s shoreline is sandy beach, an area of significant rocky intertidal is present at Mariposa Point, which is 975 m (3,200 ft) north of the Pier and about 488 m (1,600 ft) north of the northern end of the proposed beach fill site at Linda Lane. Boulders and rocky outcroppings in this area support a variety of algal species [Coastal Resources Management (CRM) 2000]. Boulders in the high intertidal area support filamentous green algae (Enteromorpha spp.). The mid-to-low intertidal algae composition is dominated by encrusting red algae (Lithophyllum spp., Lithothamnion spp.), encrusting brown algae (Pseudolithoderma spp.), and coralline algae (Corallina spp.). Green algae (Enteromorpha spp. and Ulva spp.) and several species of filamentous red algae also occur in these zones.

Larger brown algae species colonize the base of the intertidal reef throughout the area, including palm kelp (Eisenia aborea) and feather boa kelp (Egregia menziesii).

Surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi and P. Scouleri) is present in the low intertidal beginning about 91 m (300 ft) offshore of the sand beach. Surfgrass serves as a nursery for California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) and provides shelter for a variety of juvenile and adult fishes.

Surfgrass is present throughout the low intertidal platform of Mariposa Point at a minimum of

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

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

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

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 13
Up to ten species of fish use the low-to-minus tidal zones of rocky intertidal habitats in the Southern California Bight (SCB) (MEC 2002). The wooly sculpin (Clinocottus analis) is one of the more commonly encountered fish species in tidepools, but juvenile opaleye (Girella nigricans), rockpool blenny (Hypsoblennius gilberti), spotted kelpfish (Gibbonsia elegans), and California clingfish Gobiesox rhessodon) may also be present (Cross and Allen 1993).

Sandy Intertidal
The shoreline at Mariposa Point consists of a riprap backshore environment that protects the railroad tracks. The rocky intertidal habitat lies seaward of this stretch of sandy beach. A stone revetment to the north and an access road to the south provide backing along the beach at Linda Lane, which is fronted by a steeply sloping sandy beach to the water line. There is also a rock riprap that protects the lifeguard headquarters from wave run-up in front of buildings along this section of the shoreline.

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

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

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

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

Subtidal Hardbottom
The shallow subtidal zone for much of the project area is a mixture of sand and boulders, with occasional outcrops of exposed shale bedrock (CRM 2000). Historically, offshore kelp beds, dominated by giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) with an understory of feather boa kelp (Egregia menziesii) and palm kelp (Eisenia arborea), have been prevalent along this section of coastline.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 14
The kelp canopy within the project area has fluctuated considerably over the last decade. During surveys in June 2000, CRM found low to moderate density kelp beds with little or no surface canopy 610 m (2,000 ft) off of Mariposa Point at depths between –7.0 and –8.5 m (-23 and -28 ft) MLLW. Another bed was observed 198 m (650 ft) off the Pier (T-Street) at a depth of 4.9 m (16 ft) in October 1999. This patch was not observed during the June 2000 survey (CRM 2000).

Much of the kelp observed in June 2000 was ragged and covered with fouling ectoprocts (Bryozoa); however, newly settled recruit plants were also present (CRM 2000). In March 2008, kelp canopy was sparse in the project area. In July 2009, a thick kelp bed was observed on the considerable reef formations offshore and south of the Pier. The kelp bed in 2009 corresponds generally with the historical kelp mapped previously (Figure 5).

The most extensive reef formations in the vicinity of the Pier are located off Mariposa Point, north of the project area. The shallow subtidal reefs off Mariposa Point have well-developed macrophyte growth, including dense stands of understory species of kelp and surfgrass (CRM 2000). These inshore reefs are about 90 to 210 m (300 to 700 ft) from the shoreline, and some of the rocks have several feet of vertical relief. Most, however, are sand inundated boulders less than 0.6 to 1 m (2 to 3 ft) in height. Surfgrass on these shallow, subtidal reefs grows a minimum of 0.3 m (1 ft) above the sand line and have blades up to 0.6 m (2 ft) long. The nearest high relief reef is located 610 m (2,000 ft) offshore of Mariposa Point (Washrock Reef) at depths between - 7 and -8.4 m (-23 and -28 ft) MLLW. A 120 m by 60 m (400 ft by 200 ft) patch of giant kelp was observed inshore of the Washrock Reef just north of the Pier at a depth of 8 m (26 ft) in October 1999, which persisted at least through June 2000 (CRM 2000). The apex of Washrock Reef is dominated by mussels (Mytilus californianus and M. edulis).

