USACE Project Findings of Fact Statement of Overriding Considerations 7-7-23.docx

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

FINDINGS OF FACT
AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR THE
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT /

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH # 2010084002)
July 2023
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 3

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5

1.2 Project Location 5

1.3 Project Components 5

1.4 Project Objectives 6

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES 7

2.2 CEQA Lead Agency 7

2.3 Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report 7

2.4 Public Participation 7

2.5 Record of Proceedings 8

3.0 FINDINGS UNDER CEQA 9

3.2 Purpose 9

3.3 Terminology 9

3.4 Legal Effect 9

3.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10

4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 11

4.1 Air Quality and Meteorology 11

4.2 Water Resources 11

4.3 Biological Resources 12

4.4 Cultural Resources 15

4.5 Noise 16

4.6 Recreation 16

4.7 Public Health and Safety 17

5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING EFFECTS THAT ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT 18

6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 19

6.1 Air Quality and Meteorology 19

6.2 Recreation 20

7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 22

8.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 23

FINDINGS OF FACT

FOR THE
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS & CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT /

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(SCH # 2010084002)

INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City of San Clemente (“City”) hereby makes the following Findings of Fact concerning the joint Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR) (SCH #2010084002) and 2023 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, City of San Clemente Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project (“Project” or “Proposed Project”), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), and its implementing regulations, California Code of Regulations, title 14, § 15000, et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”).

The FEIS/FEIR and SEA/FONSI were prepared for the Proposed Project to identify and evaluate potential options for reducing coastal storm damage and beach erosion over a 50-year period.

The Draft EIS/EIR was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and was made available to interested parties for review and comment pursuant to regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508).

The Draft EIS/EIR was circulated for a public review period of 45 days, from August 6 through September 20, 2010, to appropriate resource agencies, local interest groups, and individuals (see EIS/EIR, Vol. 1, Chapter 13 for distribution list). A public meeting was held at the Community Development Office at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673, on August 19, 2010, at 7 p.m.

The Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse/Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and County Clerk for a 45-day public review period beginning August 6, 2010. The USACE is the Lead Agency for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the City of San Clemente is the Lead Agency for CEQA.

The FEIS/FEIR is divided into two volumes as follows:

Volume I
Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR) Appendix A – 404(b)(1)
Appendix B – Biological Resources Monitoring Plan
Volume II
Appendix C – Air Quality Analysis Report
Appendix D – Coastal Engineering Report
Appendix E – Geotechnical Report
The FEIS/FEIR includes the DEIS/DEIR as required by CEQA Guidelines § 15132. The potential environmental effects, proposed mitigation measures and alternatives analyzed in the DEIS/DEIR and the responses to public and agency comments contained in the FEIS/FEIR have influenced the design and final selection of the Proposed Project. These environmental documents and procedures reflect the City of San Clemente’s commitment to address all environmental considerations identified during the CEQA/NEPA process into the final project selection, design and mitigation and monitoring commitments.

Additionally, the USACE prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to evaluate potential effects on green sea turtles and environmental commitments for nearshore rocky reef resources. GST were not known to be present in the project area in 2011 when the Final EIS/EIR was prepared. However, newly available information indicates GST may utilize the project area.

The Draft SEA was published by the USACE on September 30, 2022. The Final SEA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prepared by the USACE and published in June 2023.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is a 50 foot (15 m) resultant beach width. Beach fill would be 3,412 ft (1,040 m) long with a +17 ft (+5.2 m) crest elevation. The dredge volume is estimated to be approximately 251,000 cubic yards (192,000 m3). Maintenance nourishment efforts will occur when the shoreline reaches the 0 ft base beach width (i.e., approximately 35 ft [11 m]) over the project life of 50 years. Maintenance nourishment efforts would return the beach to the design beach width 50 ft (15 m) and would involve up to approximately 251,000 cy (192,000 m3) of material.

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

Project Components
The Proposed Project is described in additional detail in the FEIS/FEIR, Volume 1. The Proposed Project for coastal storm damage reduction in San Clemente is a Beach Fill Alternative which includes construction of a 50-foot-wide beach fill along a 3,412-foot-long segment of the public beach. At the time of construction, the actual immediate post-construction width is expected to be approximately 76 ft (23 m). The project will require approximately 251,000 cy (192,000 m3) of beach compatible sand. The project is estimated to take 46 working days to construct.

