San Clemente City Council
July 18, 2023

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
Orange County, California
Department of the Army
Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers
May 2023
$77$&+0(17
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIST OF TABLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 Project Location, Description and Proposed Modifications

1.1.1 Location. The City of San Clemente is located along the coast of southern California about 60 miles (100 kilometers) south of Los Angeles at the southern end of Orange County near the border of San Diego County. The study area is encompassed within the City of San Clemente and extends approximately 3,412 ft (1,040 m) from Linda Lane to T-Street and is located within 2 the San Clemente 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle in Section 4 of Township 9 South and Range 7 West.

1.1.2 Description of Authorized Project and Proposed Modifications

The Authorized Project will be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. Typical Los Angeles District beach fill projects require large capacity open-ocean capable dredges. A medium-sized hopper dredge would likely be used. The hopper dredge effective capacity is estimated at 3,500 cy. The hopper dredge would pump out the dredge material via a
24-inch pipe line at 1,800 cy/hr (1,376 m3/hr). The hopper dredge will be filled at the designated borrow site approximately one mile offshore of Oceanside and hauled approximately 21 miles (35 km) to San Clemente. At the receiver beach, the dredge will be attached to a moored floating section of pipeline extending 1,500 ft (457 m) to the shoreline. The material would be resuspended and discharged through the on-board pumping system to the receiver site.

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

Dredging would be performed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Shore equipment would work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. The proposed Project duration is estimated at 46 working days. The resultant beach is 50 feet (15 m). Beach fill would be 3,412 ft (1,040 m) long with a +17 ft (+5.2 m) crest elevation. The dredge volume is estimated to be approximately 251,000 cubic yards (192,000 m3
), with 8 subsequent nourishment events projected every 5-6 years.

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

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

Temporary dikes within the berm will allow sand to settle in designated areas. Once a 200 ft (61 m) section of berm is filled in with sand, another 200 ft (61 m) of berm will be created, the pipeline will be moved or extended on the dry beach only into the new berm area, and the 3 process would begin again; the pipeline along the seafloor would not be moved. As the material is deposited behind the berm, the sand would be spread using two bulldozers and one front-end loader to direct the flow of the sand slurry and form a gradual slope to the existing beach elevation. The berm would be subject to the forces of the waves and weather once constructed and will eventually settle down to a natural grade for the beach.

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

Proposed Modifications:

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

Dredging and beach placement activities would take place concurrently.

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

Figure 1. Updated construction staging area on San Clemente Beach. 4 Modified or Additional Environmental Commitments, including Permit Conditions. See Section 5.2.

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

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

2.1 Project Authority
The Project Authority remains the same as that described in the 2011 EIR/EIS. The San Clemente Shoreline Reconnaissance Study, a Section 905(b) Analysis of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 86), was prepared as an initial response to the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2000, Public Law (P.L.)106-60, September 29, 1999 which
reads as follows:
“The Committee recommendation includes funds for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance study investigating shoreline protection alternatives for San Clemente, California.”
In addition, Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1965, P.L. 89-298, October 27, 1965 states:
“The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized and directed to cause surveys for flood control and allied purposes, including channel and major drainage improvements, and floods aggravated by or due to wind or tidal effects, to be made under the direction of the Chief of Engineers, in drainage areas of the United States and its territorial possessions, which include the localities specifically named in this section…Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California to determine advisability of protection work against storm and tidal waves.”

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

The purpose of this Project is to provide shore protection through nourishment of the beach at and around the City of San Clemente Pier. Developing and maintaining the beach is needed to prevent the severe beach erosion that results from winter storms and to prevent damage to adjacent beachfront structures, including the heavily used rail line that runs along the beach through the city. In addition to the above, the loss of sand at the beach would have a negative impact on recreation, which supports the local economy, and would reduce the ecological functioning of the sand beach/littoral zone
6 3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

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

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

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

4.1 Oceanography and Water Quality

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

Water temperatures, salinity, dissolved oxygen concentrations and light transmittance are largely typical for Southern California nearshore waters. As summarized in the 2012 Feasibility Report, water temperatures range from approximately 14°C (winter minimum) to 22°C (summer maximum). During the summer, surface water temperatures are up to 10°C warmer than those in deeper waters. Near shore salinity is generally uniform, from approximately 33 to 34 ppt. Seasonally, the near-surface salinity can decrease near the Prima Deshecha & Segunda Deshecha Watershed following storm-related discharges of freshwater and/ or (historically) intermittent discharges of sewage into the river. Dissolved oxygen concentrations typically lie between approximately 6.5 and 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L), but may drop below approximately 5 mg/L at depths of 60 meters. Light transmittance (indicating water clarity) has been measured at approximately 4 to 4.5 meters (13 to 15 feet). Some reduction was associated with storm activity, particularly in shallower, near shore waters. Both light and nutrients are needed to support photosynthesis by attached and planktonic plants. 7 Nutrient concentrations are also expected to be similar to that elsewhere in the Southern California Bight: Nitrates at approximately 5 to 200 nanomoles per liter; phosphates at approximately 100 to 500 nanomoles per liter; and ammonium at approximately 300 nanomoles per liter.