Other characteristic reef organisms observed during the CRM June 2000 survey included gorgonians (Muricea californica and M. fructicosa), keyhole limpet (Megathura crenulata), purple and red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus and S. franciscanus), California sea cucumber (Parastichopus californicus), Kellet's whelk (Kelletia kelletii), and sea stars (Pisaster brevispinus and P. giganteus). Fishes observed included spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculofasciatus), kelp bass (P. clathratus), seniorita (Oxyjulis californicus), bat ray (Myliobatis californica), and black perch (Embiotica jacksoni).

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

Offshore the northern end of the proposed beach fill site at Linda Lane, low relief boulders occur at depths greater than 2.7 m (9 ft) MLLW (CRM 2000). Boulders appear to be frequently scoured and are characterized by growth of red turf algae and crustose corallines. CRM observed surfgrass at this depth off the northern portion of the Linda Lane area, about 90 m (300 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 15
ft) from the shoreline. The surfgrass occurred on the upper surfaces of 0.3 m (1 ft) high boulders. Blades were approximately 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3 ft) long.

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

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

Subtidal Softbottom
Benthic invertebrate species typical of Southern California nearshore soft bottom habitats include polychaete worms (e.g., Diopatra spp., Loimia medusa, Pista pacifica), sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus), crabs (Heterocrypta occidentalis, Portunis xantusii, Randallia ornata), hermit crabs (Pagurus spp., Pagurites spp.), marine snails (Nassarius fossatus, Olivella biplicata, Polinices spp.), clams (Ensis spp.), armored sea stars (Astropecten armatus), tube anemones (Harenactis attenuata, Zaolutus actius), sea pens (Stylatula elongata), and sea pansies (Renilla kollikeri) (MEC 2002, Thompson et al., 1993).

Fish commonly found over shallow, sandy subtidal habitat [less than 9 m (30 ft)] in southern California include California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), speckled sanddabs (Citharichthys stigmaeus), barred surfperch (Amphistichus argenteus), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), bat ray (Myliobatus californica), and shovelnose guitarfish (Rhinobatos productus) (MEC 2002, SANDAG 2000). Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific bonito (Sarda chiliensis), and topsmelt (Athernops affinis) are commonly encountered in the water column just beyond the surfzone (MEC 2002, SANDAG 2000).

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

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 17
Borrow Site
The proposed borrow site offshore of the City of Oceanside (SO-9) was described by SANDAG (2000). The proposed borrow site consists of sand bottom habitat at between 14 and 18 m (45 and 60 ft) water depth. Fishes and invertebrates found in the vicinity of the Oceanside borrow site are typical of these depths on southern California offshore soft bottoms (SANDAG 2000).

The most abundant invertebrate taxa identified for the Oceanside borrow site include several species of polychaete worms (Diopatra spp., Euclymeninae sp., Melinna oculata, Metasychis disparidentatus, Paraprionospio pinnata, Petalodymene pacifica, Pista disjuncta, Spiophanes missionensis, Streblosoma sp.) and the amphipod Ampelisca cristata (SANDAG 2000).

Abundant fish species include longfin sanddab (Citharichthys xanthostigma), barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer), California halibut, California lizardfish (Synodus lucioceps), and fantail sole (Xystreurys liolepis) (SANDAG 2000).