Future renourishment in the amount of 251,000 cubic yards is expected to occur every 5-6 years on average over a 50-year period of Federal participation, for a total of eight additional nourishments.

Material for the beach fills will be dredged from borrow site 2A located south of the City offshore of the City of Oceanside.

Physical monitoring of the performance of the Project will be required annually throughout the 50-year period of Federal participation. This plan would provide coastal storm damage reduction throughout the project reach and would maintain the existing recreational beach.

The Project will be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. Typical USACE Los Angeles District beach fill projects require large capacity open-ocean capable dredges. A medium-sized hopper dredge would be used. The hopper dredge effective capacity is estimated at 1,700 cy (1,300 m3) and 3.2 loads per day. The hopper dredge would pump out the dredge material via a 24-inch pipeline at 1,800 cy/hr. (1,376 m3/hr.). The hopper dredge would be filled at the designated borrow site at Oceanside and hauled approximately 21 miles (35 km) to San Clemente. At the receiver beach, the dredge would be attached to a moored floating section of pipeline extending 1,500 ft (457 m) 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 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 m 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 Project duration is estimated to be four months. Anticipated number of working days is estimated to be 46 working days to complete the project.

Sand would be combined with seawater until it reaches the consistency of slurry. It then would be conveyed to the beach via either 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 the proposed width. The long side would be parallel to the shore 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 out inside the bermed area while the seawater is channeled along the berm until it reaches the open end where it drains into the ocean. 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 would be created, the pipeline would be moved or extended into the new berm area, and the process would begin again. 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.

Project Objectives
The Project is intended to accomplish the following objectives:

Reduce coastal storm damages to property and infrastructure along the study area shoreline and the bluff top, prior to the need for emergency action, throughout the period of analysis.

Improve public safety in the study area by reducing the threat of life-threatening bluff failures caused by wave action against the bluff base, throughout the period of analysis.

Reduce coastal erosion and shoreline narrowing to improve recreational opportunities for beach users within the study area throughout the period of analysis.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
CEQA Lead Agency
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15367, the City of San Clemente is the “lead agency” for the purpose of preparing the environmental review required by CEQA for the Project.

The FEIS/FEIR and Final SEA/FONSI have been, or will be, used by the City of San Clemente and other agencies in their respective decisions regarding the following actions associated with the Project:

City of San Clemente: EIR certification and approval of the Proposed Project.

California Coastal Commission: Federal Consistency Determination.

Regional Water Quality Control Board: Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification.

State Lands Commission: grant of lease to City of San Clemente for placement of beach compatible sediments in the water area seaward of the mean high tide line.

Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15080, et seq., the City of San Clemente together with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared a Draft and Final an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (“EIS/EIR”) to analyze the potential impacts of the Project on the environment. The FEIS/FEIR consists of two volumes which contain all the information required by CEQA Guidelines section 15132.

Public Participation
Chapter 9 of Vol. I of the Final EIS/EIR, Vol. I provides a detailed overview of the public participation process for the Draft and Final EIS/EIR process.

As required by CEQA Guidelines §15082, the City issued a Notice of Preparation in August 2010, that summarized the Project, stated their intention to prepare a Feasibility Study and joint EIR/EIS with the USACE, and requested comments from interested parties including State agencies. The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH) on August 5, 2010 and the Project was assigned SCH# 2010084002 which began the 30-day public scoping period. The review period for the NOP ended on September 5, 2010.

To announce the start of the report scoping, a public notice was issued to residents, Federal, State, and Local agencies, and interested groups. The recipients were invited to provide input to the study, including the scoping of the environmental issues that should be addressed throughout the study. The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed with the NOI and has been approved by the lead CEQA agency, the City of San Clemente. The notice announced a public workshop, where the public were given the opportunity to comment.

The San Clemente City Council also conducted a public meeting on the Project on March 15, 2011 and the City Council expressed its support for the Proposed Project and endorsed the 50-foot beach fill design alternative, as the recommended project, by the USACE.

A public meeting of the USACE Civil Works Review Board (CWRB) was held on May 12, 2011 to approve issuance of the Draft Feasibility Study and Draft EIS/EIR.