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

4.1.2 Significance Criteria
Impacts to marine water quality are considered significant if any of the following apply:
x The water quality objectives in the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2005) are violated; and/or
x Project operations or discharges that change background levels of chemical and physical constituents or elevate turbidity would produce long-term changes in the receiving environment of the site, area, or region that would impair the beneficial uses of the receiving water.

Impacts are considered less than significant if the project would result in elevation of contaminants, but the levels remain below water quality criteria or if elevation of contaminant concentrations above criteria occurs only within a couple of hundred feet or less of the point of discharge for a few hours or less.

An impact to oceanographic conditions or coastal processes would be considered significant if any of the following apply:
x Nearshore wave characteristics are substantially and adversely altered; x Nearshore sediment transport is substantially and adversely altered; and/or x Shoreline erosion is substantially increased.

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

MM-WR-50-1.1: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an California Department of Fish and Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response Permit (OSPRP) shall be prepared for all construction activities. These plans shall specify specific measures that shall be taken during dredging and beach
construction to avoid introducing contaminants to the ocean via leaks and spills. All measures shall be adhered to during Project construction.

MM-WR-50-1.2: Turbidity shall be monitored during dredging. If a visible turbidity plume is observed beyond the immediate dredging area, dredging activities shall be modified (e.g., decrease the rate of dredging, move to a new dredge location) until the turbidity plume disperses.

Turbidity also shall be monitored during beach fill operations. If significant turbidity (i.e., a visible turbidity plume beyond the surf zone or rip current area) is observed, beach fill operations 8 shall be modified (e.g., by slowing the rate of fill) until the turbidity plume disperses.

4.1.3 Environmental Consequences

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

Turbidity plumes generated during discharge to receiver sites would be expected to be confined primarily to the naturally turbid surf zone and associated rip currents. The turbidity plumes remained in the surf zone unless rip currents carried them offshore (SANDAG 2000). The proposed Project method of discharging the sediments behind an L-shaped berm allows fine particles to settle prior to introduction to the ocean and reduces the potential for nearshore turbidity.

The proposed modifications to the authorized project, including changes to schedule, staging areas and updated environmental commitments, would have no additional effect to any listed significance criteria. The proposed changes would not violate water quality objectives, or change background levels of chemical and physical constituents or elevate turbidity to an extent that it would produce long-term changes in the receiving environment of the site, area, or region that would impair the beneficial uses of the
receiving water.

4.1.3.2 No Action Alternative
Impacts are the same as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS for the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative would not violate water quality objectives, or change background levels of chemical and physical constituents or elevate turbidity to an extent that it would produce long-term changes in the receiving environment of the site, area, or region that would impair the beneficial uses of the receiving water.

4.2 Marine Resources

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

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

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

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

4.2.2. Significance Criteria
An impact to biological resources will be considered significant if a project alternative results in:
x A direct adverse effect on the population of a threatened or endangered species or the loss or disturbance of important habitat for a listed species; x A long-term net loss in the habitat value of a sensitive biological habitat. For the purposes of this analysis, kelp beds, and well developed rocky intertidal and surfgrass beds are considered sensitive biological habitats;
x Substantial impedance to the breeding, movement or migration of fish or wildlife; x Substantial loss to the population of any native fish, wildlife or vegetation. For the purpose of this analysis, substantial is defined as a change in a population that is detectable over natural variability for a period of five years or more; and/or x Substantial adverse impact on Essential Fish Habitat.

MM-BR-50-2.1: An underwater survey for kelp and surfgrass shall be conducted by marine biologists prior to the initiation of beach fill activities. Based on the survey, a mooring location and a pipeline route shall be selected that minimizes contact with surfgrass and kelp habitat. If kelp and surfgrass cannot be avoided completely, immediately following beach fill activities, another survey of the mooring and pipeline areas shall be conducted to determine whether kelp and surfgrass were damaged. If substantial damage to surfgrass or kelp occurs, an additional survey shall be conducted six months after the beach fill to determine if kelp and surfgrass have recovered. If substantial damage to kelp and eelgrass is still observed, restoration of habitat shall 11 be implemented in consultation with the resource agencies.