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

Shorebirds and seabirds are described below. Terrestrial wildlife that would be expected include American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), rock doves (Columba livia), and California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Although the project reach is within heavily-urbanized downtown San Clemente, there are some canyons, including Linda Lane, the canyon between Cazador Land and Trafalgar Lane/Esplanade, and the canyon just south of T-Street that would be expected to support urban adapted mammals, including coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and opossum (Didelphis virginiana).

These mammals may occasionally wander onto the beach at night or early morning in search of prey.

Birds
A variety of resident and migratory seabirds and shorebirds are commonly observed along southern California beaches and offshore waters. Seabirds, such as pelicans, terns, and cormorants, forage for fish in the nearshore ocean. Gulls and shorebirds use sandy upper tidal beaches as roosts. Gulls feed on fish and invertebrates, particularly near the edge of the kelp canopy. Shorebirds probe for invertebrates in the damp sands of the middle and low intertidal zones, and some species also forage for small fish and invertebrates in the rocky intertidal. Kelp and surfgrass that have washed ashore harbor invertebrates and provide good foraging areas for gulls and shorebirds.

The seabirds that are most commonly observed along the beaches and ocean waters offshore of Orange and San Diego counties include Heerman’s gull (Larus heermanni), ring-billed gull (L. delawarensis), western gull (L. occidentalis), California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), surf scoter (Melinita perspicillata), terns (Sterna spp.), grebes (Podicipedidae), double-crested (Phalacrocorax auritus), and pelagic (P. pelagicus) cormorants (Chambers Group 2002, MEC 2002).

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 18
A variety of shorebirds would be expected to use the beach in the vicinity of the Pier.

Commonly observed species include the following shorebirds: marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), sanderling (Calidris alba), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), western sandpiper (Calidris mauri), and least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) (McConnaughey and McConnaughey 1988, Chambers Group 2002, MEC 2002).

Marine Mammals
The marine mammals that occur in the Southern California Bight have been described in detail in previous studies and environmental documents (e.g., Bonnell et al. 1981, 1983; Bonnell and Dailey 1993; Dohl et al. 1981, 1983; ADL 1984; Barlow et al. 1995, 1997; Barlow and Gerrodette 1996; Koski et al. 1998; DeLong and Melin 2000; Stewart and Yochem 2000). As many as 36 species of marine mammals inhabit or visit the Southern California Bight, including 6 species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), 29 species of cetaceans (whales, porpoises, and dolphins), and the sea otter; however, only the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi), Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), and Common dolphin (Delphinus spp.) are expected to occur in the nearshore waters of the San Clemente study area on a regular basis.

Essential Fish Habitat
In accordance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), an assessment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) will be conducted for the proposed project. The project is located within an area designated as EFH for two Fishery Management Plans (FMPs): Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan and Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Many of the 86 species federally managed under these plans are known or expected to occur in the area and could be affected by the proposed project. All of the five species managed under the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan are likely to occur in the project area. These pelagic species are northern anchovy, Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack mackerel, and market squid (Loligo opalescens). About 16 species managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan are likely to occur in the project area. These species include leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata), big skate (Raja binoculata), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), four species of flatfish (Pleuronichthys decurrens, Microstomus pacificus, Pleuronectes vetulis, Citharichthys sordidus), and at least eight species of rockfish (Sebastes chrysomelas, S. auriculatus, S. caurinus, S. rastrelliger, S. atrovirens, S. serranoides, S. serriceps and Scorpaena guttata).

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

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

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

Large numbers of least terns breed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP), 19 to 22 km (12 to 14 mi) south of the project area. In 2006, there were 1,423 nesting pairs of least terns at MCBCP (Marschalek 2007), with most (1,265) of these pairs documented at the mouth of the Santa Margarita River. The nearest colonies to the project area were at White Beach, about 22 km (14 mi) south of the proposed beach fill site where 137 pairs bred in 2006 and at Red Beach, about 19 km (12 mi) south of the project site where 21 pairs bred (Marschalek 2007). The Oceanside borrow site is within the foraging range of the Santa Margarita River colony. Least terns are known to use the near shore waters for foraging as they make their northbound and southbound migration treks. There are no known records of least terns using the Pier sandy beach habitat for nesting or for night roosts.