The Draft EIS/EIR was published for a 45-day public review period from August 30, 2011 through September 28, 2011. Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR were received from Federal, State, and local agencies, non-profit organizations, and the public.

The Final EIS/EIR was published in February 2012. The USACE utilized a mailing list for public notification purposes that is included in the Final EIS/EIR, Volume I, Chapter 13. The responses to the public comments are included in the FEIS/FEIR as required by CEQA Guidelines sections 15088 and 15132 as detailed in Final EIS/EIR Volume I, Chapter 14.

The City acknowledges receipt of copies of the letters from USACE and understands the letters were sent in response to USACE's publication of the FEIS/FEIR pursuant to NEPA and the USACE has prepared responses to each of the comment letters which are included in the final USACE administrative record and Chief’s Report.

The USACE Chief’s Report was published on April 15, 2012. The USACE published a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 6, 2012.

The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board also filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) as a Responsible Agency under CEQA on November 3, 2022 as part of their process to issue the Project regulatory approval.

A public hearing concerning certification of the FEIS/FEIR and approval of the Project was held by the City Council of San Clemente at a regular meeting on July 18, 2023. A public notice of the City Council meeting was published in the newspaper on July 6, 2023 and on the City website on June 29, 2023.

Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City of San Clemente City Council’s decision concerning certification of the Final EIS/EIR and the SEA/FONSI for the Project shall include the following:

The Draft Feasibility Study and Draft EIS/EIR (DEIS/DEIR) and all appendices (2011); The Final Feasibility Study and Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/FEIR) and all appendices (2012); Draft SEA (2022);
Final SEA and FONSI (2023);
All documents and other materials listed as references and/or incorporated by reference in the DEIS/DEIR, FEIS/FEIR, Draft and Final SEA and FONSI; All reports, reviews, memoranda, maps, letters, and other documents prepared by the staff of the USACE, City of San Clemente and their consultants for the Project which are before the City Council as determined by the City Clerk; All documents or other materials submitted by interested persons and public agencies in connection with the DEIS/DEIR, FEIS/FEIR and Draft and Final SEA and FONSI; The action agenda, video/audio recordings, if any, of the public hearing held on July 18, 2023 concerning the FEIS/FEIR and Final SEA/FONSI for the Project; and Matters of common knowledge to the City Council and staff and consultants to the City of San Clemente, including but not limited to the Project.

The custodian of the documents and other materials comprising the administrative record of the City of San Clemente’s decision concerning certification of the FEIS/FEIR and Final SEA/FONSI is the Department of Public Works of the City of San Clemente. The location of the administrative record is the City of San Clemente office at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California 92673. (Public Resources Code § 21081.6(a)(2).)

FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Purpose
CEQA requires the City to make written findings of fact for each potentially significant environmental impact identified in the FEIS/FEIR (CEQA Guidelines §15091). The purpose of the findings is to systematically restate the potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment and to determine the feasibility of mitigation measures and alternatives identified in the Final EIS/EIR which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects. Once it has adopted sufficient measures to avoid or substantially lessen a significant impact, the City is not required to adopt every mitigation measure identified in the FEIS/FEIR or otherwise brought to its attention. These findings set forth the reasons, and the evidence in support of, the City of San Clemente’s determinations.

These findings incorporate by reference the discussion of potential significant impacts and mitigation measures contained in the FEIS/FEIR. The FEIS/FEIR, which includes the DEIS/DEIR, is referred to in the findings below as the “EIS/EIR.” Terminology
A “finding” is a written statement made by the City which explains how it dealt with each potentially significant impact and alternative identified in the FEIS/FEIR. Each finding contains an ultimate conclusion regarding each significant impact, substantial evidence supporting the conclusion, and an explanation of how the substantial evidence supports the conclusion.

For each significant effect identified in the FEIS/FEIR, the City is required by CEQA to make a written finding reaching one or more of the following conclusions:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effect identified in the EIR; Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency; or Specific legal, economic, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIS/EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)).

A mitigation measure or an alternative is considered “feasible” if it is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines §15364).