MM-BR-50-2.2: Shallow subtidal surfgrass beds in the vicinity of San Clemente Beach shall be monitored to determine whether the proposed action adversely affects shallow subtidal reefs and surfgrass. Underwater transects shall be established offshore and downcoast from the proposed receiver beach. Control transects also shall be established upcoast of the project area. The transects shall be monitored by qualified biologists before and after the proposed action to determine whether the beach fill results in a long-term loss of surfgrass and/or reef habitat. The mitigation and monitoring plan is included as Appendix B. If adverse significant impacts to surfgrass and/or reef habitat compared to controls and baseline conditions are observed from the monitoring, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse significant impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, additional renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass has recovered or compensatory mitigation is completed. Compensatory mitigation will consist of the creation of shallow rocky habitat in the Project area at a site to be determined in consultation with NOAA Fisheries and CDFW. Rocky reef habitat will be created in the Project area at a ratio of 1 acre of rocky reef habitat created for 1 acre of rocky reef habitat buried. If the monitoring determines that surfgrass has been affected by the Project, an experimental surfgrass restoration will be implemented. A successful method to transplant surfgrass has not been demonstrated, but recent studies by researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, have demonstrated some success restoring surfgrass using sprigs (Bull et al 2004).

4.2.3 Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

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

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

If adverse significant impacts to surfgrass are observed from the monitoring, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, compensatory mitigation would be completed. Potential mitigation, if necessary is described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. (2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.4 Noise

4.4.1 Affected Environment
Noise in the dredge and placement areas are as described in the 2011 EIR/EIS .The Project beach site is currently beach property, adjacent to residential and commercial property as well as LOSSAN rail tracks. The Project’s borrow pit site is approximately 2,624 ft (800 m) offshore of the coast of Oceanside Harbor. The nearest residential properties are located approximately 4,265 ft (1,300 m) east of the borrow pit location.

4.4.2 Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.5.2 Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

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

Significant adverse impacts to cultural resources are not expected.

18 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND COMMITMENTS

5.1 Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit conditions are as follows:

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

B. Project Conformance with Water Quality Control Plans or Policies

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

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

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

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

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

D. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To reduce air
emissions
During all
construction
activities
Construction
contractor
Where feasible, use diesel
oxidation catalytic converter
To reduce air
emissions
During all
construction
activities
Construction
contractor
Where feasible, require the use of
newer, lower-emitting trucks to
transport construction workers as
well as equipment and material to
and from construction sites
To reduce air
emissions
During all
construction
activities
Construction
contractor
Water Quality, Sediments, Oceanography
Construct “L”-shaped berms
Anchor sand
placement
operations and
reduce nearshore
turbidity
During beach fill Construction
contractor
Design Features Purpose Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitor turbidity To reduce impacts
related to turbidity
During dredging and
beach fill activities Construction contractor
Prepare SWPPP and
OSPRP
Ensure minimal
contamination from
fuel leaks, if any
During all construction
activities Construction contractor
Biological Resources
30 An underwater survey
for kelp and surfgrass
shall be conducted by
marine biologists prior to
the initiation of beach fill
activities. Based on the
survey, a mooring
location and a pipeline
route shall be selected
that minimizes contact
with surfgrass and kelp
habitat. If kelp and
surfgrass cannot be
avoided completely,
immediately following
beach fill activities,
another survey of the
mooring and pipeline
areas shall be conducted
to determine whether
kelp and surfgrass were
damaged. If substantial
damage to surfgrass or
kelp occurs, an
additional survey shall
be conducted six months
after the beach fill to
determine if kelp and
surfgrass have recovered.

If substantial damage to
kelp and eelgrass is still
observed, restoration of
habitat shall be
implemented in
consultation with the
resource agencies.

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

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

Avoid potentially
undisturbed,
submerged cultural
resources.

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

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

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

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

The travel speed during transport
would be approximately 5 knots.

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

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

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

Avoid any
potentially
undisturbed cultural
resources.

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

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

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

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

37 9.0 PREPARERS/REVIEWERS

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

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

38 Figures
39 Figure 3. Project location Map illustrating sediment placement location in San Clemente and borrow site offshore of Oceanside.
40 Figure 4. Project Beach Nourishment Area. Red polygon illustrates sediment placement footprint.

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

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G