Western Snowy Plover
The coastal population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus, “snowy plover”) was listed as threatened on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864). A recovery plan for this species was finalized in 2007 (Service 2007). Designation of critical habitat was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1999 (64 FR 68507), and was last revised in 2005 (Service 2005). This population is defined as those individuals that nest adjacent to tidal waters and includes all nesting birds on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays, estuaries, and coastal rivers. The breeding range extends along the Pacific coast of North America from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico. The winter range is Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 20
somewhat broader and may extend to Central America (Page et al. 1995); however, most snowy plovers winter south of California.

The nesting habitat of the coastal population is mainly dune-backed beaches, barrier beaches, salt flats, and salt evaporation ponds. Habitat of wintering birds includes beaches where nesting is not known to occur. In the U.S., over 150 currently used or historical nesting and/or wintering areas have been identified, most of which (about 85 percent) are in California (Corps 2010).

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

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

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

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

However, it is assumed that these and other marine mammals will avoid the project area since they have a much wider foraging area than will be impacted by the project.

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

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

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

The greater amount of sand on San Clemente beach following beach nourishment may have a beneficial effect on marine birds by increasing resting habitat. A beach nourishment project in Encinitas performed by the SANDAG appeared to have a positive effect on bird use of the receiver beaches (SAIC 2005). Prior to beach nourishment, few birds were observed on beaches with extensive cobble cover or shallow sand depths in the upper and middle intertidal zones.

Following beach nourishment, the total number of bird species and bird abundance increased on receiver sites and was higher than on non-receiver sites. The increase in bird use at the sand placement sites following beach nourishment was thought to be a result of the greater beach widths created by the beach nourishment project.

The project is not anticipated to impact the least tern or the snowy plover. The project is scheduled to occur completely outside of the least tern breeding season (April 1 – September 15), and snowy plovers have not been documented (either none were detected or surveys were not conducted) to nest or winter within the project area (Service 2011a, b), which consists of beaches subjected to a high degree of human use.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 22
Impacts to Sensitive Habitats [15 m (50 ft) Beach Width] Sensitive habitats, including kelp beds, surfgrass, and rocky intertidal areas may be impacted by sand placement, anchors for the mono buoy (where the hopper dredge will moor while it discharges sand to the beach), and the placement of the sinker pipeline that will pump sediment to shore from the hopper dredge. Impacts from these activities could include crushing organisms, burial of organisms, and scraping surfgrass, algae, or attached invertebrates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transects should be monitored at the following intervals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The transects shall be permanent transects. The same number of transects should be established in the control area as in the mitigation areas and transects should be at similar depths. On each surfgrass transect, the following parameters should be monitored at a minimum: 1) surfgrass density (i.e., number of shoots per square meter), 2) percent cover of surfgrass, sand, and rock, 3) sand depth, and 4) identification and quantity of flora and fauna. The line intercept method is recommended for measuring percent cover and sand depth.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 29
Transects should be monitored at the following intervals, if successful:

Post-mitigation implementation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The transects shall be permanent transects. The same number of transects should be established in the control area as in the mitigation areas and transects should be at similar depths. On each kelp transect, the following parameters should be monitored at a minimum: 1) kelp density (number of kelp plants per square meter) of each age class, 2) holdfast diameter of each adult kelp plant on the transect, 3) number of stipes of each adult kelp plant on the transect and 4) identification and quantity of associated flora and fauna.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 31
Transects should be monitored at the following intervals:

Post-compensatory mitigation implementation:

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

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

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

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

Compensatory Mitigation Installation/Implementation Costs Kelp Transplant Costs
Costs for transplant costs would be based on actual impacts. The costs of reef construction are included above in Project Mitigation for the surfgrass mitigation. This assumes the shallow water reef and deep water reef that were constructed during the Project Mitigation will not be removed; the costs for the compensatory mitigation would be in addition to the Project Mitigation costs above. The estimated costs for a one acre kelp transplant are provided below for reference. This scenario assumes unsuccessful test surfgrass transplant operations.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 32
Kelp Transplant [0.4 ha (1 ac)] $50,000
Subtotal (test unsuccessful) $50,000
Compensatory Mitigation Monitoring Activities (Only if test transplant is unsuccessful and deep water rocky reef is constructed)
a. Year One $120,000
o after implementation - 4 events (one month, 3
months, 6 months, 1 year)
b. Year Two $65,500
o 2 events (once within winter/spring; once within
summer/fall)
c. Annual Report Years One and Two $5,000
Subtotal (test unsuccessful) $190,500
Summary of Pre and Post Construction Monitoring
Activity Cost
Pre-construction monitoring
Side-scan sonar1 [$200,000]
2 years prior to construction - 4 events $131,000
1 year prior to construction – 4 events $120,000
Pre-construction report $10,000
Subtotal $261,000
Post-construction monitoring
Year 1 – 4 events $120,000
Year 2 – 4 events $131,000
Post-construction report $10,000
Subtotal $261,000
Total Pre and Post Construction Monitoring2 $522,000
1 = Side scan sonar is already within coastal engineering monitoring and it will be completed and shared data
2 = the pre and post monitoring costs are not part of the mitigation costs; they are scheduled for implementation whether mitigation is necessary and implemented or not necessary and therefore not implemented.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 33
Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring Costs
Mitigation and Monitoring - Surfgrass
1 acre shallow reef construction $2,000,000
1 acre deep reef construction $500,000
1 acre surfgrass transplant
Test (0.1 acre) $25,000
Mitigation – if test successful (0.9 acre) $225,000
Year 1 monitoring - 4 events (if test successful) $120,000 Year 2 monitoring - 2 events (if test successful) $65,500 Report (if test successful) $5,000
Subtotal $2,940,500
Mitigation and Monitoring - Kelp
1 acre shallow reef construction $2,000,000
1 acre deep reef construction $500,000
1 acre surfgrass transplant
Test (0.1 acre) $25,000
1 acre kelp transplant (if test not successful) $50,000 Year 1 monitoring - 4 events (if test not successful) $120,000 Year 2 monitoring - 2 events (if test not successful) $65,500 Report (if test not successful) $5,000
Subtotal $2,765,500
Summary Mitigation and Monitoring Cost3
Mitigation – Surfgrass successful (Transplant Surfgrass) $2,940,500 Mitigation – Surfgrass not successful (Transplant Kelp) $2,765,500 3 = The cost for the Mitigation – Surfgrass successful (Transplant Surfgrass) includes the cost of constructing both shallow and deep rocky reef as does Mitigation – Surfgrass not successful (Transplant Kelp).

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

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

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

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

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 36

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

Little, Santa Barbara California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2011a. Fully Protected Animals. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/fully_pro.html#Birds). (Accessed January 12, 2011).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dugan, J. E. and D. M. Hubbard. 2006. Ecological Responses to Coastal Armoring on Exposed Sandy Beaches. Shore & Beach 74(1):10-16.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 38
Dugan, J. E., D. M. Hubbard, J. M. Engle, D. L. Martin, D. M. Richards, G. E. Davis, K. D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knopf, Inc., New York, New York.

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

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

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

SAIC. 2005. Coastal Habitat Study, 2003-2004: Influence of Beach Nourishment on Biological Resources at Beaches in the City of Encinitas, California. Prepared for City of Encinitas. 56 pp.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 39
San Diego Association of Governments and U.S. Department of the Navy (SANDAG). 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Synthesis and Interpretation: 369-458.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2007. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). In 2 volumes. Sacramento, California. xiv +751 pages.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, July 2011
San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project 40
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2011a. 2006 and 2007 Winter Snowy Plover Survey. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/WSP/documents/2006- 07%20Winter%20Window%20Survey%20final%20range-wide.pdf. (Accessed January 12, 2011.

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

San Clemente City CouncilJuly 18, 2023

San Clemente City Council
July 18, 2023