Legal Effect
To the extent these findings conclude mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/FEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the USACE and their successors in interest, to implement those mitigation measures following Project authorization by Congress, necessary funding appropriations and construction. These findings are not merely informational but constitute a binding set of obligations upon the City and responsible parties, which will take effect if and when the City adopts a resolution certifying the FEIS/FEIR, SEA/FONSI and the City and/or the responsible agencies adopt resolution(s) approving the Project.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
In adopting these findings, the City of San Clemente also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. This program is designed to ensure the Project complies with the feasible mitigation measures identified below during implementation of the Project. The program is set forth in the “Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,” which is adopted by the City of San Clemente concurrently with these findings and is incorporated herein by this reference.

FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
The City Council has certified a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the San Clemente Shoreline Protection Project (“Project”). The EIS/EIR identifies nine potentially significant environmental impacts for which findings are required by CEQA Guideline 15091. The findings for each of those impacts are provided below.

Air Quality and Meteorology
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIS/EIR identifies potential significant indirect impact AQ-50-3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant indirect environmental effect to Air Quality (construction phase emissions) as identified in the EIS/EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.1, Air Quality and Meteorology, and EIS/EIR Vol. 2, Appendix C, Air Quality Analysis Report, the potential significant impact to Air Quality will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractors implementing Mitigation Measures:

MM-AQ-50-3.1: The construction contractors shall use on-shore heavy equipment that meets Tier II or higher air pollutant emission standards where these standards are applicable and equipment available.

MM-AQ-50-3.2: All heavy equipment shall be maintained and tuned per manufacturer's specifications to perform at California Air Resources Board (CARB) and/or EPA certification, where applicable, levels and to perform at verified standards applicable to retrofit technologies.

Water Resources
Potentially Significant Impact: The EIS/EIR identifies potential significant indirect impact WQ-50-1: The water quality objectives in the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2005) are violated.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant indirect environmental effect to Water Quality (construction phase impacts) as identified in the EIS/EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.2, Water Resources, the potential significant impact to Water Resources will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractor’s implementing Mitigation Measures:

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

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

Potentially Significant Impact: The EIS/EIR identifies potential significant indirect impact WQ-50-2: 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.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant indirect environmental effect to Water Quality (construction and operation phase) as identified in the EIS/EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.3, Water Resources, the potential significant impact to Water Resources will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractor’s implementing Mitigation Measures:

Biological Resources
Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The EIS/EIR identifies potential significant indirect impact BR-50-2: A long-term net loss in the habitat value of a sensitive biological habitat. For the purposes of this analysis, kelp beds, surfgrass beds, and well developed rocky intertidal are considered sensitive biological habitats.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3) specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce the impacts to Biological Resources (sensitive biological habitat) as identified in the EIS/EIR. EIS/EIR Vol. I, and EIS/EIR, Vol. I, Appendix B “Biological Resources Monitoring Plan” to less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project has been located, sized, and designed to minimize and avoid direct impacts to kelp, surfgrass, eelgrass and vegetated reefs to the maximum extent feasible. The potential exists however that impacts to offshore aquatic vegetation could be significant even with implementation of mitigation measures BR 50-2.1 and BR 50-2.2.

Per EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.4, no direct placement of sand on the reef is proposed. The equilibrium footprint is demonstrated as potentially extending to inner portions of the reef. Based on the best available scientific and coastal engineering data, it is predicted that there will be negligible effects to the rocky reef and surfgrass vegetation. Monitoring for 2 years immediately post construction is proposed to determine what actual impacts, if any, do occur. After the first four years (2 years pre-action, 2 years post-action) of monitoring, if the rocky reef and surfgrass vegetation illustrate effects based on triggers specifically determined by the marine ecologists deemed most knowledgeable and experience, the current plan is to attempt “in-kind” mitigation as the primary mode. If “in-kind” mitigation is not successful, based on success criteria developed in consultation, the mitigation would be adjusted to “out-of-kind” mitigation.

Per EIS/EIR Vol. I, Appendix B, Biological Resources Monitoring Plan, 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.

If a substantial amount of surfgrass were lost, the impact may remain significant even with mitigation. Although the beach fill sand would be expected to move out of the equilibrium footprint within 6 years, because models are not precise, it is not clear if surfgrass would recover. If adverse significant impacts to surfgrass are observed from the monitoring, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse significant impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, additional renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass has recovered or compensatory mitigation is completed. A consistently successful method to transplant surfgrass has not yet been devised, although recent experiments may provide new options. Potential mitigation, if necessary, is described in the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan (EIS/EIR Vol. I, Appendix B).The potential significant impact to Biological Resources will be mitigated by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractor’s implementing Mitigation Measures however there is the potential for impacts to remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation provided:

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 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 Vol. I, 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 CDFG. 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).

Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The EIS/EIR identifies potential significant indirect impact BR-50-5: Substantial adverse impact on Essential Fish Habitat.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3) specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce impacts to Biological Resources (sensitive biological habitat) as identified in the EIS/EIR to less than significant levels. EIS/EIR Vol. I, and EIS/EIR, Vol. I, Appendix B contains a 10-page detailed “Biological Resources Monitoring Plan”.

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project has been located, sized, and designed to minimize and avoid direct impacts to essential fish habitat to the maximum extent feasible. The potential exists however that impacts to offshore essential fish habitat (aquatic vegetation) could be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures BR 50-2.1 and BR 50-2.2 Per EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.4, no direct placement of sand on the reef is proposed. The equilibrium footprint is demonstrated as potentially extending to inner portions of the reef. Based on the best available scientific and coastal engineering data, it is predicted that there will be negligible effects to the rocky reef and surfgrass vegetation. Monitoring for 2 years immediately post construction is proposed to determine what actual impacts, if any, do occur. After the first four years (2 years pre-action, 2 years post-action) of monitoring, if the rocky reef and surfgrass vegetation illustrate effects based on triggers specifically determined by the marine ecologists deemed most knowledgeable and experience, the current plan is to attempt “in-kind” mitigation as the primary mode. If “in-kind” mitigation is not successful, based on success criteria developed in consultation, the mitigation would be adjusted to “out-of-kind” mitigation.

If a substantial amount of surfgrass were lost, the impact may remain significant even with mitigation. Although the beach fill sand would be expected to move out of the equilibrium footprint within 6 years, it is not clear if surfgrass would recover. If adverse significant impacts to surfgrass are observed from the monitoring, subsequent nourishment activities will be modified to avoid or minimize these impacts as part of adaptive management. If adverse significant impacts still are observed after all reasonable attempts to avoid or minimize impacts have been exhausted, additional renourishment would not occur until impacted surfgrass has recovered or compensatory mitigation is completed. A consistently successful method to transplant surfgrass has not yet been devised, although recent experiments may provide new options. Potential mitigation, if necessary, is described in the Biological Resources Monitoring Plan (EIS/EIR Vol I, Appendix B).The potential significant impact to Biological Resources will be mitigated by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractor’s implementing Mitigation Measures:

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. 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.

Cultural Resources
Potentially Significant Impact: The Project has the potential for significant impact CR-50-1: Result in potentially significant impacts on cultural resources from project implementation.

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, the potential significant impact to Cultural Resources will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractors implementing Mitigation Measures:

MM-CR-50-1: 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). Earthmoving includes grubbing and ground clearing, grading, and excavation activities. 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).

MM-CR-50-2: 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. The USACE will comply with Section 106 of the NRHP and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800, as amended. This compliance involves the identification and evaluation of cultural resources and consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Native American tribes, and interested parties.

Noise
Potentially Significant Impact: The Project has the potential for significant impact N-50-4: Result in substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.8, Noise the potential significant impact to Noise will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractors implementing Mitigation Measures:

MM-N-50-3.1: The City of San Clemente Noise Element discusses the potential impacts of construction noise on the residents and requires construction to employ feasible and practical techniques and practices that minimize the generation of excessive noise on adjacent land uses. The Applicant shall implement the following:

Regardless of dredge activity timing, onshore equipment shall be restricted to the hours included in the City of San Clemente Noise Ordinance discussed above.

To reduce the nuisance value of on-shore construction noise, on-shore construction activities located within 500 ft (152 m) of any residential unit shall not begin before 8:00 a.m. (as opposed to 7:00 a.m. as allowed in the Noise Ordinance). Work beyond may be performed in accordance with the hours included in the City Noise Ordinance. This provision shall not apply to any equipment mobilizing from the staging area that may pass within 500 ft (152 m) so long as it is not actively engaged in the movement of sand.

During all construction, the Project contractors shall equip all onshore construction equipment with properly operating and maintained mufflers and engine shrouds consistent with manufacturers’ standards.

All heavy equipment shall be maintained in a proper state of tune as per the manufacturers’ specifications.

The Project contractor shall place any stationary construction equipment as far as feasible from proximate receptor locations.

Recreation
Potentially Significant Impact: The Project has the potential for significant impact REC-50-4: Result in a safety hazard to recreational beach users.

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.9, Recreation the potential significant impact to Recreation will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractors implementing Mitigation Measures:

MM-REC-50-4.1: Provide signs to warn swimmers, waders and surfers of potentially hazardous surf conditions. Provide extra lifeguards.

Public Health and Safety
Potentially Significant Impact: The Project has the potential for significant impact PHS-50-1: Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and/or other public facilities.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant indirect environmental effect to Public Health and Safety as identified in the EIS/EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.11, Public Health and Safety the potential significant impact to Public Health and Safety will be mitigated to a level less than significant by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractors implementing Mitigation Measures:

FINDINGS REGARDING EFFECTS THAT ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT
In addition to Air Quality, Water Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Recreation and Public Health and Safety discussed above, the EIS/EIR analyzed the potential impacts of the Project on the full range of resource topics including:

Geology and Topography
Ground and Vessel Transportation
Land Use and Policy
Aesthetics
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
The FEIS/FEIR determined that for all the above resource topics, potential project impacts would be less than significant.

FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
CEQA requires a lead agency to evaluate the cumulative impacts of a proposed project (CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)). Cumulative impacts are those which are considered significant when viewed in connection with the impacts of other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects (CEQA Guidelines §15355). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

The EIS/EIR Vol. I, Chapter 6 analyzes cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects outside the agency’s jurisdiction (CEQA Guidelines §15130(b)(1)(A)). The list of “past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects” should include related projects which already have been constructed, are presently under construction, are approved but not yet under construction, and are not yet approved but are under environmental review at the time the draft EIS/EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines §15130 [Discussion]). The list must include not only projects under review by the lead agency, but also those under review by other relevant public agencies.

The cumulative projects considered in the EIS/EIS generally considered those projects in the northern Oceanside Littoral Cell including maintenance dredging at the Dana Point Harbor, construction of the SONGS mitigation reef project offshore of the City and railroad operations along the beach in the project vicinity.

Based on the information and analysis provided in Chapter 6, of Vol. I of the EIS/EIR, it was determined that the potential cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant for all resources with the exception of Air Quality and Recreation. .

Air Quality and Meteorology
Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact: Section 6.2.1 of the EIS/EIR states that construction of the related projects would be short-term and depending on the extent of construction, could have effects similar to or greater than that of the proposed Project. Even with the prescribed mitigation, the proposed action is anticipated to exceed the significance threshold limitations for NOx and PM2.5. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that exceed the daily threshold values and cannot be mitigated to less than the SCAQMD thresholds add significantly to the cumulative impact. As such, the beach fill Project also is considered as significant and unavoidable at the cumulative level.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce impacts to Air Quality and Meteorology as identified in the EIS/EIR Vol. I, Sections 5.1 and 6.2 and EIS/EIR Vol. I, Appendix C to less than cumulatively considerable levels.

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.1, Air Quality and Meteorology, Air quality impacts would occur during site preparation, grading, and sporadic maintenance activities required for implementation of the proposed land use. Maintenance could take place once every 6 years depending on need and financial ability. Maintenance would result in a repetition of the initial construction activities. Project construction may approach the daily threshold for NOx emissions. Applicable mitigation for NOx is included in the project and listed below. The included measures would also reduce ROG and PM2.5 for on-shore heavy equipment exhaust.

The requirement for Tier II heavy equipment, where applicable, could reduce NOx emissions by about 40 percent and particulate emissions by about 25 percent over Tier I equipment levels. A higher percentage reduction would be achieved over the use of equipment-produced prior to Tier I requirements. Because the status of the actual equipment assemblage, as well as those pieces subject to Tier II requirements, is variable, the overall reduction in NOx emissions could be less than the 40 percent reduction noted for the use of Tier II equipment. PM2.5 emissions, assuming TIER II equipment, reduces particulate levels by 25 percent.

Per EIS/EIR Vol. 2, Appendix C, Air Quality Analysis Report, the potential significant cumulative impact to Air Quality cannot be reduced but cannot be fully mitigated to a level less than significant by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractors even with implementation of the following Mitigation Measures:

Recreation
Potentially significant and unavoidable short term and temporary impacts to Recreation have been identified in EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 6.2.9 as there is the possibility that the initial beach fill or future maintenance nourishment activity may occur simultaneously along with Dana Point Harbor maintenance dredging activities. The cumulative presence of dredges and related dredging equipment may interrupt recreational activity in the Project vicinity for the duration of construction. Assuming beach use is low during the construction period, as it is planned for fall and winter seasons, cumulative impacts may be potentially significant, but temporary and short term in nature.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce impacts to Recreation as identified in the EIS/EIR Vol. I, Sections 5.9 and 6.2.9 to less than cumulatively considerable levels.

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 5.9, Recreation, heavy equipment working in an active public use area poses safety issues for adults and children. Children may be prone to come close to the equipment both during equipment operation on the beach and storage within staging areas. Offshore dredge equipment has the potential to result in a hazard to boat traffic. 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. It is unlikely that recreational vessels, such as kayaks, sailboats, jet-skiers, and paddleboards would use this area close to shore and close to the Pier. Contract specifications shall require the contractor to fence/secure off areas of construction from public access, including construction staging areas and active. As noted in EIS/EIR, Vol. I, Section 6.2.9, Recreation, The proposed Project would occur at least two years after the construction of the Wheeler North Reef project and, therefore, would not have any cumulative impacts to recreation in conjunction with that project; however there is a chance that both the Dana Point Harbor maintenance dredging activities will occur during the same time as the project construction operations therefore, the potentially significant cumulative impact to Recreation cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant by the USACE, City of San Clemente or its contractors even with implementing Mitigation Measure:

MM-REC-50-4.1: Provide signs to warn swimmers, waders and surfers of potentially hazardous surf conditions. Provide extra lifeguards.

FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
In preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures or other alternatives when contemplating the approval of a project with significant environmental impacts. Where the significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency has no obligation in drafting its findings to consider the feasibility of other alternatives including environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the project as mitigated.

The EIS/EIR found that all potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project and all potentially cumulatively considerable impacts of the Project are reduced to a level below significance through the implementation of mitigation measures, with the exception of potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to surfgrass on vegetated rocky reef (biological resources).

The EIS/EIR considered a full range of reasonable alternatives to the project including:

No Action Alternative (i.e., the Do-Nothing Alternative) Managed Retreat
Beach Nourishment
Revetment
Seawall
Groins
Visible Offshore Breakwater
Submerged Reef
After reviewing the alternatives, beach nourishment emerged as the optimal alternative being both economically feasible and environmentally acceptable. All other alternatives were dropped from further consideration due to a variety of considerations including cost, potential environmental effects, or lack of local support or greater environmental effects.

The USACE then further evaluated 12 beach width scenarios, from 33 to 115 feet, to assess the expected storm damage reduction benefits and costs associated with each beach width scenario. The larger beach fill alternative described in the EIS/EIR Vol. I, Section 3.0, would create a beach berm that is 115 feet in width compared to the 50-feet project width. Thus, this larger project would place more sand on the beach and result in potentially greater impacts in comparison to the project USACE policy requires it to identify the National Economic Development (NED) plan which is the alternative which maximizes the potential economic benefits to the Nation. Of the 12 beach width scenarios, the 50-foot wide (i.e., 15-meter) beach fill alternative was identified as the NED plan.

The USACE was also required to identify a Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) which is the alternative that has the fewest potential effects and still meets the Project purpose and objectives. Based on this, the USACE also identified the 50-foot beach width alternative as its Recommended Plan, which is the alternative that was forwarded for authorization and funding by Congress in 2012.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As described in Section 4.4 of this document, Project implementation may result in indirect, potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources (aquatic plant species) on rocky reef substrate offshore of the City. No direct impacts to surfgrass would occur with project implementation as the Project has been located, sized, and designed to minimize and avoid direct impacts to kelp, surfgrass, eelgrass and other aquatic plant species on rocky substrate to the maximum extent feasible.

As stated in the EIS/EIR, the potential exists however that impacts to offshore aquatic vegetation could be significant even with implementation of mitigation measures BR 50-2.1 and BR 50-2.2. The impact assessment is planned to occur as part of the post-construction monitoring effort following Project implementation as part of the MMRP. Mitigation has also been provided to address this potential impact. However, it is not known if the available mitigation measures will be successful. Thus, there is the potential for impacts to remain significant even with mitigation as outlined in the EIS/EIR, Vol. I, Appendix B.

Additionally, potential air quality and recreational impacts of the project could be potentially cumulatively significant even with mitigation measures in place. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA §15093, the City is required to adopt a ”Statement of Overriding Considerations”.

CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

After due consideration of the multitude of benefits derived from Project implementation, which include local, regional, statewide and federal environmental, economic, public access, recreational and social benefits, the City as the CEQA lead agency hereby finds that the direct benefits of the City’s 50-year coastal storm damage reduction project outweigh the potential unavoidable environmental risks of the Project.

According to the U.S. Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, April 2012 Chiefs Report, along the shoreline of San Clemente, a lack of sediment supply to the shoreline has resulted in chronic, mild, and long-term erosion. Without a coastal storm damage reduction project public properties and structures will continue to be susceptible to damages caused by erosion (including land loss and undermining of structures), inundation (structures), and wave attack (structures, railroad). The project area includes the LOS SAN (Los Angeles to San Diego) railroad corridor which is a vital link for passenger and freight service and has been designated as a Strategic Rail Corridor by the Department of Defense. As the protective beach lessens over time and is eventually lost, it is expected that storm waves will act directly upon the railroad ballast, significantly threatening the operation of the LOS SAN railroad line.

The narrowing beaches are also expected to subject ancillary beachfront public facilities to storm wave-induced damages, and further reduce recreational space on an already space-limited beach. The project was formulated to maximize coastal storm damage reduction, address potential environmental affects, and minimize cost. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular (EC 1165-2-211) on sea level change, the study performed a sensitivity analysis to investigate the economic effects that different rates of accelerated sea level rise could have on the recommended plan. The plan was formulated using a historical or low rate of sea level rise, and the sensitivity analysis used additional accelerated rates, which includes both medium and high rates of sea level rise. The sensitivity analysis indicates that at higher rates of sea level rise, renourishment intervals increase and the reduction of storm damages decreases, and the project continues to be warranted and economically justified.

Continued future shoreline erosion is expected to result in storm waves breaking directly upon the public beach and railroad ballast located at the back of the beach, which significantly threatens the operation of the rail corridor. Continued future shoreline erosion also will subject public facilities and critical public infrastructure to storm wave-induced damages. These facilities, maintained by the City of San Clemente, include the Marine Safety Building, public restroom facilities located on the beach, lifeguard stations, parking areas, the California Coastal Trail and the City’s municipal pier. The railroad is a vital transportation link for passenger and freight service between cities in San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles counties. The Department of Defense has designated this right of- way as a Strategic Rail Corridor with great significance to National defense. Due to chronic beach erosion, the railroad corridor between the bluff and the beach is threatened by undermining. Metrolink has been taking emergency actions to place additional rocks/riprap along the segment between North Beach and the Marine Safety Building to reduce wave energy impacts along the beach.

Train service has been delayed during winter storm events in order to provide extra precautionary measures to allow trains to move safely through the area. Crews are dispatched during high tide and storm conditions to visually inspect for track damage that could potentially cause derailments. The impact of riprap placement over the years has resulted in a cumulative decrease of lateral beach access.

Thus, it is in this sense, that the City finds that the potential adverse effects on surfgrass, air quality and short-term recreation may be considered acceptable in light of the long-term benefits to be generated by the project.

The City hereby includes this statement of overriding considerations in the record of the project and will note this action on the Notice of Determination to be filed with the County Clerk following project approval.

Draft San Clemente Findings of Fact - USACE Page 8 of 24 ATTACHMENT 13

San Clemente City CouncilJuly 18, 2023

San Clemente City Council
July 18, 2023